The Concept of Television as a Live Medium - Essay Example

?To what extent can television still be considered a ‘live’ medium? Does television still emphasise the idea of itself as an ‘event’? Even if, say, the program is recorded (maybe something like Glee), does it still treat these as an occasion to watch together as an event? Or, in a different genre, does something like CNN, or even a talkshow, depend on the idea of ‘liveness’ to create drama or interest? The utility of television is not merely focused on its capacity to entertain. The technology, which Doane, articulated as the spectacular ability to “be there” - both on the scene and on people’s living room at the same time, makes it an important platform in the way the public, the polity and events are negotiated in the public sphere (White, 2004, 75). To say, hence, that it is “still alive” as if it is already clutching for dear life would be an understatement. The fact is that live television is a platform by which people are informed today. So long as there are events like disasters, sports, and political exercise such as election, among others, the relevance exists more than ever. The proliferation of canned television shows does not diminish it. Defining “Live” Bourdon (2000) explained that the concept of “live” television is fundamentally a label expressing a technological capability (532). It brings people from everywhere - whether at home, work, bars, even the streets - to events as they happen. In the discourse trying to specify the meaning of television and to differentiate it from the cinema, “liveness” is one of the three identified characteristics that made the medium unique (the other two are screen size and domestic reception) (532). “Liveness” also denotes the aspect of television that is identified with truth, facts and authenticity. Bourdon cited this point as he defined live television a live transmission of events to the viewers through the use of technological apparatus, making it a public phenomenon since it allows people to live event simultaneously (534). This definition implies two important characteristics. It is all about transmission of events as they occur and, at the same time, it is also about people viewing events together. The concept of “live” also assumed several meanings. Bourdon comprehensively cited many excellent examples. For example, when a singer does not lip synch in the performance, then it is called live musical performance. There is also the case of talk shows. Resource persons are invited and are moderated by hosts to tell the audience about their lives or to discuss interesting topics (Bourdon, 532). Bourdon argued that live television is present in many programs and television sequences (533). This variable indicates the persistence and permeation of live broadcast even on genre that are not classified with news and reporting on current affairs. Bourdon, called this socio-semiotic unity, a fundamental force that ensures the persistence and survival of “live” television throughout history (532). Out of all the definitions, White helpfully pointed out that “ liveness” is the ultimate concept that “subsumes a host of other qualities and characteristics” and that it “serves as “an anchor for the properties considered essentially televisual - immediacy, presence, reality effects, intimacy and so on” (81). Covering Catastrophe The recent devastation wrought by the super typhoon Haiyan both to human lives and to property in Tacloban City, Philippines is the most recent testament not only to the viewers’ recognition and acceptance towards “live” broadcast but also its relevance and contribution to television as a medium. Certainly, the most advanced technologies have enabled many reporters to cover the event live as the storm raged even when power, communications and transportation became unreliable. Reports were beamed from the city to the United States as the storm unfolded real time. The static and interference in transmission all served to highlight the catastrophe in the process of flattening an entire city. Afterwards, live reports were transmitted all over the world showing images of death, destruction, loss, hunger and desperation. These images along with the authoritative reports of the catastrophe’s strength that riveted the world and drew their attention to the need for aid. This was the argument that White was making when she said that catastrophe and liveness are an ideal pair (76). She cited an example that - although entirely different in nature - evoked the same impact, which was the Allied bombing of Baghdad: When the bombing began, three CNN reporters in a Baghdad hotel were able to secure and maintain an open phone line, communicating about the war from the perspective of witnesses in the center of the action, behind enemy lines. The very fact that they occupied this geographical position was essential element of their reporting, drawing attention to their unique situation. Through the course of their report… the technologies of reporting and of waging war were closely affiliated (83). Catastrophes, war and similar grim events are inherent in human history. Just like the historians and their accounts of what transpired, live reporting function in the same way. They record these events as they happen and people would always be interested either because they are drawn by the terror or to commiserate with their fellow men. Particularly, catastrophe has been identified as a theoretical paradigm to explain the relevance and the imperative for liveness: “Catastrophe coverage, then, plays itself out as a category of temporal transition, in the live reportage of events that typically involve human danger and, often, fatality” (White, 76). Critique There are people who criticize the capacity of live television to broadcast the truth. The argument is that television overly stylize and refine images and content to the point that it no longer represents the subject or event being covered. J.T. Caldwell stressed, for instance, coined the term “televisuality”, which is the use of Variant guises “from opulent cinematic spectacles to graphics-crunching workaday visual effects” (5). He criticized this trend because it supposedly affect television narrative, particularly the live television category with its primary role of transmitting actual events. Caldwell appears to identify this practice as a manifestation of some American escapist tendency that could manipulate and distort the truth. In his book, he referred, for example to the coverage of the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. He took networks to tasks for including high-resolution virtual reality displays and expressionistic music videos in their broadcast of the sporting event (7). In Caldwell’s position, this type of excessive styling underpin the argument that television and its content is manufactured regardless of its liveness because it is now subject to manipulation. Bourdon provided an excellent rebuttal to Caldwell’s position. The idea is that the refinements in the visual presentations do not diminish the fact that the live broadcast is a source of factual information for many people. For instance, the core elements of liveness were ever present even in overly stylized coverage of the Barcelona Olympics. There were the traditional series of indices such as “the direct address to the viewer or editing as a sign of continuity of the action (533). Finally, Bourdon also pointed out that despite the stylistic refinement, the digital effects did not alter the facts about the live images (533). The live broadcast showed the same Olympic results, the same participants and the same pride, joys and disappoints in the faces of winners and losers. Bourdon position views stylistic refinements such as image manipulation as compatible to live television as they tend to reinforce the capacity of transmitted contents to articulate facts better, such as when an image is stopped from being processed to evoke slow motion. The manipulations, according to him, do not intervene in televisual broadcast of a live event so it does not contribute to the disappearance of the liveness of the coverage so that it gives way to a mere televisual presentation (533). Bourdon also noted that manipulations could not distort facts because the acoustic data - which is considered fundamental in factual television reporting - are very rarely affected (534). One could also turn to the manner by which live coverage on non-spectacle events are still being transmitted such as C-SPAN’s real-time shots of the US House of Representatives. According to White the images transmitted are not spectacular but people view the coverage - even when there is nothing much to be seen or heard - because it informs the audience about the American democratic process (85). Conclusion As has been cited in this paper, “liveness” in television is a technological capability. It allows the medium to transmit events from where it is happening on to the screens of the spectators regardless of their geographical location and the time. It is inherent, therefore in the television medium. To say that it will disappear would absurd on account of this aspect alone. Then there is the incidence of catastrophe and spectacular and important events such as sporting competition and elections. These are part human way of life and their coverage is crucial in how they are negotiated, addressed and dealt with in the public sphere. The proliferation of pre-produced television content such as game shows and drama series does not diminish the importance of live television. The success of cable news networks such as CNN should already highlight this fact. Finally, it is important to underscore that the relevance of liveness is underpinned by two indispensable aspects: the emphasis of covering the event as it happens or the idea of itself as an “event” and that its nature as a shared content, viewed together by its audience simultaneously. It is inherent in the broadcast technological capability and critical in the efficacy of the medium. Work Cited Bourdon, Jerome. “Live Television is Still Alive: On Television as an Unfulfilled Promise.” Media, Culture & Society 22, 5 (2000): 531-56. Print. Caldwell, John. Televisuality: Style, Crisis, and Authority in American Television. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1995. Print. White, Mimi. “The Attractions of Television: Reconsidering Liveness.” Mediaspace: Place, Scale and Culture in a Media Age. Nick Coudry and Anna McCarthy, eds. London: Routledge, 2004, 75-91. [e-book] Read More