Watching Television Without Pity - Assignment Example

Article Analysis: Watching Television without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans Introduction Article Analysis: Watching Television without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans Introduction This paper analyzes an article by Mark Andrejevic titled Watching Television without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans. The article was published in the January 2008 issue of Television & New Media, a peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles in the profession of Communication. The journal has been published beginning 2000. This particular article was published online by Sage Publications in the same year. Sage Publications still publish the journal. This analysis is organized under three sections. The first section discusses the theme or subject matter of the article. The second section evaluates the arguments of the article, the third and last section assesses the significance of the article. Background on the Article The theme of the article under review is interactive television, abbreviated as ITV or iTV. ITV is a type of media convergence that adds data services to conventional television(Oliver & Grant, 1995). These value-added services include the delivery of content on-demand as well as newer services such as online banking and shopping. ITV illustrates that new information technologies can be integrated into older, established technologies and enterprise settings. This contrasts with those technological advancements that create economic opportunities outside established commercial arrangements. An example of the second category of technologies is the Internet. The first patent for interactive TV was registered in the USA in 1994 and commercialized the following year. iTV presents a scale of the level of interactivity that ranges from low to high through medium(Oliver & Grant, 1995). Low interactivity allows the television viewer to perform basic tasks such as increasing and reducing volume and switching between channels. Medium interactivity may enable the viewer to watch a movie on demand, but without the ability to adjust sound effects, for example. High interactivity offers the viewer the greatest degree of flexibility. An example of a high interactivity environment is a show in which the viewer of the show is invited to cast their vote to determine who the shows progresses. The provider of a program need not provide a return path in low and moderate interactivity settings. For instance, a person who downloads a movie from an online movie store can watch the movie on their personal computer once the movie is downloaded. The movie store may have provided the viewer with software they need to watch a movie, but is not involved in the actual watching of it. For interactivity to be said to exist, the viewer has to be in a position to modify their viewing experience(Oliver & Grant, 1995). For example, they should be able to change the angle from which they a tennis match. Alternatively, they should be able to give feedback to the broadcaster in real time that is, as the show airs. The return path or channel could be a telephone line, a short message service or radio among other channels. Viewers of Cable TV get their programs through a cable and return feedback through the same cable. Most Satellite TV viewers give feedback through conventional telephone lines. In recent years, the broadband IP connection has become increasingly popular. Evaluation of the Article’s Argument The article under review is based on the case study of TelevisionWithoutPity.com, a popular site for interactive TV viewing. The main proposition advanced by the author of the article is that while many broadcasters present interactive viewing platforms as a means to empower viewers to make programs more interesting to them, their real motive is to use these interactive viewing platforms, such as bulletin boards, as a marketing tool(Andrejevic, 2008). The broadcasters take advantage of interactivity to establish communities of fans and enhance the loyalty of viewers. In the process, the broadcasters save themselves the trouble of having to conduct market researches to establish the popularity of their programs. Needless to say, they also save money they would have otherwise spent on those researches. This is a very bold, even daring claim. The author then goes ahead to try and substantiate their claim. They quote a number of viewers as saying that even though they gave feedback on programs through the bulletin board, they did not believe that their contributions were taken seriously by the producers of the programs. As far as they were concerned, the bulletin board was simply a public relations exercise(Andrejevic, 2008). Otherwise, the content and everything else about the programs was a sealed deal. They did not believe that their feedback changed the programs in any significant way. In defending their argument, however, Andrejevic fails to examine the other side of the bulletin boards: the producers of the programs. Their argument would have had more impact if the author had examined the views of both sides. Moreover, after stating that viewers had no confidence in the feedback system, Andrejevic stops there. They do not proceed to explain to the reader what retains the viewers on the site even though they believe that whatever they post on the bulletin boards is taken for granted by the producers. This failure on the part of the author leaves their reader speculating on what might be holding those unsatisfied viewers on the site. This is information the author could have easily obtained by posing the right questions to their respondents. A good text, whether a book, article or any other work, needs to have its argument(s) flow logically and coherently. In addition, the text needs to be less descriptive and more analytical. Andrejevic’s article fails on these two points. Rather than concentrate on justifying their argument, the author has devoted much time and space to describing theories on mediated interactivity(Andrejevic, 2008). While theories form the basis for understanding reality, they must not be reproduced in research. The effect of the author over-dwelling on theories is that by so doing, they have rendered their argument incoherent and difficult to follow. All types of scientific research fall under one of two broad categories: a census or a survey. A census entails studying an entire population, such as a national population and housing census. A census provides the most accurate information. However, it is also expensive to undertake especially if the target population is large and spread over a vast geographical area. It is on the basis of the shortcomings of censuses that surveys are carried out. Surveys are conducted on samples taken out of a population. The case study on which the article being reviewed was based is an example of a survey. The major goal scientific survey is to generate information that can be generalized to the whole population from which the sample is taken. Based on the findings of their case study, Andrejevic goes on to conclude that interactive viewing sites are deceptive(Andrejevic, 2008). While they purport to give viewers shared control over the content and other aspects of the programs, their real and hidden purpose is extract marketing information from members of the public. Daring as the conclusion is, the degree to which it can be generalized to all interactive viewing sites is debatable. This point is particularly true when one considers the issues raised in preceding chapters. The findings from a bigger survey would have been more convincing. Assessment of the Significance of the Article The basic function of scientific research is to fill knowledge gaps in a given field. Usually, these gaps are identified by scrutinizing past similar researches by other scholars either in one’s country or anywhere else. Indeed, a good research report provides, in the appendices, a list of knowledge gaps and areas for further research. From Andrejevics article, however, it is not clear which gap they were attempting to fill. In fact, the author has not made any reference to a similar research conducted earlier. It is unlikely that they were the first scholar to conduct a research of that type. Consequently, it is not clear to which extent the article may be said to have contributed to knowledge. Even so, Andrejevic’s work provides a basis on which similar researches could be conducted in the future. This is important because the article raises a significant issue of integrity and ethics in business. Indeed, its shortcomings notwithstanding, the article paints providers of online interactive viewing in a bad light. To extract marketing information unsuspecting from under the disguise of trying to enhance their viewing experiences is unacceptable. Certainly, it would be helpful if in future scholars investigated further the allegation raised by Andrejevic. Until then, all the allegations contained in the article must be discounted At a personal level, the article has introduced me to a new angle of interactive media that hitherto remained unknown to me. While I have been familiar with interactive television, the idea if interactive media online is a new and exciting one. In fact, on the basis of this revelation alone, the article may be said to have generated knowledge, albeit not scientific. Unfortunately, upon chancing upon this potential fraud, many people may shy away from online interactive media. If significant numbers of people shun online interactive media sites, the development could ruin players in the industry. Hence, this primer is a clarion call for TelevisionWithoutPity.com and similar sites to put their houses in order if they wish to remain in business. Conclusion Even though Andrejecvic, in their research, set out to demonstrate that sites such as TelevisionWithoutPity.comwere exploiting online interactive viewers, they have largely failed at their goal. First, they have failed to tell us why the users of these sites that claim to be dissatisfied by the fact that their feedback is taken for granted still use them. One would expect that is a customer is unhappy with one site, they would switch to another. Secondly, the author’s justification of their argument is one-sided. They have failed to give the account of content producers. Thirdly, the flow of their argument is interrupted by lengthy discourses of theories of mediated interactivity. Finally, the degree to which their findings can be generalized to other similar sites is questionable on two accounts: the inconsistencies in the author’s argument and the fact that the findings are based on a case study. Had it been a bigger survey, the findings would have been more convincing. About the significance of the article, the author did not make any references to past similar researches. Neither did they state the knowledge gap(s) they were trying to fill. Based on these two facts, the degree to which the article contributes to scientific knowledge cannot be stated authoritatively. On the flip side, Andrejevics research and article provides a framework for more research on the topic. Moreover, even with its limitations, the research raises questions of ethics and integrity in business. If the charge levied against TelevisionWithoutPity.com is true, the site and all other similar ones will need to change their ways. Otherwise, they risk losing business as more consumers become aware of their dirty tricks. References Andrejevic, M., 2008. Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans. Television & New Media, 9(1), pp. 24-46. Oliver , R. & Grant, M., 1995. Interactive Broadcast Television in Australia. Journal of Educational Television, 21(1), pp. 37-50. Read More