What is television? (Re) Defining the medium
Dr Marc C-Scott (PhD)
College of Arts and Education, Victoria University, Footscray, Australia
Email: [email protected] Phone: +61 399192920 Twitter: @marc_cscott
Dr Marc C-Scott is a senior lecturer in screen media at Victoria University, Australia. He completed his PhD “Invention to Institution: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Television across Three National Sites” in 2016. His research interests are within television (history, institutions, policy, broadcast technologies and methods), cross-platform media and sportscasting. Marc regularly appears on both local and international television and radio commentating on the changing media landscape. He also writes for The Conversation about many topics associated with changes in the media landscape.
1 What is television? (Re) Defining the medium
This paper will discuss the difficulties that have and will continue in defining the medium of television. The term has for many years been used to describe an entertainment medium which is part of the mass media landscape. It was first discussed, in the context of the medium of television, in a paper presented by Constantin Perskyi, at the International Electricity Congress during 1900. Almost thirty years later, as television broadcast tests commenced in Britain, the United States and Australia, there was still confusion and debate as to whether television was the correct term to use for the new medium. The contemporary misconception of defining television is made evident when its definition is reviewed within dictionaries, which consists of multiple definitions. This multipurpose approach and the new media landscape, which includes streaming and video-on-demand, has only created greater confusion. The evolution of television as a platform, institution and popular cultural has historically created difficulties in defining television. The increase of media convergence will exacerbate the difficulty in answering, what is television?
Keywords: television; radiovision; medium; definition; distant vision
2 What is television?
Since its introduction during the mid 1900s, television has become interwoven into society’s daily lives. But more recently, there has been a decline in the hours spent watching broadcast television. This has been accompanied by a significant shift in the way audiences both source and view televisual media. The changes in media consumption have led to a debate in academia, industry and society regarding the future of television. There have been many recent publications that have debated television’s future, including Arrow, Baker & Monagle (2016) and Wolk (2017). Whilst this may be viewed as a contemporary issue, the question associated television’s future had already been raised by Given (1998) more than twenty years ago, in The death of broadcasting? where he noted;
Television and radio broadcasting, the clearest examples of mass media, are supposed to be dying.
New technology is said to be making it possible to personalise audiences’ media experience, to
deliver the images, sound and texts that each individual wants, when they wanted it. (1998, p. 6)
Given continued to debate television’s future in Turning off television: Broadcasting’s uncertain future (2003). More than fifteen years later the debate of television’s future still remains. More recently this debate has incorporated subscription video-on-demand
(SVOD), which is commonly referred to as a key contributor for television’s decline.
The ongoing debate associated with television’s future has led to confusion and raises a larger question, what television is?
Whilst defining television may appear to be a contemporary issue, when analysed from an historical perspective it is clear that throughout its development and introduction, opinion varied in defining television. Television has a complex history,
3 which has been impacted by social, political and technological factors. It began as part of the human desire to see at a distance. Through the work of many inventors, it became a reality through the television set. A device with a screen, that could allow one to see events a considerable distance away, and later across the other side of the world.
Historically, television has been defined differently in its various interrelated technological, social and institutional contexts. The subsequent words used after television, for example, set, receiver or program, have been subsumed within the single term of ‘television’. This broad definition and multi-purpose approach to the use of the term, exacerbates the confusion in defining what is television?
This paper will argue that changes in defining television are not simply a present issue. When analysed historically, it is evident that defining television has continually faced challenges. This paper will analyse television from a historical perspective, to evaluate the varying terms and definitions used to describe the medium. The focus will include the following areas: developments in aural, visual communications and the moving image; the public emergence of television; social influence upon television; the impact of convergence in defining television; challenges for contemporary television; difficulties in defining television.
Developments in aural, visual communications and the moving image
A major factor in the evolution and progress of television was the development rate and impact of other technologies, which included electricity, telegraphy, photography, radio and motion pictures. There were simultaneous developments in both the areas of visual and aural communication technologies. During 1837 to 1876, work was undertaken in the field of picture telegraphy, which Burns (1998) argues was ‘an influence on early
4 distant vision schemes’ (p. 4). In 1837, Samuel F.B Morse developed the electrical telegraph, which was subsequently improved by Alexander Bain’s invention, the automatic copying telegraph, during 1843. Five years later, Fredrick Bakewell’s developed an advance telegraph which added further capabilities and was able to send copies of visual material (written and print). Each of these developments added to the potential of visual communication through the telegraph. The aural element of Morse’s telegraph was added in 1876, when Alexander Bell’s talking telegraph or telephone was discovered (Abramson 2008, pp. 5-6). These discoveries were influential on television’s early developments, in so far as they allowed for the viewing of visual and aural media to be presented to a large and dispersed mass audience.
Predictions of future developments of the telegraph and telephone were illustrated in the British magazine, Punch, during 1879. The illustration depicted an apparatus capable of transmitting visual and aural communication across a distance, entitled Edison’s Telephonoscope. Pictured was a gentleman sitting with a woman in front of a large wide-screen, holding cone devices which produced the sound associated with the projected visuals. This was only three years after Alexander Bell’s discovery of the telephone. Whilst fictional for the era in which it was printed, it depicts a modern social reality, a proposition of converging devices and an early visual representation of future television (Abramson 2008, p. 8). Albert Robida (1884) also described the telephonoscope, as ‘the supreme and final development of the telephone’ that would allow the user to both ‘see and hear’ the person at the same time (Burns 1998, pp. 78-
80).
In addition to the developments of visual and aural media technologies, there was also research conducted in the area of moving images. During 1824, Peter Mark
Roget conducted research in the field of persistence of vision. He argued that the retina
5 had the ability to ‘retain an image of an object for 1/20 to 1/5 of a second after its removal from the field of vision’ (Parkinson 2002, p. 7). Subsequent research in the area of psycho-perceptual, conducted by Max Wertheimer and Hugo Münsterberg, contradicted Roget’s research. The research argued that image retention was not due to the retina, but due to the film frame rate of twenty-four frames per second being lower than the brain’s perception threshold (Parkinson 2002, p. 7). These discoveries would later impact on both motion pictures and television. Motion pictures being the first art form to rely solely on psycho-perceptual illusions generated by machine (Parkinson
2002, p. 7).
During the first half of the nineteenth century there were a range of discoveries and apparatuses developed to create the illusion of motion. Faraday presented his rotating wheel to the Fellows of the Royal Society during 1831. Faraday was unaware that Belgian philosopher and scientist, Joseph Antoine Ferdinand Plateau, had made the same discovery three years before (Cook 1963, pp. 125-6). Plateau later developed the
Phenakistiscope during 1849-1852, an apparatus capable of projecting continuous imagery, which gave the illusion of movement. The first version consisted of drawings depicting a dragon blowing fire; the apparatus created euphoria among the populace who saw it. Plateau was encouraged to create another version using still photography.
Plateau modified the apparatus to display posed photographs of a workman using a pestle and mortar. Unfortunately, the success of the photographs was limited and revealed the difficulties in portraying natural movement through the use of still imagery.
This was evident when the workman was shown the moving images, he stated, ‘But that’s not how I work!’ (Cook 1963, p. 126).
Further discoveries were made in addition to Plateau’s work over twenty-five years later by English photographer, Eadweard Muybridge. He began to experiment in
6 the area of live motion capture using multiple cameras, as opposed to Plateau’s posed photographs. Muybridge’s initial experiments used twelve cameras, later increased to twenty-four cameras, and a wet-plate process, which resulted in images comprising merely of a detailed silhouette.
Muybridge continued his experiments after meeting with Etienne Jules Marey during 1881 to observe his Photographic Gun. This device allowed for the capture of twelve photographs per second, which when played back on a serial disc gave the illusion of movement. Whilst the number of photos captured was less than Muybridge’s previous techniques, the advantage was that the Photographic Gun was a single device.
Its limitation was that it was not appropriate for longer forms of recording, which inspired Marey to continue experimenting (Abramson 2008, p. 16). In 1888 he revealed a device that used moving film, ‘deemed the first successful cine camera’ (Burns, R
1998, p. 71). The next key developments in motion pictures lead to its commercialisation. Jenkins’ in 1894 demonstrated his Phantascope, a motion pictures projector. Two years later Edison presented a public premier of his Vitascope, at the
Koster and Bial’s music hall in New York (Hampton 1970, p. 11). During this same year, the Lumière brothers exhibited their cinématographe all over the world (Burns, R
1998, p. 75). From this point, motion pictures had become commercialised and evolved rapidly, almost overnight ‘from a laboratory experiment to a full-grown commercial venture’ (Abramson 2008, p. 1).
The public emergence of television
The term television, in the context of the technology proper, was first discussed in a paper presented by Constantin Perskyi at the 1900 International Electricity Congress
(Abramson 2008, p. 23). This was many years after some of the key elements had
7 already been discovered, that would allow for the development of what would later be referred to as television. Many of the early developments of television were referred to by other terms, reflective of other influential and parallel discoveries, many discussed in the previous section. The various discoveries that were influential in the development of television are evident in the table shown in Burns (1998, p. 4), which lists distant vision proposals during 1878-1924. Burns (1998, p. 4) lists Nipkow (1884), Sutton (1890) and
Jenkins (1894), who influenced John Logie Baird’s later work in Britain. Baird’s work focused on a mechanical approach, one of two schools of thought in the development of television.
Whilst Jenkins early theoretical work on television influenced Baird, he was later one of three key inventors involved in the development of television in the United
States. Jenkins’ first paper, ‘Transmitting Pictures by Electricity’, was published in The
Electrical Engineer, during 1894 (Burns 1998, p. 196). Almost twenty years after this publication, Jenkins published a second article in Motion Picture News, entitled
‘Transmitting Pictures by Wireless’, this particular article argued to have influenced
Baird’s interest in television. Jenkins later commenced practical television experimentation, based on mechanical practices which differed from Baird’s. The other two key inventors involved in the United States, Farnsworth and Zworykin, both worked on the second approach to electronic television, an approach later applied globally.
The first public demonstrations of television commenced in Britain, the United
States and Australia during the 1920s. This is despite the medium being introduced sporadically across these regions. The way in which public demonstrations were presented fluctuated the public opinion and perception of television. In Britain, Baird used his demonstrations in an attempt to assure the British government and the British
8 Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the only broadcaster in Britain, that television broadcasts should commence in Britain. Baird struggled to convince the BBC to initiate television test broadcasts. Arguably, a key rationale for this, was due to the fact that during 1928, the BBC was experimenting with the broadcasting of images, although this did not eventuate. The technology, was known as the Fultograph; best described as a photo slideshow with music. It would have allowed the BBC to add additional attributes to radio and to continue its media monopoly in Britain (Burns 1998, pp. 177-8).
Whilst there was limited public awareness of Baird’s work, it received immense publicity during 1925, when Baird’s television system was demonstrated as part of
London’s famous Oxford Street department store Selfridges’ sixtieth birthday celebration. Burns argued that it was during these demonstrations that the general public first became aware of television. During the demonstrations, leaflets were handed out to the public stating, ‘television is to light what telephoning is to sound’ (Burns 2000, p.
75). It is interesting to note that the pamphlets did not discuss radio, a major seller for
Selfridges at the time.
The pamphlets also noted that the television apparatus being demonstrated was
‘in the rough’ (Burns 2000, p. 76), and that Selfridges’ store was in no way financially involved with Baird’s work. Selfridges later opened a television department in 1939, with a marketing campaign that stated, ‘Television is here - You can’t shut your eyes to it!’ (Woodhead 2012, p. 350). During March 1929, after another demonstration to members of Parliament, Baird’s system was described as a ‘noteworthy scientific achievement’ (Moseley & Barton Chapple 1930, p. 13). It was declared that facilities at the BBC needed to be made available to the Baird Company. During September of that year, television was inaugurated in Britain, although Baird believed that less than thirty people had seen the inauguration (Burns 1998, pp. 303-4).
9 The year after the inauguration, Moseley and Barton attempted to define television in their publication, Television: to-day & to-morrow (1930). They defined television in two ways, first, as an aid for the public to ‘witness what is happening at some distant place, just as if we were eye-witnesses’ (1930, p. 19). The second component, defined as true television, was ‘the ability to see, with the aid of electrical methods of transmission, a reproduction on a screen of the image of moving or stationary objects situated at any distance from the observer’ (1930, p. 19). Whilst still broad, these definitions were more closely aligned with the television that had been introduced in Britain at the time.
The United States differed considerably from Britain; it had several corporations associated in the development of television. Each attempted to keep the details and demonstrations in house to prevent any intellectual property theft. Early demonstrations were presented to management in house, usually in an effort to obtain further funding for the associated departments. Demonstrations were also given to government officials to gain approval for test broadcast licenses. Many of the corporations built their own broadcasting facilities, which were then used to complete test broadcasts, which on occasions were received by other corporations. This was a significant difference from the British model, by which Baird relied on public awareness.
One of the first demonstrations in the United States was during 1925, when
Jenkins exhibited his television apparatus to a group of government officials in the
United States; the same year as Baird’s Selfridges demonstration. Unlike Baird, Jenkins noted that his demonstration was a scientific test and not a show. It was considered by the Sunday Star to be a historic event, ‘man has literally seen far away objects in motion through the agency of wireless’ (Burns 1998, p. 197). Two years after his demonstration, regular television broadcasts began when Jenkins was granted the first
10 television license by the Federal Radio Commission – for Washington DC station
W3XK.
During the same period as Jenkins, Zworykin also presented his all-electronic television apparatus, in 1925. This was an internal presentation to Westinghouse management in an attempt to secure further funding. The presentation showed the projection of a faint X image onto the face of the receiving tube. This was a first in television history – the transmission of ‘a picture from an electric camera tube to a receiver tube in this manner’ (Abramson 1995b, p. 51). Despite the perceived success of the demonstration, the vice-president of Westinghouse was not impressed and requested
Zworykin be transferred to another project. Zworykin’s later work in the field of television was associated with the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), who became the leader of television in the United States, as well as influential abroad.
Farnsworth, who was also involved in electronic television, first gained significant funding for his television concept after he presented it to Roy Bishop, a successful capitalist and engineer in 1926 (Schatzkin 2002, loc. 643). Farnsworth was not supported by a corporation, so his early demonstrations were an attempt to gain funding for his television concept, thus having many similarities with Baird. After two years of developing a prototype of his television concept, Farnsworth was forced to open his laboratory when investors decided it best to sell the concept (Schatzkin 2002, loc. 891-938). This occurred during the same period that Zworykin moved from
Westinghouse to RCA.
During this time, demonstrations had also commenced in Australia, despite the fact television would not be officially inaugurated until 1956 and many years after to other regions in the country (C-Scott, 2018). Prior to its introduction it was predicted that television would ‘become a normal and essential part of every day life, profoundly
11 affecting social habits and moulding new pattern in our lives’ in Australia (Hughes &
Joseph 1956, p. 9). In 1928, A Brown, general manager and director of Central
Broadcasters Limited, announced his Australian-made television system for the reception of transmitted pictures. He argued that with this apparatus, ‘South Australia will have the distinction of being the first state to have a regular radio picture transmission service’ (The Advertiser 1928, p. 9). The apparatus differed from moving pictures experimentation in the United States and Britain, in that it could only receive the transmission of still photographs, although they could be in a variety of colours.
Along with Brown, the directors of 3DB, a Melbourne B-class radio broadcaster in Australia, also declared its interest in television. Tucker, one of the directors, had visited Britain and was aware of Baird’s television system. The company had imported two transmitting sets and obtained permission by the postal authorities to undertake experimental broadcasts (The Sydney Morning Herald 1929, p. 11). These experiments, as with those undertaken by Central Broadcasters Limited, consisted of the transmission of still pictures and photographs, with the objective ‘that country newspapers could receive pictures of current events’ (The Mercury 1939, p. 12).
Experimental television tests by 3DB were reported in newspapers across Australia, including Examiner (1929), The Richmond River Express and Casino
Kyogle Advertiser (1929) and The Queenslander (1929), to name just a few.
Television and Radio Laboratories also announced that they had commenced television tests in Australia from 10 January, 1929. The pictures broadcast were 28-lines at sixteen frames per second (Radiovision 1929a, p. 2). In addition to the tests,
Television and Radio Laboratories launched an Australian periodical Radiovision,
12 published in 1928 and 1929. The journal focused on both television and radio developments, locally and abroad. The journal title was described as the ‘new art as applied to Broadcasting to be called by the old name – Television – or by the newer one
– Radiovision’ (Radiovision 1928a, p. 2).
Television and Radio Laboratories Limited, used radiovision due to the fact that at that time radio was used for the transmission of images and was coined to distinguish it from earlier experiments that used telephone wires. The journal argued that ‘the name
Television was naturally adopted, for at the time radio was not in existence’
(Radiovision 1928a, p. 2). Apparently there was still uncertainty as to what television was. The journal also argued that ‘Radiovision is a variation on broadcasting rather than a new industry’ and that ‘we have no hesitation in expressing the confident opinion that within a year every Broadcasting station will be a Radiovision station, too’
(Radiovision 1928b, p. 1). The discussion within Radiovision, was seen as natural progression from radio to television that mirrored developments in the United States, where, radio manufacturers and broadcasters transitioned to incorporate television manufacturing and broadcasting. This American focus continued through subsequent issues of the journal, where the progress of Jenkins in the Unites States was consistently discussed. Jenkins had also used the term radiovision in his 1925 demonstration to
United States government officials. He stated to the attendees that ‘we expect to be able shortly to stage a radiovision show with talent performing’ (Burns 1998, p. 197).
Television and Radio Laboratories argued in Radiovision that ‘it is safe to say that before the end of the coming winter radiovision will occupy a very important place in broadcasting’ (1929a, p. 1). Television and Radio Laboratories warned the
13 readers of Radiovision that:
So it is with radiovision. The change will come overnight and still further alterations in the plans of those who provide public amusement will have to be made. When radiovision comes, the fever will be even more widespread than with the “talkies” because the wireless audience exists everywhere. (1929g, p. 1)
This differing in terminology by Television and Radio Laboratories, also reflected the habitual association of radio with television and the idea of convergence of the two mediums, both technologically and institutionally.
Social influence upon television
Whilst advances in technology were a key factor in television’s introduction, there were also critical social and political factors that need to be discussed in association with the technological developments. In chapter one of his seminal work, Williams (2005) rehearses a series of arguments about the invention and influence of television. He distinguishes two types of arguments put forward in relation to television’s influence on the social world. The first of these is technologically deterministic, in so far as television is credited with determining social reality; the second, while less so, also considers television ‘an element or a medium in a process of change that is in any case occurring or about to occur’ (2005, p. 5). The importance of social factors in association with technological factors is supported by Winston, who disputes the relevance of the word revolution in describing electronic communication systems. He argues for the primacy of the social sphere in determining ‘patterns of innovation and diffusion’ rather than for a simple technological model (1998, p. 2).
This is supported by work completed by De Fleur, in his paper Mass
Communication and Social Change, where he attempts to address the ‘ways in which
14 society has influenced the media’ (1966, p. 314). De Fleur provides a comparative study of the diffusion of newspapers, motion pictures, radio and television in the United
States. He argues that cultural factors of diffusion should also be considered, which includes ‘group values, social norms, [and] level of technological accumulation’ (1966, p. 317). He also discusses the work of Rogers in relation to the system of personality diffusion, which is ‘the mental process through which an individual passes from the first learning about an innovation to final adoption’ (Rogers as quoted in De Fleur 1966, p.
317).
The introduction of television in the United States occurred during a time when mass manufacturing allowed receivers to be produced at a price that was ‘within the means of the ordinary citizen’ (De Fleur 1966, p. 324). The new medium was a fit for
‘the personality, social and cultural systems of the society to which it was presented’
(De Fleur 1966, p. 325). This social influence is also discussed by Winston, who postulates that there are three subtypes of social necessities: the impact of other technological innovations, the role of business corporations and the need for new products (1998, pp. 8-9). The impact of corporations on the introduction of television in
Britain and the United States was considerably different; arguably, it was the United
States that enjoyed the largest impact factor from corporations during television’s introduction. As noted by De Fleur, television utilised the institutionalised cultural practices of broadcasting from radio (1966, pp. 324-5). In the United States, the most influential corporations involved in television had already established radio broadcasting and manufacturing. From a cultural perspective, moving images had already been in the social sphere for two decades, i.e. with the established motion pictures industry.
15 By the 1930s, test television broadcasts had commenced in Britain and the
United States, but due to the approach in demonstrations, the public’s perception of what television was differed in both countries. Television was perceived as a novelty, as noted by the Encyclopaedia Britannica fourteenth edition (1929), ‘many technical problems have yet to be solved before television can claim to be more than an interesting novelty’ (as quoted in Emmerson 2009, p. 5). In the United States, early social views of television were demonstrated in The New York Times. Readers were asked what to call the associated apparatus, the owner and the viewer of television. One reader stated ‘we see with our eyes, we hear with ours ears. Why not combine the two and make the word “eyear” or “earyer” which is more euphonic?’ (Burns 1998, p. 301).
Other suggestions included tellser and sightener, for the viewer of television. One reader argued that the operator be called the audivise, the receiver audiviser, and audiovision be used to describe ‘the science of seeing by radio’ (Burns 1998, pp. 301-2).
Not all opinions were positive toward early television, nor its future. One reader stated: ‘I suggest noisivision because the vision will be noisy’ (as cited in Burns 1998, p. 302). Other names that were suggested included ‘for the owner of a set - teleciever, for viewers - radiospects (taken from the word spectacles), for the apparatus - raduo, for the performer- raduolist’ (Burns 1998, p. 302). This is but one example of the variation in the initial understanding and uncertainty of what television was or would become, particularly in the United States. This example also makes evident the public perception of television and the merging of terms in an attempt to establish an identity for television. This was influenced by the close association between the development of television and other communication and media technologies, which still continues today. When viewing media from a historical perspective, it is evident that the media forms of today ‘are actually the result of innumerable small-scale convergences that
16 have occurred frequently throughout time’ (Fidler 1997, p. 27). The recent introduction of the Internet that has allowed new ways to distribute video media, along with further debate of media convergence and confusion of what is television?
The impact of convergence in defining television
During the introduction of television, there are examples of the partnerships between motion picture and television institutions. What is not evident is why, and whether it was to prevent the impact of television or to stake a claim in the new and upcoming media form. De Sola Pool argues that:
The first defensive tactic by the owners of an old medium against competition by a new one is to have the new one prohibited. If this does not work, the next defensive tactic is to buy into the attacker. (1983, p. 39)
A similar argument is raised by Gomery who notes that, in the United States ‘the recalcitrant movie moguls ignored it; only when it was too late did they do anything about television’ (1994, p. 23). The executives initially saw television as a new fad and believed that, once it had passed, the audience would return to the movie theatres. The industry also believed that the quality of television would not equal that of motion pictures (1994, p. 23).
The perception by the motion picture executives of television becoming a fad did not transpire, as the public continued to purchase television sets. In the United
States, Paramount, one of the Big Five studios was involved in a number of companies associated with television, initially with a forty-nine per cent share in Columbia
Phonograph Broadcasting System (later CBS), as early as 1929. Paramount was later associated with the television manufacturer, DuMont, and had an interest in the first
17 Chicago television station, W9XBK (Stokes 1999, p. 24). Another example was the takeover during 1932 of Baird Television Limited by Gaumont-British, which in 1940 was itself taken over by Rank. The involvement of the two companies altered the focus for Baird, from home television to television broadcasts within movie theatres throughout Britain.
When television became established as a commercially viable medium, it did not replace the existing media. In fact, it ‘learned from the theatre, from radio, and from pictures’ before it developed its own distinctive entertainment structure (Hutchinson, T
1946, p. x). The interlinking of the various media later stimulated discussions associated with the convergence, from both a technological and content perspective. The use of the term convergence in writing about television has created confusion socially, institutionally and within academia. The term convergence, as argued by Brand (1987),
Fidler (1997), the Productivity Commission (2000) and Gordon (2003), was first used in association with media and communication during the later part of the 1970s to early
1980s. During the 1980s, convergence was still seen as futuristic by the general public.
Despite public opinion, media companies began to stake a claim, buying various media outlets, including newspapers, radio and television stations, and outdoor advertising firms (Pavlik & Dennis 1993, p. 3).
More recently there has been a significant shift towards digital media and communication technologies, which has added to the debate of what is television? Prior to digitisation, each media form had its own ‘distinct capacities and constraints’
(Hodkinson 2010, p. 33). This distinction left them separated due to the technology associated with that particular form of media or communication; for example, viewers had to use a television set to watch a television broadcast. A single device only allowed for the engagement of a single media format. Digitisation has allowed for ‘text images,
18 music speech and video all to be converted into a universal system’ (Hodkinson 2010, p. 33). Almost twenty years earlier, De Sola Pool argued that electronic technology would allow for all modes of communication to form ‘one grand system’ (1983, p. 20); a proposition representative of the Internet.
Despite the shift toward digitised media, the debate on media convergence from a technological perspective continues. In H. Jenkins’ article, Convergence? I Diverge; he expresses his doubts regarding media convergence and argued:
What’s all this talk about “media convergence,” this dumb industry idea that all media will meld into one, and we’ll get all of our news and entertainment through one box? Few contemporary terms generate more buzz—and less honey (2001, p. 93)
H. Jenkins’ statement was made more than twenty years after the first use of the term convergence. Flew also adds to the convergence debate and perceived death of television, that the claim made that new media would eliminate television ‘was always dubious’ (2007, p. 22). Castells adds further to the debate with his adaptation of de Sola
Pool’s ‘grand system’ theory (1983 p. 20). He argues the theory that ‘computers, the
Internet, and the media’ (2003, p. 188) would converge into one box in the living room, was a notion that had failed. This was not due to technological limitations, but due to the hypothesis from the media institutions. The institutional view was that all consumers were concerned about was access to unlimited content (2003, p. 193). In recent decades, continuous development in media technology, along with the public and broadcasters’ use of alternative distribution methods, has again challenged the definition of television.
Challenges for contemporary television
Contemporary television faces many challenges, as the approach of television
19 institutions and audiences change. The use of the Internet and alternative devices in viewing televisual material challenges defining television from an institutional, technological and social perspective. Just as the old media of motion pictures and radio had to adapt when television was introduced, now television must adapt to the challenges of the availability and ‘expansion of the format market’ (Moran 1998, p. 18).
Television broadcasters have had to adapt to new audience trends, not only changing the platform, but also the method used for broadcast and distribution.
The use of the Internet as a distribution method for televisual material has prompted debate about the death of television. Such works as Given (2003), Spigel and
Olsson (2004), Lotz (2007) and S. Ross (2008) all question the future of television.
These works build upon Glider’s book, Life after television (1994). Glider argued that the concepts of high definition, interactivity and information superhighways are all
‘merely cosmetics for the corpse of giant industries approaching the end of the road’
(1994, p. ii). The debate within television studies is also addressed by Turner and Tay
(2009) in Television Studies After TV. In contrast to the works above, Cunningham argues that, in fact television is ‘in rapid growth mode in major developing regions like south and east Asia’ (2012, p. 1). The global penetration rate of television by the end of
2012, was 79 per cent; a two per cent increase from 2008. This growth was due to the increase in the developing world, from 69 per cent (2008) to 72 per cent (2012); the developed world remained at 98 per cent (International Telecommunication Union
2013, p.162).
These changes discussed above have resulted in a multi-purpose approach in defining television, as evident by contemporary dictionary definitions. The Australian
Concise Oxford Dictionary describes television as, first ‘a system for reproducing on a screen visual images transmitted (usu. with sound) by radio signals’. Second, ‘(in full
20 television set) a device with a screen for receiving these signals’, and third, ‘television signals in general’ (2008, p. 1470).
The multi-purpose approach is also evident in the Dictionary of Media Studies, a publication specifically focused on media. It lists four definitions for television, first ‘an electronic device for receiving and reproducing the images and sound of a combined audio and video signal. Also television set, tv, telly’; second, as ‘a system of capturing images and sounds, broadcasting them via a combined electronic audio and video signal, and reproducing them to be viewed and listened to. Also called tv’; third, as ‘the image, sound or content of combined audio and video broadcast’; and fourth, as ‘the industry concerned with making and broadcasting programs combining images and sound’ (2006, p. 235).
The multi-purpose approach as evident in the Australian Concise Oxford
Dictionary and the Dictionary of Media Studies, further amplifies the difficulties associated with defining what television is and establishing a singular definition. The evolution of television as a platform, institution and popular cultural medium will continue. As argued by De Fleur in 1966, television’s golden era in many countries, ‘we need not assume that television is the final medium’ (1966, p. 325). He further notes that:
A more sophisticated medium would be one which permitted an almost unlimited range in program selection (in the form of tapes or records), an independent power supply, natural colour, complete portability and high quality production. (1966, p. 325)
Arguably this more ‘sophisticated medium’ discussed by De Fleur could be comparable to the Internet, a medium not yet available when his paper was published. It should also be noted that the Internet itself will not be the final medium. Therefore, television, along with other media, will face future challenges from newer media.
21 Difficulties in defining television
It is clear from the areas discussed within this paper why it is difficult to establish a singular definition for television. Since its introduction, television has been interwoven within multiple areas, across technology, society and politics. Technologically, the television set has evolved from a mechanical system demonstrated by Baird, to large high definition smart televisions. The institutions involved in the early development of television had varied approaches, both from a technological and publicity perspective.
This had an impact on the way in which early television was defined and perceived by the public.
During its early development, television was compared to the established media forms, creating varied perspectives of television’s early success. The comparison of new and old media still continues today, although it is now television that is being used as the prime comparative medium. Questions are being raised as to whether current
Internet bandwidth capabilities can create the same image quality as television. The use of the Internet as a broadcast platform has further questioned television’s definition. It is in human disposition to compare new with old. This was true for early television that was compared with other current media of the time, including print media and motion pictures. This led to criticisms of early television associated with its poor image quality and unnatural replication of movement. It was argued that the concerns were raised by individuals who ‘examined the matter entirely from a theoretical standpoint’ (Moseley
& Barton Chapple 1930, p. 37). Being a new medium, television in its introduction did not appear to conform to existing perceptions when compared to motion pictures, radio and print media. This comparison is also reflective of the terms used to describe the new
22 medium.
Culturally, we have begun to move away from viewing television socially as a group, to singular viewing across number devices. These changes have forced television institutions to examine their role. Debate about television continues across technological, social and political areas. The multi-purpose approach will continue and expand as society continues to expand the number of devices on which one can view television content. How television will be defined in the future or what it will resemble is not clear. Based on the naming approach of Radiovision, the newer forms of television via the internet should defined as intervision. What is clear is that the debate and confusion around defining television is far from a conclusion, once again new forms of media are being compare with new media. New distribution formats, access to multiple screens and digital media formats are only continuing to expand, adding further confusion and exacerbating the debate in defining what is television?
23 References
Abramson, A. (2008). The History of television, 1880 to 1941. London, England: McFarland & Company.
Arrow, M., Baker J. & Monagle C. (2016). Small Screens: Essays on contemporary Australian television, Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Publishing.
Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB) 2017, Trends in television viewing 2016.
Brand, S. (1987). The media lab: inventing the future at MIT. New York, NY: Viking Penguin,.
Bruns, A. (2008). Reconfiguring Television for a Networked, Produsage Context. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: quarterly journal of media research and resources, 126, 82-94.
Burns, R. (1998). Television - An international history of the formative years, IEE History of Technology Series (Vol. 22). London, England: The Institution of Electrical Engineers.
—— (2000). John Logie Baird, television pioneer. London, England: The Institution of Electrical Engineers.
Castells, M. (2003). The Internet galaxy: reflections on the internet, business, and society, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press,.
Cunningham, S. (2012). ‘The new normativity: the innovation imperative’, Value for public money – money for public value: refereed papers from the 6th Re-Visionary Interpretations of the Public Enterprise (RIPE) Conference (pp.1-26). University of Sydney. retrieved from http://ripeat.org/ wp-content/uploads/tdomf/2926/Cunningham%20paper%202012.pdf
De Fleur, M. (1966). Mass communication and social change. Social Forces, 44(3), 314-26. de Sola Pool, I. (1983). Technologies of freedom, London, England: Belknap Press.
Dictionary of Media Studies (2006). London, England: A & C Black.
Ellis, J. & Wexman, V. (2002). A history of film, (5th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Emmerson, A. (2009). Old television. Buckinghamshire, England: Shire Publications.
Fidler, R. (1997). Mediamorphosis: understanding new media. California, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Flew, T. (2007). Understanding global media, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan,.
Given, J. (2003). Turning off the television: broadcasting’s uncertain future. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
Glider, G. (1994). Life after television - The coming transformation of media and American life. (Rev. edn). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
24 Gomery, D. (1994). Failed opportunities: the integration of the U.S. motion pictures and television industries. In N. Browne (ed.), American television: new directions in history and theory, (pp. 3- 22). Camberwell, Australia: Hardwood Academic Publishers.
Gordon, R. (2003). The meanings and implications of convergence. In K. Kawamoto (ed.), Digital journalism: emerging media and the changing horizons of journalism, (pp. 57-74 ) Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.
Hampton, B. (1970). History of the American film industry, New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
Hodkinson, P. (2010). Media, culture and society: an introduction, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Hughes, H. & Joseph, M. (1956) The market for television in Australia, Melbourne, VIC: Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited.
Hutchinson, T. (1946). Here is Television, New York, NY: Hastings House.
International Telecommunication Union (2013). Measuring the information society; 2013 edition, retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/ MIS2013_without_Annex_4.pdf
Jenkins, H. (2001). ‘Convergence? I diverge’, Technology Review. retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401042/convergence-i-diverge/.
Lotz, A. (2007). The television will be revolutionized. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Moran, A. (1998) Copycat television: globalisation, program formats and cultural identity. Luton, England: University of Luton Press.
Moseley, S. & Barton Chapple, H. (1930). Television: to-day & to-morrow. London, England: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd.
Nielsen. (2017). The Nielsen total audience report Q4 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/us/ en/insights/reports/2017/the-nielsen-total-audience-report-q4-2016.html
OzTam, Regional TAM & Nielsen. (2017). Australian video report: quarter 4 2017. Retrieved from https://oztam.com.au/documents/Other/AVVR-Q4-2017-Med%20Res%20Final.pdf
Pavlik, J. & Dennis, E. (1993). Demystifying media technology: readings from the freedom forum center. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Parkinson, D. (2002). History of film, London, England: Thames & Hudson.
Perryman, N. (2008). ‘Doctor Who and the convergence of media: Case study of ‘transmedia storytelling’, Convergence: International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 21-39.
Productivity Commission. (2000). Broadcasting: inquiry report. Report no. 11. retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/26598/broadcst.pdf
Ross, S. (2008) Beyond the Box: television and the Internet. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
25 Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: Free Press.
Schatzkin, P. (2002). The boy who invented television, Indianapolis, IN:
TeamCom Books.
Spigel, L. & Olsson, J. (2004). Television after TV: essays on a medium in transition, London, England: Duke University Press.
Stokes, J. (1999). On screen rivals: television and cinema in the United States and Britain. Houndmills, England: Macmillan.
Turner, G & Tay, J. (2009). Television studies after TV: understanding television in the post-broadcast era. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Wolk, A. (2015). Over the top: how the internet is (slowly but surely) changing the television industry. Abingdon, England: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Woodhead, L. (2012). Shopping, Seduction and Mr Selfridge. New York, NY: Random House.
26