The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

Edited by Manuel Alvarado†, Milly Buonanno, Herman Gray and Toby Miller

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 3 11/13/2014 5:39:56 PM 24

From the Networks to New Media: Making Sense of Television Audiences

Laura Grindstaff

Introduction This chapter explores some key movements and moments in the study of television audi- For the past half-century and more, television ences, which necessarily means exploring has occupied a central place in American concepts such as commodification, reception, domestic and national culture. Unsurprisingly, consumption, and participation. This explo- much time and energy has been devoted to ration is far from exhaustive, of course. The studying television audiences. And yet, para- bodies of work focused on television audi- doxically, the more we know, the less coherent ences, broadly conceived, stretch wide and the concept of the audience becomes. deep. They encompass different theoretical Particularly in the multimodal, multiplatform, traditions, countless methodological choices convergent, digital-interactive, ‘new media’ era, and competencies, varied national and inter- what constitutes ‘television’ let alone the ‘tele- national industrial systems, local and global vision audience’ is by no means self-evident. interdependencies, and different cultural/ What we now call television is an inseparable intellectual priorities. Mine is one perspective, part of media streams that people encounter shaped by the specificities and idiosyncra- everyday across a wide variety of contexts. In sies of my own training and social location, her 2004 article ‘The challenge of changing including the American context. audiences: Or, what is the audience researcher In what follows, I first provide a brief to do in the age of the internet?’ Sonia summary and overview of key theoretical Livingstone characterizes the television audi- traditions that grapple with broad questions ence as a ‘moving target’ for scholars. Surely it regarding the role and place of television in is that. This movement hasn’t so much deterred American society. Conceptualizations of the research as posed new questions and chal- television audience are implicit rather than lenges, especially in terms of methodology. explicit in much of this work, often couched

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 339 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM 340 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

in a language of influences or effects. I then Some Theories of Television examine three different empirical approaches and Society to researching audiences – three different interventions – that represent distinct ways Historically, scholarly interest in the social of thinking about audiences. The first is role and impact of television has been driven industrial, in which the audience is a com- by the medium’s pervasiveness, as well as modity measured and sold to advertisers its ability to bring the outside world into by media companies. The main focus here the home and thereby connect disparate indi- is on measurement and ratings. The second viduals to one another in virtual space via intervention reflects a body of academic notions of ‘the audience’. The fact that mil- work that typically goes by the unsexy label lions of people watched the same program ‘reception studies’, in which viewers/readers simultaneously formed the basis for caring actively interpret television texts under and theorizing about television. As Leo specific socio-cultural conditions. Included Bogart wrote in 1956, ‘with no other form of here are ethnographic approaches to televi- impersonal communication has the sharing sion audiences, by which I mean approaches of experience been possible on so universal that demonstrate various degrees of interest a scale and to so intense a degree as with in and attention to material context (under television’ (p. 2). In the early years as today, what circumstances do people watch/use television – and mass media more generally – television?) instead of or in addition to sym- prompted considerable debate about the bolic content (what meanings do viewers changing nature of society, the public sphere make of what they watch?). The third is the and the public good. scholarly study of fans and fandoms, which In a positive vein, social scientists such as could be subsumed under reception and/or John Dewey, William James and Robert Park ethnographic approaches but which I treat believed that mass media, if managed well, separately because fandoms hold open the could strengthen democracy by socializing promise of moving us away from notions of people into a common set of norms and val- ‘audiences’ toward notions of ‘publics’, an ues (Grindstaff and Turow, 2006). Marshall important distinction I borrow from Daniel McLuhan (1964) posited an even more optimis- Dayan (2001). These three approaches do tic (some say celebratory) view of electronic not so much reflect chronological develop- media as enabling a global village transcend- ments in the study of television audiences ing time and place, a thesis later explored in (note, for instance, that industrial ratings are a more detailed and historicized fashion by more sophisticated and influential than ever Joshua Meyrowitz (1985). Less optimisti- before) as different methodological choices cally, the rise of mass communications, in stemming from different assumptions about concert with industrialization and technologi- presumed passivity versus activity on the cal change, was said to breed cultural medi- part of viewers/users. Finally, I conclude ocrity (according to mass society critiques) with a brief discussion of some key chal- and/or inhibit revolutionary class conscious- lenges associated with studying television ness (according to Marxist critiques). Adorno and television audiences in the new media (1957), for example, in concert with other era. In their recent book Spreadable media, scholars of the Frankfurt School, denounced Henry Jenkins and his colleagues ask ‘what television for insinuating the capitalist mode constitutes meaningful participation’ in our of production into everyday leisure, includ- contemporary media environment? (Jenkins ing into people’s psychic lives. Baudrillard et al., 2013, pp. 153–194). Their insights are (1983) also took a pessimistic/deterministic particularly relevant for the study of televi- stance, suggesting that the primary effect of sion, and for understanding persistent inequal- television was to substitute a representation ities surrounding media access and use. of reality (simulacrum) for reality itself.

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 340 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 341

In her now-classic essay ‘Audience control’ and Douglas Kellner (1981), among others, Muriel Cantor (1980) notes how both the all of whom emphasized television as a site of mass society and Marxist critiques of televi- contradiction where meaning is struggled over sion, which mirrored concerns about forms of and not simply given or assumed. Newcomb mass media preceding television, contained in particular helped shift the discussion of implicit assumptions of audiences as power- television from a discourse of ‘mass commu- less and manipulable – either by technology nication’ to a discourse of ‘popular culture’, or capitalist ideology or both. Television had with an attendant shift in the degree of agency negative ‘effects’ on society because audi- accorded audiences. In TV: The Most Popular ence response was said to be determined in Art, Newcomb emphasized the complexity of large measure by the industrial nature of the television entertainment with regard to plot, medium. Unsurprisingly, this stood in stark character and genre, and the multiple levels of contrast to early industry discourse about meaning available to viewers in making sense the television audience, which positioned of television narratives. viewers as ‘in control’ of television content It was Raymond Williams (1974) and in the form of ratings. As Cantor points out, Stuart Hall (1980), however, who were most the industry perspective didn’t necessarily influential in shaping the study of television position the audience as active, but nor did within the context of the emerging field of it position the audience as a passive, undif- cultural studies in the UK and abroad. I will ferentiated mass; rather, the audience was discuss Hall in a later section, for it was his understood to be a market of specific demo- encoding-decoding model that inspired much graphic characteristics, some subset of which of what we now call reception studies, includ- was said to shape programming through rat- ing the empirical study of television audi- ings (more on this topic shortly). ences. Williams’ influence was in some ways Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony more mobile and wide-ranging, inspiring a complicated Marxist critiques of the media new generation of scholars in the humanities and paved the way for another set of influ- (particularly those trained in film analysis) ential theories of television, beginning in the who welcomed ways of thinking about tele- 1970s. In arguing that particular relations of vision as something other than discrete pro- ruling prevail not because they are imposed grams to be analyzed or a capitalist institution on people against their will but because they to be condemned (see Spigel, 1992). His 1974 are accepted as common sense by the rulers book, Television: Technology and Cultural and the ruled alike, Gramsci offered a more Form, elucidated the concept of ‘flow’ – the nuanced theory of power that posited ideol- movement of fragmented text across time and ogy as collectively held and needing to be space – and forced a consideration of televi- continually re-secured. These ideas influ- sion as a mode of address that structured enced Todd Gitlin (1979), for example, who experience apart from specific questions of was interested in how prime-time television content or message. Williams argued that tele- could be simultaneously appealing to audi- vision is both an intention and an effect of the ences and sustain class hegemony. Although social order, including relations of power and not passive, the audience in Gitlin’s view had inequality, and as such it offers people a kind limited power to influence content because of language or grammar for understanding the commercial system is able to absorb and and negotiating those relations. The idea that harmonize conflicting demands and defini- television has an industrial mode of address – tions of reality in ways that ultimately reaffirm an experiential aesthetic – was fruitfully the status quo. The hegemony concept also employed and debated by other scholars (see found expression in the work of Raymond Ellis, 1982; Kaplan, 1983; Newcombe and Williams (1974), Horace Newcomb (1974), Hirsch, 1983; Browne, 1984; Fiske, 1987; Gaye Tuchman (1974), Stuart Hall (1980) Caldwell, 1995; Lembo, 2000) and remains

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 341 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM 342 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

an important touchstone for rethinking tele- the work of constituting themselves as a visual aesthetics in light of recent industrial potential market for advertised goods. For and technological change (see Boddy, 2004; Smythe, audiences are simultaneously doing Caldwell, 2004; Parks, 2004; Uricchio, 2004; productive work for the capitalist (the adver- Wood, 2007). tiser) and reproducing their own labor power as viewers of programming. Jhally and Livant (1986) argue something similar, substituting ‘programmer’ for ‘advertiser’ in the formula- Paint-by-Numbers Television: tion. For them, the viewing audience, having The Audience as Commodity already received its ‘wage’ in the form of pro- gramming, is working on behalf of the televi- Far removed from discussions of hegemony sion programmer rather than the advertiser; the and flow, the television industry from the programmer then converts surplus watching very beginning has had its own preferred way time into additional advertising revenue. of thinking about audiences: in terms of rat- As Brett Caraway (2011) notes, the industry ings, as commodities to be measured and construction of the audience as commodity is, sold to advertisers. Indeed, the vast majority in a very real sense, fictitious, because no one of time and money devoted to researching knows whether viewers exposed to specific audiences occurs outside of academia. advertising messages actually purchase the Ratings research is important to discuss here, products advertised. Advertisers are thus not not because it accurately assesses what tele- buying audience power but the ratings compa- vision audiences are up to, but because it nies’ promises about viewers’ future purchas- animates a critical discourse among scholars ing behavior. Networks and cable companies with an imperative for operationalizing audi- pay ratings firms – predominantly, Nielson – ences differently. Currently, Nielsen Media to help them reliably predict the realization of Research retains its monopoly over televi- surplus value in the form of the consumption sion ratings production, even as the Nielsen of goods, ‘but the whole system of commod- company itself has changed hands (it is now ity exchange is speculative – the networks are owned by the Dutch media conglomerate acquiring credit based on surplus value which VNU). The function of the company is to put has yet to be realized’ (Caraway, 2011, p. 701). a value on advertising time, as determined by For this reason, Caraway (2011) believes the the size of a program’s audience and other economic transaction described by Smythe is audience demographics such as age, sex and better characterized as rent: the media owner income. According to Nielsen statistics, rents the use of the medium to the advertiser Americans spend more than 34 hours per who is interested in gaining access to an audi- week watching TV, plus another 3–6 hours ence, and speculation on the size and quality per week watching recorded programs. The of the audience determines the rent charged. average household has access to more than In her trenchant critique of the commod- 100 channels and several different television ity audience, Eileen Meehan (1990) makes sets (Hinckley, 2012). a related but different point when she notes Dallas Smythe (1977) is typically credited that the measurement techniques used in rat- with formulating a theory of the audience as ings research construct the very thing being commodity. Although not uncontested (see measured. Her careful historical account of Caraway, 2011), this theory suggests that the the development of ratings systems in the US, activity of watching television represents a beginning first with radio and extending to form of wageless labor that audiences engage television, demonstrates that different methods in on behalf of advertisers. Audiences get produce different ratings for the same program, rewarded with programming – what Smythe partly as an artifact of the methods themselves. calls a ‘free lunch’ – in exchange for doing Because the specter of different ratings for the

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 342 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 343

same programs threatens to disrupt the estab- is considering the use of cable set-box data lished business of buying and selling the (STB data), a transmission from the cable commodity audience, networks and adver- signal back to the cable operator that gives tisers agree to accept a monopoly in ratings a complete picture – not just a sample – of production if this monopoly can balance out what viewers in a particular place are tuned discontinuities in demand (networks want to at any given time (www.nielsen.com/ to charge advertisers as much as possible us). According to the Hollywood Reporter, for delivering audiences, advertisers want to Nielsen has partnered with Twitter to mea- pay as little as possible for those audiences), sure TV-related tweets, and is poised to install while satisfying the need for a single, agreed- new hardware and software in its 23,000 sam- upon measure of viewing in the form of the ple homes to capture viewership not only on commodity audience. cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcasts but The commodity audience is not view- also devices that deliver streaming video ser- ers writ large, of course, but the subset of vices provided by companies like Netflix and viewers who are sampled – until recently, Amazon (Block, 2013). The portable people mostly by paper diaries and electronic peo- meter (PPM), initially developed by Arbitron ple meters installed in selected homes. The (a Nielsen rival-turned-acquisition), promises meters record what is being watched and who to extend the boundaries of media consump- is watching, provided viewers remember to tion to outside the home. Although not yet push log-in buttons (each member of the widely adopted, the PPM is a pager-sized household has a button associated with her device that monitors the individual viewer demographic information). Consequently, rather than the television set by picking up ratings do not represent the wishes of the a unique digital code embedded in the audio television audience qua audience because tracks of all the radio and television channels most members of the viewing public are not that a PPM-wearer is exposed to throughout measured and therefore literally don’t count; the day. Theoretically, with the cooperation rather, ratings reflect ‘the forced choice of entertainment companies, it could detect behavior of the commodity audience within everything from DVDs to video games to limitations set by continuities in demand, MP3 music files and even whether a person market conditions, production costs, and drives by a particular billboard or electronics changing conditions in the general economy’ store (Gertner, 2005). Of course, whether or (Meehan, 1990, pp. 126–127). Ratings are not people are actually paying attention to the forms of measurement selected on the basis channels and signals registered by their PPM of economic goals, Meehan reminds us, devices – or any of the in-home measurement not according to the rules of social science. tools, for that matter – is an open question. ‘The difference between the commodity But the question may not matter much in the audience and the public viewership, between long run. The Nielsen-Arbitron experiment in manufacturing the commodity audience PPMs has a twist: 70,000 PPM-wearers are through ratings and measuring the public being tracked, not for the sake of ratings, but taste through social research cannot be over- to match all the advertisements and messages emphasized’ (Meehan, 1990, p. 127). they hear to the actual purchases they make In the new media environment with the rise using bar-code technology (Gertner, 2005). of digital television and the dispersal of televi- If the new media era represents challenges sion programming across multiple interfaces for audience measurement, it also changes the and delivery systems, the search for ‘reliable’ nature of the ‘labor’ performed by audiences audience measures has taken some interest- for media owners and advertisers. Indeed, as ing turns. Nielsen has begun to track time- television itself proliferates across the digital shifting on DVRs (where viewers can shift landscape, so does the potential ‘work’ of when they watch their chosen programs) and television audiences. Philip Napoli (2010)

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 343 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM 344 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

notes that the notion of the audience-as- message boards, not to mention the ‘work’ of worker, which may not have been entirely voting people off an island or fashion runway persuasive when what was being monetized in the latest reality program. was the act of watching television programs, Consequently, as Napoli observes, the old becomes decidedly more concrete in the new distinction between scholars who claimed media environment where audiences not only audiences are working for advertisers watch/receive but create/use content. Today, (Smythe, 1977) and those who claimed audi- ‘the creative work of the audience is an ences are working for programmers (Jhally increasingly important source of economic and Livant, 1986) has collapsed, because, value for media organizations’ (Napoli, 2010, in the new media era, audiences are clearly p. 511). The industry itself clearly recognizes working for both. For Napoli, what is so this, even if individual users – and some of remarkable about this development is the the academics writing about them – do not. extent to which people (1) engage in the pro- The wealth of scholarly work on fandom not- duction of media content absent any expecta- withstanding, scholars lag behind industry tion of financial compensation, and (2) appear stakeholders in thinking about audiences as willing to allow others – notably media orga- producers as well as consumers of content nizations – to capture the revenue generated (see also Turow, 2005). by their aggregated effort. Mark Andrejevic What is the nature of audience produc- (2004) and others have extended this argu- tivity, from an industry perspective? The ment in important ways beyond audiences to way Napoli describes it, Web 2.0 applica- the on-camera participants of reality-based tions such as Facebook and YouTube enable programming, whose flexible, insecure, people to communicate in a community of non-union and largely uncompensated labor sorts, with the advertising revenues they gen- generates enormous profits for the television erate being derived from audience attention industry. The ‘work of being watched’ and captured with content produced by members the willingness of people to engage in this of that user/audience community. In other work – including but not limited to reality- words, ‘aggregating or providing a common TV participants and those seeking visibility platform for user-generated content, and then on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. – is selling advertising on these platforms, repre- consistent with the push toward new forms sents the core business model of most Web of celebrity and a new culture of surveil- 2.0 applications’ (Napoli, 2010, p. 512). User lance in which watching and being watched ‘content’ extends beyond selfies and home- is increasingly normalized and monetized made videos, of course. User-generated con- (Andrejevic, 2004; Ouellete and Hay, 2008). tent comes in the form of comments, ratings and reviews for products and services, which represent an important source of monetized value for organizations involved in the pro- Television Reception: Beyond duction and distribution of media. Audiences People Meters further create value for advertisers when they assist with the actual marketing of products – The ‘television audience’ as measured by producing their own commercials, engaging in industry stakeholders operates within a closed word-of-mouth endorsements online (sharing, feedback system informed by industrial liking, recommending), and/or integrating logic. ‘Institutional knowledge is not inter- brand messages into their own Facebook or ested in the social world of actual audiences MySpace pages (Napoli, 2010, p. 512). And … [but] in an objectified category of users to then there is the work of audiences in helping be controlled’, writes Ien Ang. ‘[This construc- to generate popularity and buzz for specific tion] enables television institutions to develop programs on fan pages, chat rooms and strategies to conquer the audience so as to

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 344 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 345

reproduce their own mechanisms of survival’ as the latter implies ‘a homogeneous mass (1991, p. 154). of people who are all essentially identical, Reception studies emerged partly in who receive the same messages, meanings response to the industrial logic as defined and ideologies from the same programs, and above, and partly in response to traditions who are essentially passive’. He later coined of social science research focused on media the term ‘audiencing’ to make much the same ‘effects’. The results of laboratory experi- point, believing the verb form of the noun bet- ments, content analyses and large-scale ter captures the active, participatory quality of attitudinal surveys published in mainstream television consumption (Fiske, 1992). John academic journals from the 1960s onward Hartley (1999), too, has been a strong propo- (typically by psychologists, social psycholo- nent of the ‘active audience’ paradigm. This is gists, or mass communication scholars trained not a more objective conceptualization of the in statistical methods) formed a significant audience, only a different one. As Fiske (1989) core of research on the topic of television audi- insists, there is no such thing as ‘the televi- ences, although practitioners generally did not sion audience’ apart from the methods used to claim membership in something called televi- study it (see also Allor, 1988; Dayan, 2001). sion studies or audience studies. In contrast The main contribution of reception studies is to effects researchers who saw themselves as to demonstrate the meaning-­making capac- scientists testing hypotheses, reception studies ity of audiences within particular cultural and scholars saw themselves as analysts explor- historical contexts, underscoring the diversity ing/theorizing an interactive process. To para- of meanings, the diversity of interpretive prac- phrase James Halloran (1970), the question in tices and the diversity of audiences, while still reception studies is not what the media does to retaining notions of textual structure, indus- people, but what people do to the media. trial practice and social location. Although not When examining qualitative traditions of focused on television, Janice Radway’s (1984) television audience research, it is difficult to important study of romance readers is clearly disentangle media studies from cultural stud- an early intervention along these lines. ies, particularly in the UK where a focus on In his essay ‘Encoding/decoding’, Hall media developed in tandem with cultural (1980) theorized the media-audience circuit studies. Both Stuart Hall’s (1980) encoding- as reciprocal but not equal: the ideology of decoding model of media reception and the the culture industries may be hegemonic and interview-based studies of television audi- work to secure social and political consensus, ences by Morley (1980) and Hobson (1982) but people may respond to and interpret media were foundational in shaping growing schol- texts in a variety of ways. For Hall, there is a arly interest in the qualitative, experiential necessary correlation between people’s social dimensions of television reception and use positioning and the meanings they generate. (as well as engagement with other forms of This introduces a potential tension into the popular culture). Reception theory, reader- circuit, between the meaning encoded at the response theory, the text-reader model, ethno- point of production (which necessarily bears graphic studies of audiences, and even ‘uses the imprint of dominant ideology) and the and gratifications’ research – all are interven- meanings decoded at the point of reception by tions in the reception studies tradition that, in viewers whose social location may position different ways and to varying degrees, move them against that ideology. Viewing tele- us away from an understanding of ‘the audi- vision thus involves negotiation between ence’ as an effect of the text or production pro- reader and text, with some readings being cess toward the notion of audiences as active preferred but no reading being imposed. Hall makers of meaning. For this reason, Fiske offered three generalized reading strategies (1987, p. 16) prefers the term ‘reader’ over for characterizing viewers: dominant (the ‘audience’ in referring to television viewers, reader agrees with and accepts the dominant

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 345 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM 346 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

ideology); negotiated (the reader accepts the reception study has focused on viewer interpre- dominant ideology for the most part but has tations of specific programs, genres or sets of to customize it to fit her local circumstance); programs (Morley, 1980; Hobson, 1982; Ang, and oppositional (the reader opposes the 1985; Liebes and Katz, 1990; Livingstone, dominant ideology). 1990; Jhally and Lewis, 1992; D’Acci, 1994; Obvious problems exist with the model Livingstone and Lunt, 1994; Gripsrud, 1995; (why only three reading strategies? How do Manga, 2003; Hill, 2005; Skeggs and Wood, we know which readings are preferred? Do 2012; Sender 2012). Liebes and Katz (1990), oppositional readings matter in the real world for example, asked groups of people from or only in readers’ heads?) and, naturally, the five different cultures to watch and discuss the notion of the active, resisting audience can be prime-time soap opera Dallas, revealing the carried too far, especially if presumptions of importance of distinct national/cultural­ rep- semiotic resistance are accorded great social ertoires to interpretations of the show. Jhally or political significance. The main contri- and Lewis (1992) interviewed viewers of bution of the encoding/decoding approach The Cosby Show and concluded, among other was to provide theoretical justification for things, that the program encouraged ‘enlight- conceptualizing television audiences differ- ened racism’. Press (1991) and Manga (2003) ently: not as an irrational mass manipulated explored class differences among women by ideology on the one hand, and not as an viewers of prime-time programming and assemblage of rational individuals strategi- daytime talk shows respectively, while Hill cally consuming media for identifiable and (2005), Skeggs and Wood (2012) and Sender measurable reasons on the other, but rather (2012) all focus their attention on viewers of as complex, messy subjects embedded in reality television. cultures and communities. Dayan (2001, A second strand of reception research exam- p. 748) aptly describes it as ‘a framework ines the broader domestic (and sometimes that abandons individual psychology and the public) contexts of television use/consumption­ study of the structural coherence of a text to in everyday life (Hobson, 1982; Morley, concentrate on the nature of the relationship 1986; Palmer, 1986; Lull, 1990; Gray, 1992; between text and reader’. He outlines four Buckingham, 1993; Brown, 1994; Gillespie, main assumptions of the framework : (1) the 1995; Gauntlett and Hill, 1999; Lembo, 2000; meaning of a text is not pre-given but is McCarthy, 2001; Fisherkeller, 2002; Bird, produced in the context of reception; (2) the 2003; Mayer, 2003). This work examines who analyst does not have privileged knowledge watches television, the various conditions of the text; (3) readers/viewers are varied, as under which watching occurs (when, where, are contexts of reception; and (4) meanings, why, how), and how television use intersects rather than the text itself or the industrial and overlaps with other aspects of daily life. system that produces it, are the starting point Topics include the gendered use of technology for the study of ‘effects’ (p. 749). Texts and within the family (Morley, 1986; Gray, 1992), anthologies devoted to the study of televi- the unique ways that children relate to televi- sion and its audiences testify to the centrality sion (Palmer, 1986; Buckingham, 1993), the of this perspective (see Allen, 1987; Fiske, sociality of television use among people of 1987; Seiter, 1990; Morley, 1992; Hay et al., different occupational backgrounds (Lembo, 1996; Abercrombie and Longhurst, 1998; 2000), the deployment/reception of televi- Newcomb, 2000; Tulloch, 2000; Gorton, sion in public settings such as waiting rooms, 2009; Briggs, 2010; Seiter et al., 2013). airports, bars and retail spaces (McCarthy, In television audience scholarship, the con- 2001), the use of television and video in build- tours of reception continue to shift as more ing community and recreating cultural tradi- studies are carried out and more types and tions across ethnic diasporas (Gillespie, 1995; levels of context are considered. One strand of Mayer, 2003), and the meanings and uses of

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 346 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 347

television culture in the lives of American fans often create and sustain self-consciously adolescents as they play out in the varied identified communities and subcultures. The contexts of family, school and peer group study of fans has been one of the signature (Fisherkeller, 2002). contributions of media studies generally and Together with a limited subset of fan stud- reception studies specifically. This is because, ies, this second strand is most often identi- in part, fans crystallize both what is concern- fied as ethnographic, despite the fact that ing and what is promising about television extended interviews and short-term encoun- consumption in the modern era. According ters with specific groups or individuals are to Jensen (1992), early critics saw fans as more common than is sustained fieldwork lonely, isolated individuals whose affinity to within a culture or community (Fisherkeller a media figure or text is either pathetic (the [2002] is a notable exception). As Lotz (2000) fan as nerd or geek) or dangerous (the fan as reminds us, classifying one’s object of study psychopath), or a member of a hysterical as an ‘audience’ versus a ‘culture’ remains crowd (the screaming/fainting Beatles fan) or a key difference between media studies and uncontrolled mob (drunken, destructive anthropology when investigating media con- soccer hooligans). All four tropes, Jensen sumption. Classic ethnographic immersion argues, reflect anxieties about the decline of is more easily accomplished in the relatively local familial and community-based ties and bounded spaces of television production their substitution by impersonal, mediated (e.g. Grindstaff, 2002) than reception, recep- forms of sociability. On the more optimistic tion being a more fluid, geographically dis- side, scholars recognized the promise of persed and privatized phenomenon (see active, creative, ‘producerly’ engagement Radway, 1988; Morley and Silverstone, 1990; with media texts for the purposes of building Moores, 1993; Ang, 1996; Seiter, 1999). Not new forms of community – the dominant only is it is difficult to hang out in people’s characterization of fans that held sway in homes (or cars or offices or dorm rooms) and what Gray et al. (2007) call the ‘fandom is watch them watch/use television, but televi- beautiful’ phase of fan studies. sion use cannot easily be separated from the The analytic framework for this initial phase rest of everyday life, as it unfolds either on- of fan studies came from French anthropolo- or off-line. In the words of Ang (1996, p. 68) gist Michele de Certeau via Henry Jenkins. De ‘“watching TV” is no more than a short-hand Certeau’s theory of ‘poaching’ offered media label for a wide variety of multi-dimensional scholars a way of understanding fan activity as behaviors and experiences implicated in productive and participatory within an overall the practices of television consumption … context of inequality and institutional mar- [consequently] it becomes difficult to demar- ginalization (de Certeau, 1984). As peasants cate when we are not part of the television and not proprietors in the media landscape, audience’. This is dilemma is only magnified the power of fans is the power of appro- in the contemporary media environment by the priation and consumption rather than pro- dispersion of television texts across multiple duction, even as consumption is understood mediums and platforms. to have a productive dimension. According to de Certeau, there corresponds to the ratio- nalized, spectacular production of the culture industries another type of production, called Fans and Fandoms: The ‘consumption’. Consumption is ‘devious’ Participatory Audience and ‘disperse’, he says, ‘… it insinuates itself everywhere, silently and almost invisibly … it Studies of fans and fandoms partially side- does not manifest itself through its own prod- step the problem of how to locate the when ucts, but rather through its ways of using the and where of television consumption because products imposed by a dominant economic

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 347 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM 348 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

order (1984, p. xii). The power of appropria- of the fans who fantasize about them, not tion doesn’t level the playing field; there is no of the industry executives who produce and equivalence in the production-consumption merchandise them. In this formulation, fan- relation. Rather, poaching articulates a struggle dom goes beyond being a regular viewer over meaning that both reflects and constitutes of a favorite program because it translates unequal power relations in late modernity. viewing into some kind of cultural activity: De Certeau usefully distinguishes between sharing thoughts and opinions with others, strategies and tactics to reinforce this point. joining a community of fans with common Strategists are the people who get to make interests, even generating original art work, and enforce the rules; they have institutional poems, novels, screenplays, zines and videos. power. They are the politicians, the law- Indeed, some fan activities go beyond poach- makers, the policymakers, the CEOs, the ing in that people not only poach on the prop- educators, the movie moguls and television erty of others, they make their own property, producers – they are the cultural capitalists, their own productions. ‘Fans possess not sim- or what Fiske (1989) calls ‘the power bloc’. ply borrowed remnants snatched from mass Tacticians, on the other hand, are producers culture, but their own culture built from the with a small ‘p’. Lacking an institutional semiotic raw materials the media provides’ power base, they are the ones for whom the (Jenkins, 1992, p. 49). rules are made. Their power is the power of Television fans thus differ from other cat- appropriation, of making do with what they egories of viewers because they approximate have. Tactics are thus more ephemeral and what Dayan (2001) calls a ‘public’ rather than fleeting; as de Certeau would say, they are merely an ‘audience’. In Dayan’s view, recep- opportunities ‘seized on the wing’ (1984, tion studies in the reader-response or text- p. xix) by those ‘already caught in the nets reader tradition, although an improvement of “discipline”’ (p. xv). To the extent that the over earlier effects models of research, never- average person’s relationship to the culture theless create the audience as an artifact of the industries is on the consumption rather than method; in eliciting statements that viewers the production side of the equation, we are would never make if not for the provocation all tacticians rather than strategists – we don’t of the researcher, and in analyzing reactions own the land, but we can poach on it and whose nature is typically private and non- potentially recraft it to better suit our interests discursive, scholars incorporate viewers into and desires. an invented discourse that would not other- Henry Jenkins (1992) famously applied wise exist. Ethnographic studies of viewers these ideas in his study of Star Trek (and other as ‘interpretive communities’ only partially media) fans in his now-classic book Textual resolve this problem. Unlike an audience, Poachers. Jenkins saw fandom as a particu- a public, according to Dayan (2001), has a larly good example of poaching because fans milieu that sustains sociability, a self-­reflexive were both persistent and inventive in their sense of itself as a public, and the capacity efforts to reclaim media imagery for them- for self-representation. For Dayan (2001), selves. Fans refuse the high-culture mode of ‘true’ publics do not form around a medium reception in which audiences are expected (television or any other), but in relation to to be passive and worshipful, maintaining a social problem and with respect to other a distance between artist and audience. publics. That being said, he sees fandoms as For Jenkins, this refusal to pay homage to approximating publics. He considers them authorial control is important because it to be ‘quasi-publics’, excluding them from challenges the ability of media producers full-fledged membership because they are, to determine the creation and circulation of in his words, ‘ephemeral’ and ‘non- serious’, meanings: once characters become part of focused on mimicry and play rather than real popular discourse they become the property socio-political issues (Dayan, 2001, p. 752).

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 348 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 349

Setting aside this problematic re-inscription the field of fan studies to encompass greater of the very cultural hierarchies that fandom conceptual, theoretical and methodological works to challenge (high/low, serious/trivial, diversity (see Barker and Brooks, 1998; Adden, information/entertainment, etc.), we can see 1999; Brooker, 2002; Hills, 2002; Thomas, that the first wave of fan studies, of which 2002; Juluri 2003; Sandvoss, 2003, 2005). Textual Poachers was a part, varied in topic Arguably, the new media environment has and focus but generally confirmed the image of made fandom more relevant than ever before. fans as active consumers who worked within Far from existing on the fringe of media con- and against commercial culture to create sumption, the DIY practices associated with media publics (see Bacon-Smith, 1992; Lewis, fandom have emerged as central features 1992; Harrington and Bielby, 1995; Tulloch of television and media consumption in the and Jenkins, 1995; Penley, 1997). Gray et al. digital age. In Convergence Culture, Jenkins (2007) note that these studies do not so much (2006) describes a moment when ‘fans are deconstruct the binary in which fans are posi- central to how culture operates … the con- tioned as ‘other’ to the ‘normal’ (detached) cept of the active audience, so controversial media consumer, as attempt to differently two decades ago, is now taken for granted by value the fan’s place in the binary. Valuing everyone involved in and around the media fans differently does not mean projecting industry’ (2006, p. 1). Media companies act onto them oppositional tendencies, of course, differently today – generating new kinds of and for the most part scholars have avoided content and forming new relationships with this. As Jenkins (1992) reminds us, not all consumers – because they have been shaped readings are oppositional, not all readers are by the increasing visibility of participatory resistant, and not all resistance is progressive; culture, once associated primarily with fan- for the most part, fans gravitate toward par- dom (Jenkins, 2006, 2007; Jenkins et al., ticular media texts (presumably inflected with 2013). For Jenkins, the interactive audience dominant ideology) because of some compat- of participatory media culture is more than ibility or affinity between the text and fans’ a marketing concept and less than a democ- pre-existing­ cultural beliefs and commitments. racy: media industries have to accommodate Some studies in fact, revealed how fan activity the interests of consumers even as they seek works to maintain rather than challenge exist- to bend consumers to their interests (Jenkins, ing systems of classification and thus existing 2006). In his afterward to the anthology cultural and social hierarchies (see Thornton, Fandom edited by Gray et al. (2007), Jenkins 1995; Harris and Alexander, 1998; Jancovich, argues we should avoid celebrating a process 2002; Jancovich et al., 2003). that commodifies fan cultural production and For Gray et al. (2007), the chief shortcom- sells it back to us, but we must also acknowl- ing of early fan studies is not its celebratory edge new trends that make companies more tone, although there is some of that, but its responsive to committed consumers and that tendency to exclude from systematic study the extend the influence fans exert over the media most common or typical exemplar of fandom – to wider publics (2007, p. 362). We are wit- the person who loves a show, watches it reli- nessing a new kind of cultural power, he says, giously and talks about it enthusiastically, but ‘as fans bond together within larger knowl- does not otherwise engage in fan activities. In edge communities, pool their information, other words, there is a bias toward organized, shape each other’s opinions, and develop a active, highly-visible groups or subcultures greater self-consciousness about their shared (for an important exception, see Harrington agendas and common interests’ (p. 363). and Bielby, 1995). Subsequent studies began Likening these new knowledge communities to to right this imbalance, situating organized ‘collective bargaining units for consumers’, he fandom on a continuum from regular viewing speculates that ‘as fandom becomes part of the to amateur content-production and widening normal way the creative industries operate,

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 349 11/13/2014 5:40:45 PM 350 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

then fandom may cease to function as a mean- watching, in terms of the meanings television/ ingful category of analysis’ (p. 364). video texts convey, given the varied and multiple modes of engagement. For explor- ing the how question, Lotz (2009) sees three developments as key: (1) the emergence of Conclusion ‘on demand’ technologies, which represent a fundamental break from the programming The new media environment, characterized schedules of the network era; (2) the existence by digitalization, convergence, choice, inter- of extradomestic viewing contexts, which activity, intertextuality and extraterritoriality, free programming from the TV set in the living presents both opportunities and challenges room; and (3) the increasingly individualized for the study of television and television audi- organization of the medium’s use – made ences. As Livingstone (2004) aptly notes, it possible largely by digitization and cross- turns out that the ‘television’ of media theory platform delivery. The why and what ques- was a temporary, particularistic phenomenon tions are proving more difficult to study in and not a timeless, universal one; scholars a qualitative manner. Simply tracking the pro- have mostly attended to mass-broadcast, grams or genres people watch, or monitoring non-interactive television along with the discrete, user actions such as clicking, link- sit-on-the-couch domestic audience. Today, in ing, liking or favoriting do not tell us much the post-network era, television is present in about interpretive processes at work or how multiple locations and on multiple platforms the very meaning of television/video texts not only in the home but in all manner of might hinge on their context of use. More public and private spaces; it is used not only for promising are online spaces that encourage entertainment/leisure but for surveillance and viewer commentary, response and discussion social control; it allows people to watch their because such spaces potentially tell us some- favorite shows but also shop, bank, vote, and thing about what some viewers think, even shift programming to the internet; people not as the form of communication shapes its only receive television via cable, satellite and expression. User actions from ‘liking’ to the internet, they carry it around on cell phones, ‘commenting’ do indicate activity – and tablets and personal video recorders (PDVs) – interactivity, of a sort – but within frame- breathing new life into Raymond Williams’ works established by the classificatory sys- characterization of viewing as a form of tems being deployed. As Jean Burgess and ‘mobile privatization’ (Williams, 1974) and Joshua Green (2009) note in their analysis prompting Grindstaff and Turow (2006) to of YouTube (without doubt one of the key prefer the term ‘video cultures’ to ‘television’. new-media sites for watching TV/video), the The economic, industrial and technological different ways of measuring the popularity of changes in the production and distribution videos posted on YouTube – ‘most viewed’, of television are more easily documented ‘most responded’, ‘most discussed’, ‘most and better understood than are commensu- favorited’ – constitute different versions of rate changes in reception and use. To quote what YouTube is, and what it is for. Spigel (2004: 6), ‘as images multiply on a Lotz (2009) reminds us that the extrado- variety of delivery systems and platforms, mestic and individualized use of TV has not who knows what audiences are seeing – much entirely replaced older modes of viewing, less thinking – any more’. The challenge for rather old and new coexist. Moreover, even audience studies of television is understanding within the new-media environment, there is how people are engaging with video cultures a blend of old and new content. Burgess and (contexts, patterns and practices of reception), Green (2009) call attention to the existence of why people watch/use/interact with these cul- ‘two YouTubes’ – the YouTube consisting of tures (to what purposes), and what people are user-generated content (garage-band music

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 350 11/13/2014 5:40:46 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 351

videos, home movies, fan-generated mash-ups does, however, push back against the tendency of favorite programs and characters, vlogs to valorize new media only for its productive and user-generated news and information) capacity. Burgess and Green (2011) as well as and the YouTube consisting of traditional Jenkins et al. (2013) caution against recreating media content (clips and occasionally whole a hierarchy in which production is the ultimate episodes from news and entertainment pro- goal and consumption its poor relation. In the gramming, trailers for television shows and words of Burgess and Green (2011, p. 82), Hollywood films, advertisements, sporting ‘continuing to value only those who produce events, etc.). In reality, the two versions co- replicates the politics of the previous system. exist and collide (not always harmoniously, It’s important to consider the possibility that as lawsuits over copyright indicate), but the forms of participation requiring original con- larger point is that Web 2.0 applications and tent creation are potentially less inclusive than digital platforms for ‘television’ are not free forms of participation that combine a range of from commercial pressures and industrial modes of engagement’. That being said, how- participation and indeed represent new oppor- ever one counts participation, there is still the tunities for industrial colonization. Although problem of what Jenkins et al. (2013) call ‘the user-generated­ content exceeded traditional- participation gap’. In describing our culture as media generated content on YouTube by a becoming more participatory over time, we’re slight margin at the time when Burgess and speaking in relative and not absolute terms, Green conducted their research in 2006–2007, they remind us. Even if we value, in the spirit the overall trend since then, predictably, is of de Certeau, consumption as part of and toward commercial use (see Kim, 2012). At not separate from production, we do not live the same time, the patterns of use revealed in a society where communicative capacity is by the popularity measures on YouTube sug- equally distributed. ‘Insofar as the [capacity] gest important differences in viewer/user to meaningfully participate … [is] linked to engagement. Whereas the ‘most viewed’ educational and economic opportunities, then category was dominated by traditional-­ the struggle over the right to participation media content, the ‘most responded’ and is linked to core issues of social justice and ‘most-discussed’ categories were dominated equality’ (Jenkins et al., 2013, p. 194). This by user-generated content, indicating that seems to me the underlying issue at stake in although viewers are certainly watching any consideration of how and why people ‘television’ on YouTube, they are also using consume television, whether the ‘television’ the site to view, respond to and discuss under consideration is old or new, broadcast or other content that is not commercially – or narrowcast, fragmented or unified, celebrated industrially – generated (Burgess and Green, or condemned. Media consumption differs 2009). And since responding and comment- from the consumption of other goods and ing are themselves forms of content produc- services precisely because media texts are sym- tion, it’s fair to say user-generated content bol systems that connect interior and exterior begets more user-generated content at higher worlds, and as such they enable and constrain rates than does traditional-media content. In the production and circulation of meaning, and other words, users appear more interested in even our very imaginations. and willing to engage in a participatory and producerly way with other users, as would be predicted by fan studies. References This blurring of production and use/­ consumption, what Axel Bruns (2008) calls Abercrombie, N. and Longhurst, B. (1998). ‘produsage’, is characteristic of the new media Audiences: A sociological theory of perfor- era, although its prevalence can be over-stated. mance and imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Acknowledging the importance of the blurring Sage.

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 351 11/13/2014 5:40:46 PM 352 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

Adden, R.C. (1999). Popular stories and promised Brown, M.E. (1994). Soap opera and women’s lands: Fan cultures and symbolic pilgrimages. talk: The pleasure of resistance. Newbury Park, Tuscaloosa AL: University of Alabama Press. CA: Sage. Adorno, T. (1957). Television and the patterns of Browne, N. (1984). The political economy of mass culture. In B. Rosenberg and D.M. White the television (super) text. Quarterly Review (Eds) Mass culture: The popular arts in America of Film Studies 9(3): 174–182. (pp. 474–88). New York: Free Press. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life Allen, R. (1987). Channels of discourse: and beyond: From production to produsage. Television and contemporary criticism. Chapel New York: Peter Lang. Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Buckingham, D. (1993). Children talking televi- Allor, M. (1988). Relocating the site of the sion: The making of television literacy. London: audience. Critical Studies in Mass Falmer. Communication 5: 217–233. Burgess, J. and Green, J. (2009). YouTube: Andrejevic, M. (2004). Reality TV: The work of Online video and participatory culture. being watched. New York/Toronto/Oxford: Cambridge: Polity Press. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Caldwell, J. (1995). Televisuality: Style, crisis, Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and authority in American television. New and the melodramatic imagination. London: Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Methuen. Caldwell, J. (2004). Convergence television: Ang, I. (1991). Desperately Seeking the Aggregating form and repurposing content in Audience. London: Routledge. the culture of conglomeration. In L. Spigel and Ang, I. (1996). Living room wars: Rethinking J. Olsson (Eds) Television after TV: Essays on a media audiences for a postmodern world. medium in transition (pp. 41–74). Durham, London/New York: Routledge. NC: Duke University Press. Bacon-Smith, C. (1992). Enterprising women: Cantor, M. (1980). Audience control. In H. Television fandom and the creation of popular Newcomb (Ed.) Television: The critical view, myth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 4th edition (pp. 361–381). New York: Oxford Press. University Press. Barker, M. and Brooks, K. (1998). Knowing Caraway, B. (2011). Audience labor in the new audiences: Judge Dredd, its friends, fans, and media environment: A Marxian revisiting of foes. Luton, UK: University of Luton Press. the audience commodity. Media, Culture & Baudrillard, J. (1983). In the shadow of the Society 33(5): 693–708. silent majorities. New York: Semiotext(e). D’Acci, J. (1994). Defining women: Television Bird, E. (2003). The audience in everyday life: and the case of Cagney and Lacey. Chapel Living in a media world. New York: Routledge. Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Block, A.B. (2013). Nielsen agrees to expand Dayan, D. (2001). The peculiar public of definition of TV viewing. The Hollywood television. Media, Culture & Society 23: Reporter. www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ 743–765. nielsen-agrees-expand-definition-tv-422795 De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of every- (posted 2/20/2013). day life. Berkeley: University of California Boddy, W. (2004). Interactive television and Press. advertising form in contemporary US televi- Ellis, J. (1982). Visible fictions: Cinema, televi- sion. In L. Spigel and J. Olsson (Eds) Television sion, video. London: Routledge. after TV: Essays on a medium in transition Evans, E. (2011). Transmedia television: (pp. 113–132). Durham, NC: Duke University Audiences, new media, and daily life. New Press. York/Abingdon: Routledge. Bogart, Leo (1956). The age of television. New Fisherkeller, J. (2002). Growing up with televi- York: Ungar. sion: Everyday learning among young adoles- Briggs, M. (2010). Television, audiences, and eve- cents. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ryday life. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London/New Brooker, W. (2002). Using the force: Creativity, York: Routledge. community, and Star Wars fans. New York: Fiske, J. (1989). Reading the popular. London: Continuum. Unwin Hyman.

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 352 11/13/2014 5:40:46 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 353

Fiske, J. (1992). Audiencing: A cultural studies Hills, M. (2002). Fan cultures. London/New approach to watching television. Poetics 21: York: Routledge. 345–359. Hinckley, D. (2012). Americans spend 34 hours a Gauntlett, D. and Hill, A. (1999). TV living: week watching TV, according to Nielsen num- Television, culture, and everyday life. London/ bers. New York Daily News (Sept. 19). www. New York: Routledge. nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/ Gertner, J. (2005). Our ratings, ourselves. New americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv- York Times Magazine (April 10): 34–41. nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285 Gillespie, M. (1995). Television, ethnicity, and Hobson, D. (1982). Crossroads: The drama of a cultural change. London: Routledge. soap opera. London: Methuen. Gitlin, T. (1979). Prime-time ideology: The Jancovich, M. (2002). Cult fictions: Cult movies, hegemonic process in television entertain- subcultural capital, and the production of ment. Social Problems 26 (February): 251–266. cultural distinction. Cultural Studies 16(2): Gorton, K. (2009). Media audiences: Television, 306–322. meaning, and emotion. Edinburgh: Jancovich M., Reboll A.L., Stringer, J. and Willis, Edinburgh University Press. A. (Eds.) (2003). Defining cult movies: The Gray, A. (1992). Video playtime: The gendering cultural politics of oppositional taste. of a leisure technology. London/New York: Manchester, UK: Manchester University Routledge. Press. Gray, J., Sandvoss, C. and Harrington, C.L. Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television (Eds) (2007). Fandom: Identities and com- fans and participatory culture. London/New munities in a mediated world. New York/ York: Routledge. London: New York University Press. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Grindstaff L. (2002). The money shot: Trash, Where old and new media collide. New class, and the making of TV talk shows. York: New York University Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jenkins, H. (2007). Afterword: The future of Grindstaff, L. and Turow, J. (2006). Video cultures: fandom. In J. Gray, C. Sandvoss, and C.L. Television sociology in the ‘new TV’ age. Annual Harrington (Eds.) Fandom: Identities and com- Review of Sociology 32: 103–125. munities in a mediated world (pp. 357–364). Gripsrud, J. (1995). The Dynasty years: New York/London: New York University Press. Hollywood television and critical media stud- Jenkins, H., Ford, S. and Green, J. (2013). ies. London: Comedia. Spreadable media: Creating value and mean- Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, ing in a networked culture. New York/ D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis (Eds) London: New York University Press. Culture, Media, Language (pp. 128–139). Jensen, J. (1992). Fandom as pathology: The London: Hutchinson. consequences of characterization. In L. Lewis Halloran, J.D. (1970). The effects of television. (Ed.) The adoring audience: Fan culture and New York: HarperCollins. popular media. New York: Routledge. Harrington, L. and Bielby, D. (1995). Soap fans: Jhally, S. and Lewis, J. (1992). Enlightened Pursuing pleasures and making meaning in racism: The Cosby Show, audiences, and the everyday life. Philadelphia: Temple University myth of the American dream. Boulder, CO: Press. Westview. Harris C. and Alexander, A. (Eds.) (1998). Jhally, S. and Livant, B. (1986). Watching as Theorizing fandom: Fans, subculture, and working: The valorization of audience con- identity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. sciousness. Journal of Communication 36: Hartley J. (1999). The uses of television. 124–143. London/New York: Routledge. Juluri, V. (2003). Becoming a global audience: Hay, J., Grossberg, L. and Wartella, E. (Eds.) Longing and belonging in Indian music tele- (1996). The audience and its landscape. vision. New York: Peter Lang. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kaplan, E.A. (Ed.) (1983). Regarding television. Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV: Audiences and popu- Los Angeles: American Film Institute. lar factual television. London/New York: Kellner, D. (1981). Network television and Routledge. American society: Introduction to a critical

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 353 11/13/2014 5:40:46 PM 354 The SAGE Handbook of Television Studies

theory of television. Theory and Society 10(1): Moores, S. (1993). Interpreting audiences: The 31–62. ethnography of media consumption. Kim, J. (2012). The institutionalization of London: Sage. YouTube: From user-generated content to Morley, D. (1980). The ‘Nationwide’ audience: professionally generated content. Media Structure and decoding. London: British Film Culture & Society 34(1): 53–67. Institute. Lembo, R. (2000). Thinking through television. Morley, D. (1986). Family television. London: Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Comedia. Lewis, L. (Ed.) (1992). The adoring audience: Morley, D. (1992). Television, audiences, and Fan culture and popular media. New York: cultural studies. New York: Routledge. Routledge. Morley, D. and Silverstone, R. (1990). Domestic Liebes, T. and Katz, E. (1990). The export of communications: Technologies and meanings. meaning: Cross-cultural readings of ‘Dallas’. Media Culture, & Society 12(1): 31–55. New York: Oxford University Press. Napoli, P. (2010). Revisiting ‘mass communica- Livingstone, S. (1990). Making sense of televi- tion’ and the ‘work’ of the audience in the sion. London: Pergamon. new media environment. Media, Culture & Livingstone, S. (2004). The challenge of chang- Society 32(3): 505–516. ing audiences: Or, what is the audience Newcomb, H. (1974). TV: The most popular researcher to do in the age of the internet? art. New York: Anchor Press. European Journal of Communication 19(1): Newcomb, H. (Ed.) (2000). Television: The criti- 75–86. cal view. New York: Oxford University Press Livingstone, S. and Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on tel- (6th edition). evision: Audience participation and public Newcomb, H. and Hirsch, P. (1983). Television debate. London/New York: Routledge. as cultural forum: Implications for research. Lotz, A. (2000). Assessing qualitative audience Quarterly Review of Film Studies 8(2): 45–55. research: Incorporating feminist and anthropo- Ouellette, L. and Hay, J. (2008). Better living logical theoretical innovation. Communication through reality TV: Television and post-welfare Theory 10(4): 447–467. citizenship. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Lotz, A. (2009). What is US television now? Palmer, G. (1986). The lively audience: A study Annals of the American Academy of Political of children around the TV set. Sydney: Allen and Social Science 625 (September): 49–59. & Unwin. Lull, J. (1990). Inside family viewing: Ethnographic Parks, L. (2004). Flexible microcasting: Gender, research on television audiences. London: generation and television-internet conver- Routledge. gence. In L. Spigel and J. Olsson (Eds.) Manga, J. (2003). Talking trash: The cultural Television after TV: Essays on a medium in politics of daytime TV talk shows. New York: transition (pp. 133–156). Durham, NC: Duke New York University Press. University Press. Mayer, V. (2003). Producing dreams, consum- Penley, C. (1997). NASA/TREK: Popular science ing youth: Mexican Americans and mass and sex in America. London: Verso. media. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, A. (1991). Women watching television: Press. Gender, class, and generation in the American McCarthy, A. (2001). Ambient television. television experience. Philadelphia: University Durham, NC: Duke University Press. of Pennsylvania Press. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, The extensions of man. New York: McGraw- patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill, Hill. NC: University of North Carolina Press. Meehan, E. (1990). Why we don’t count: The Radway, J. (1988). Reception study: commodity audience. In P. Mellencamp (Ed.) Ethnography and the problems of dispersed Logics of television (pp. 117–137). Indiana audiences and nomadic subjects. Cultural and Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Studies 2(3): 359–376. Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The Sandvoss, C. (2003). A game of two halves: impact of electronic media on social behavior. Television, football, and globalization. New New York: Oxford University Press. York: Routledge.

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 354 11/13/2014 5:40:46 PM FROM THE NETWORKS TO NEW MEDIA 355

Sandvoss, C. (2005). Fans: The mirror of con- Thornton, S. (1995). Club cultures. Cambridge sumption. Malden, MA: Polity. UK: Polity. Seiter, E. (1990). Making distinctions in TV Tuchman, G. (Ed.) (1974). The TV establishment. audience research: the case of troubling Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. interview. Cultural Studies 4 (1): 61–84. Tulloch, J. (2000). Watching television audiences: Seiter, E. (1999). Television and new media Cultural theories and methods. London: audiences. New York: Oxford University Press. Arnold. Seiter, E., Borchers, H., Kreutzner, G. and Warth, Tulloch, J. and Jenkins, H. (1995). Science fiction E.M. (Eds.) (2013). Remote control: Television, audiences: Watching ‘Dr. Who’ and ‘Star audiences, and cultural power (3rd edition). Trek’. London/New York: Routledge. London/New York: Routledge. Turow J. (2005). Audience construction and Sender, K. (2012). The makeover: Reality televi- culture production: marketing surveillance in sion and reflexive audiences. New York/ the digital age. The Annals of the American London: New York University Press. Academy of Political and Social Science Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to 597:103–21. reality television: Performance, audience, Uricchio, W. (2004). Television’s next genera- and value. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. tion. In L. Spigel and J. Olsson (Eds) Television Smythe, D. (1977). Communications: Blindspot after TV: Essays on a medium in transition of Western Marxism. Canadian Journal of (pp. 163–182). Durham, NC: Duke University Political and Social Theory 2(2): 120–129. Press. Spigel, L. (1992). Introduction. In R. Williams, Williams, R. (1974). Television: Technology and Television: Technology and cultural form. cultural form. London: Wesleyan University Hanover and London: Wesleyan University Press. Press [first published 1974]. Wood, H. (2007). Television is happening: Spigel, L. and Olsson, J. (Eds.) (2004). Television Methodological considerations for capturing After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. digital television reception. European Journal Durham, NC: Duke University Press. of Cultural Studies 10(4): 485–506. Thomas, L. (2002). Fans, feminism, and ‘quality’ media. New York: Routledge.

BK-SAGE-ALVARADO_ETAL-140444.indb 355 11/13/2014 5:40:46 PM