Television under Construction - Assignment Example

?Question Bourdon and White point to the significance of talk vis-a-vis “liveness”. Why does what Bourdon calls “fully live” television invite (orperhaps even require) talk? “Talk” or voice or sound for Bourdon and White is one of the aspects that are difficult to manipulate in live television. As a matter of fact, it is one of the defenses against criticisms of the “live television” as one that has become too stylistically refined is anchored on this aspect. The position is that in order for the authenticity of the liveness of a television material, one of the litmus tests to fidelity is the audio. Bourdon cited several examples to demonstrate this. There is the case of the live sports commentary. The authors explained that the delivery involves specific phonetic features as well as the unmistakable rhythm and prosody that came as the event unfolds (543). It was stressed that such live commentary could be recorded earlier in a previously completed game or sporting event. But television programs do not operate in vacuums. The audience knows - besides the actual material being viewed - the background information about what they are watching. For example, the schedule of basketball games are published and known to the viewers. These types of information augment the audience’s ability to determine whether a television exhibition is live or not. The voice or the verbal aspect of live television also works in tandem with the visual content being presented. A voice complements the body language of television mediators such as reporters talking to the news anchor. During a news report when a story is being beamed as it happens and the reporter and the anchor are talking about it, the audio reveals the liveness by confirming the nuances (and problems) present in a conversation transpiring where on is talking back from a remote area. The delay in the answers, the need to repeat details and even some technical glitches such as static sounds - they collectively articulate to the audience that the report is transpiring live. Bourdon also pointed out the impromptu changes that occur before the viewers’ eyes and how the voice of television mediators highlights the liveness of the program by confirming them for the sake of the audience. Say, after an advertising break and a new resource person joins a live talk show, the host introduces him or her. It shows a break in sequence or a perfectly logical unfolding of the program, which underpins the contrived pre-produced television materials. To put this in context, one should remember that modern viewers are familiar with live television and could often spot if a program is not. An important part in this discernment is the sound. It is difficult to manipulate and it provides the clue if a material is contrived or pre-produced. It complements the visual messages to articulate “liveness”. Question 2: Why Pay attention, as Sterne urges, to the “physical life of the medium” of television? The physical “stuff” of television is important, according to Sterne, because it is critical in the way the medium functions or rather in the way “televisual” relationships are organized (504). He cited that television infrastructure “reify social relationships - giving relations a degree of density, inflexibility or objectivity that they would not have without an abstracted principle and mechanism of repetition” (504). The problem being addressed by this position is that television infrastructure and its physical life remains mystified or relegated in the historical background mainly because they are not accorded the right degree of interest and emphasis. The argument is that an understanding of the medium’s physical life will provide insights in the sheer power of television’s capability and, therefore, an appreciation and recognition of its role in social, cultural, political and economic spheres. Sterne ultimately underscored that the American television - when approached through an understanding of its physical infrastructures - emerged out of several experiments throughout its evolutionary stages. Such development is supposed to be fundamentally driven by the interests of the broadcast industry (512). Television’s physical infrastructure is also critical in the way Sterne differentiated its characteristics from those of the radio’s. For example, Sterne successfully explained why television is organized and developed for national stage where radio operated within fragmented and localized conditions (508). Finally, Sterne - through his position and theory regarding the physical infrastructure of television - articulated the emergence and importance of live television. As this was explained, it became clearer how live television persists today and in the future. The technology and infrastructure involved in broadcasting would always entail a capability to deliver content live as they unfold. Sterne also emphasized that as this link has existed for a long time that “liveness” became an integral part of television not only on account of technological capability but also the values and relationships it has created (522). Question 3: Dienst says “All actual existing television systems are in some sense a failed totalization of an ideal visuality” (PAGE 11 of his article). How does he arrive at this conclusion? Indicate the factors, according to Dienst, that determine this failure. Dienst argued that all television systems are failed totalization of ideal visuality (11). The argument is that television is an imperfect platform, falling short of its expected and ideal functions. In order to justify this position, Dienst cited several examples. First, there is the ideal that television is the “image of a particular social organization held together (or not) on several levels at once” (12). The perceived failure occurs when this ideal is not realized. Dienst observed that there are balance issues involved as well as critical disconnections in several areas such as historical actualization. He went on citing that the image of television - as a world - promises immediacy and immensity but the problem is that “when television develops its image of the market, visual extension is replaced by visible distinction, and the general address of seeing becomes a tentative offer to chose and consume” (12). Dienst was adamant that this is true both in the cases of domestic and international television systems. He further posited that the relationships of the worlds television systems could only mean less opportunity to realize a truly ideal system. The argument is that once a system is plugged to other systems throughout the wold, it will be co-opted and would then confound global images, information and worldviews. Dienst also explained - through his reference to Vertov’s Communist observation - that television will fail as an ideal visuality because it is subject to capitalist distortions. He pointed out, for instance, that “visual facts” pursue truth on two levels (6). The first is the tendency to produce images as products in an endlessly unfolding economic cycle (7). This affects the way true (or ideal) images are depicted because the image becomes products to be marketed, tailored and modified to suit the requirements of the consuming public and subjected to the dictates of the goal to achieve profit. Secondly, it was argued that television images are produced according to some ideological algorithm (7), which should taint the outcome according to the biases and prejudices of the producers. In evaluating Dienst’s position, it is important to remember that when he said “totality”, he was referring to the ubiquity of the transmission of an image. There is supposed to be totality in a visual image if it is visible everywhere. The failure does not rest on the efficacy of television technology to transmit images and messages everywhere. The failure is with respect to what is ideal. In Dienst’s view, no matter how visible the images are, if it is not appropriate then its purpose is not realized. Question 4: Williams describes the emergence of “mobile privatization” as a defining characteristic of modern life. Why does this lead to the new kinds of communication? Why broadcasting and television in particular? Mobile privatization is a term coined by Raymond Williams to denote what he called as paradoxical development in modern urban and industrial living. The paradox lies within the two core concepts involved. The first is mobility, the technological trend where implements and modern contraptions become increasingly portable and smaller, just about enough to be carried as people move about. The second is privatization. Williams saw the trend where homes become more and more self-sufficient, which is supposed to be leading the trend towards a more home-centered way of life (18). The concept combines these dimensions and it effectively underpins a modern turning point that could also impact the trajectory of the development of communication and of television, in particular. Williams is correct that advances in technology makes it possible to produce gadgets that people could bring with them wherever they go. The implication of this new technological capacity is tremendous. Williams pointed out the television could address this paradox because of its own capabilities. He stressed that this is almost the same as the deep contradiction that typify the broadcasting model: that concerns central transmission and privatized reception (23). However, the platform is also being forced to change and to adapt. For example, televisions must now develop materials that would suit the upwardly mobile viewers. Traditionally, they only have to contend with those people who view their program at home or in some static locale. The dynamics would have to change when people bring their viewing platform with them or watch from within an environment that has numerous distractions. Another implication of the mobile privatization concept is the relevance of the television medium. As society becomes more and more mobile and individualized as well as home-centered, broadcast media and the television assume more prominent roles in people’s way of life. Again, the broadcast framework is compatible with this trend. This aspect should provide the impetus for further development and popularity of the broadcast industry and its products. Works Cited Bourdon, Jerome. “Live Television is Still Alive: On Television as an Unfulfilled Promise.” Media, Culture & Society 22, 5 (2000): 531-56. Print. Sterne, Jonathan. Television under construction: American television and the problem of distribution, 1926-62. Media Culture and Society. London: SAGE Publications, 21 (1999): 503-530. Print. Williams, Raymond. “Television: technology and Cultural Form. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Print. Read More