The Production of Media

And its impact on Television

Broadcasting

Podcast – The Production of Media

A summary of the impact of the production of media on the television broadcast industry

For Podcast part 5: The Production Media click the corresponding link below

The Influence of the Production of Media

The discussion of television production is a palpably broad research area, therefore to succinctly and comprehensively analyse such an expansive field, Hesmondhalgh’s three “fundamental issues” (2005) were applied.

1. Organisation: What is the organisational process by which media entertainment comes to us?

2. Ownership, size and strategy: How important are the size and ownership of the entertainment corporations, and what is the role of smaller companies?

3. Work: What is the nature of work in the entertainment industries?

Interviews with ABC former television personality, David Morrow and Foreign Correspondent editor, Peter Cave, allowed for the acquirement of industry insight. Cave’s physical experience as an editor, having seen the “irreversible shift from the old, hard, analogue means of communication to ephemeral digital versions” (Birmingham, 2009, p. 32) encouraged the exploration of ‘Organisation’. During our site visit to the ABC studios, Cave demonstrated to us the cutting of film using the cumbersome machinery needed prior to the digital revolution. The time-consuming and fickle process is far removed from the easy computerised systems of today, where “Four Corners uses Final Cut Pro, the 7.30 Report uses Aurora and some just rough cut” (Cave, 2011). Cave says that ‘rough-cutting’ “is all about saving money” (2011) a worldwide, media production phenomena, due to the popularity of free content on the internet, and something employees fear. “The jobs - and sometimes the TV and radio shows that provided them – have simply vanished...even new-media success story, ninemsn.com shrank its workforce by 10%.” (Birmingham, 2009, p. 32).

             

The endlessly oscillating notion between the internet and older styles of media (newspapers, magazines and television) is tenuous and media giants worldwide are desperately attempting to “monetise a freebie” (Birmingham, 2009, p. 34), thus reflecting the importance of ‘Ownership, Size and Strategy”. Rupert Murdoch the most notable stating that “the digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge.” (Birmingham, 2009, p. 34). However, it is well-known that state-sponsored and highly regarded, free-to-air news suppliers, the ABC and the BBC, fiercely threaten the Murdoch media production empire. James Murdoch, Rupert’s senior heir, uses propaganda to state, “We seem to have decided as a society to let independence and plurality wither. To let the BBC throttle the news market...”(Birmingham, 2009, p. 35).

However, Australian production seems to be gaining force when being faced with the enormity of internet competition, “Masterchef demonstrates that network TV can still aggregate true mass markets...while HBO have proven that niche marketing of high-concept TV to a paying audience is both possible and profitable” (Birmingham, 2009, p. 35). Morrow reflects upon this using Chris Lilley, mastermind of popular television show, Summer Heights High, “he is someone the ABC is incredibly proud of; he’s just recently collaborated with HBO...”, Morrow determines that the impact of the American culture upon Australian television is finally something “we can make work to our advantage.” (Morrow, 2011)

In conclusion, the digital revolution has enormously impacted television production, it is changing the physical editing process and the process by which producers create programs and then market them. “TV did not destroy radio or cinema. It changed them. Youtube has not killed off the Nine Network, but BitTorrent will change it.” (Birmingham,

2009, p. 36)   

Interview Relating to Impact of the Production of Media

Do you think that large corporations and the government will lose their power over the television industry?

To what extent does the idea of ratings govern what you produce?

For the audio answer click the ‘Question 1’ link below

For the audio answer click the ‘Question 2’ link below

Annotated ReferencesAdorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. 1977, ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’ in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds.) Mass Media and Society, 4th edition, Hodder Arnold, London, pp. 349-383

This text is a part of a larger body of work, the ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’. This particular theory, about mass deception through culture, was a key text in Critical theory and a fundamental component in the Frankfurt School’s assertions against the Enlightenment. It participates in the theory that “cultural chaos” is prevalent everyday as “culture now impresses the same stamp on everything” and indicates that mass-produced culture is a threat to high arts and removes individual freedoms. Moreover, the authors state that the Culture Industry encourages false needs which are created and satiated by capitalism, a trend often referred to as consumerism today. It was particularly useful when revising media attitudes in the 20th Century.

Barker, C. 1999, Television, Globalisation and Cultural Identities, Open University Press, USA

This text examines the interdependence of television and cultural identity in a world contextualised by globalisation. It encompasses an expansive spectrum of issues, demonstrating the impact of television upon the creation of cultural identity, most notably in relation to, media, globalisation, gender, ethnicity, identity, language and cultural politics. It pertains to two key focal points, firstly that television is a resource for the creation of cultural identity, and secondly, that language, as used in television, is central to the continuous cycle of social construction. This text was particularly useful because of its contextualisation which demonstrated clear links between the production of television and the impact upon everyday life and how this ultimately influenced the construction of cultural identity.

Barker, D. 1984, ‘Television Production Techniques as Communication’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 234-246

The historical context of this scholarly article corresponds with the recent understanding in academic work that television programming can be regarded as a message system or a visual text. Stuart Hall famously formulated the encoding/decoding model which approaches television as a text. This article articulates that the majority of research is focused upon decoding and demonstrates that the process of encoding is absent from most scholarly work. Barker applies Hall’s work by demonstrating the important role of encoding in televisual discourse. He argues that any television narrative, or more specifically the production techniques used during creation, has a communicative ability to participate in the encoding process. Barker’s text offered a refreshing and comprehensive perspective on how to interpret a televisual text and analyse it accordingly.  Birmingham, J. 2009, ‘Mash Up’, The Monthly, October, pp. 30-36

John Birmingham’s article, ‘Mash Up: A Short History of the Media Future’ uses the media past, books and magazines, to distinguish and contrast the media future of Foxtel iQ, gaming consoles power-hungry screens, high speed connectivity and optical fibre. He emphasises the impact of media giant Rupert Murdoch upon the future of television, internet ‘pay walls’ and newspapers in general and queries how cheaply accessible news via the internet will impact the Murdoch empire. An emphatic focus is placed upon the collapse and disintegration of many well-established media businesses and indicates the clear loss of work in the industry. Birmingham’s text was especially relevant as it encouraged clear links between our group discoveries about the production of television, for example, the progression of editing, and how these physical elements of production affected the media giants and the overall media profession, most notably by eliminating the existence of jobs.

Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. 2001, The Business of Media, Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press

This text is an introduction to the business of media with a specific focus on the United States and a discussion of the relationship between the media and the public interest. Croteau and Hoynes propose that there is a “market” model for the media and a “public sphere” model. They endeavour to suggest that media today is dominated by the former, whereby the media bow to market pressure, at the expense of the public interest. Correspondingly, Croteau and Hoynes demonstrate that advertising revenue and corporate ownership leads to bigger budgets and bigger opportunities in the media, whilst questioning if media giant’s market segmentation and focus on niche markets will affect the idea of cultural common ground. This article was particularly useful in offering a documentation of the role of convergence, growth, globalisation, integration and concentration of ownership in media industries of recent times.

Dornfeld, B. 1998, Producing Public Television, Producing Public Culture, Princeton University Press, USA

Dornfeld’s study adopts an ethnographic approach to the production of a television show, whereby he investigates how the development of television affects its reception and how this process of production affects how the audience interprets the product. He recognises that both producers and the audience use television to construct an understanding of themselves and to identify with fellow participants. He acknowledges the overarching role of American culture in public television and argues that producers need to be acknowledged as consumers who perform their job imagining an audience.

Hesmondhalgh, D. 2005, ‘The Production of Media entertainment’ in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds.), Mass Media and Society, 4th edition, Hodder Arnold, London, pp. 153-171

Hesmondhalgh’s article divides media entertainment production into three fundamental issues; organisation, ownership, size and strategy and work. These three issues provided a clear structure through which we were able to comprehensively address the progression of television production in regards to the digital revolution. Hesmondhalgh’s focus on ‘work’ was critical to our study of television due to the declining jobs in the media profession as a result of indymedia and the internet in general, moreover, his analysis was particularly relevant to the findings we obtained through our interviews.

Murray, S. & Ouellette, L. 2009, Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, New York University Press, USA

Murray and Ouellette’s text addresses key issues involved in the production of reality television and how this is impacting both the media entertainment industry and the web 2.0 generation in general. They demonstrate to the audience the distance between ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ in reality television and attempt to describe the connection between naturalism and performance. Moreover, they emphasise the idea that ‘gamedoc’ shows, in which ‘contestants’ are competing, actually expose the audience to an exploitative environment whereby (unpaid) individuals are ‘judged’. However, it is the focus on interactivity and consumer generated content which demonstrates how technologies used in shows such as ‘Big Brother’, for example podcasting, has had an enormous impact upon other channels of communication.

Ursell, G. 2000, ‘Television Production: Issues of Exploitation, Commodification and Subjectivity in UK Television Labour Markets’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 805 – 825

This article was particularly insightful when analysing Hesmondhalghs’ issue of ‘work’ in the television industry. It emphasises that success when working in television involves an active process of commodification, extending beyond simple labour to the commodification of an individual’s personal life. This became particularly pertinent during our interview with David Morrow when he reflected upon the use of twitter accounts as a means of connecting television personalities and their audience. Moreover, Ursell recognised the industry as largely profit-seeking and competitive, and reflected upon how this impacts the final product.