Over the past decade, the Internet has become increasingly more popular. It seems like every year, a new social networking website explodes out of nowhere. First, we had Myspace, then Facebook and now Twitter. On Twitter, users can update their status to tell their friends what they are doing at the moment. During the 2010 Winter Olympics, users could “tweet” as they watched the games and could discuss what was going on in the games. If fans on the east coast can tweet what is going on during the Olympics, will it ruin it for fans on the west coast? Will the fans on the west coast still watch the games even when they know what is happening?
According to this article, “Water-Cooler Effect: Internet Can Be TV’s Friend,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/media/24cooler.html?ref=television) the Internet actually can be more helpful than harmful to Olympic viewership. In fact, ratings for the Olympics were up this year, possibly because of websites like Twitter. The article also refers to the incident at the 2009 Video Music Awards where Kanye West rudely interrupted Taylor Swift. The show had the highest amount of viewers than it has in six years. The increased ratings in these already popular television programs suggests that using social media websites while watching television can actually make viewers more interested. Although they know what is going to happen, some viewers will still tune in because they want to actually see it happen. Social media websites like Twitter and Facebook allow people to have online water-cooler conversations. Do you think social media websites are positively affecting viewership? Are you more likely to watch a program if it is talked about, or do you only watch if you had an interest in it in the first place? Does it take away from the excitement if you know what is going to happen, or does it make it more thrilling to expect it?
In describing the five elements of the uses-and-gratifications model, Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch say that “in the current media environment, old media increasingly compete for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, or efficiently” (Baran and Davis 240). Do you think new media could eventually wipe out old media? Could old and new media form a friendship, as the article suggests?
The increasing popularity of social media websites help audiences be more active. Rather than discussing a new episode of a TV show or the latest current event at the water-cooler at work, we are now able to make small talk online instantly after we see or hear something. In “Utilization of Mass Communication By the Individual,” Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch suggest that “mass communication is used by individuals to connect themselves – via instrumental, affective, or integrative relations – with different kinds of others” (166). Social media websites such as Twitter help people connect instantly, while television offers more of an implied connection. On social media websites, you can actually interact with other individuals rather than just feeling a sense of connection to others who are viewing the same media content. You can share your opinion and interact with those who have similar or opposite views. You do not have to wait until the next day because you can discuss the topic immediately. Do you think this instant connection can be beneficial or harmful to audiences? As far as water-cooler discussions, if we discuss everything online immediately, will there be difficulty making conversation in person the next day?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Herzog coined the term “uses-and-gratification” to better understand why we choose to include certain media in our lives and not to include others. As he defines it, this approach focuses “on the uses to which people put media and the gratifications they seek from those uses” [Baran & Davis 232]. In other words, people decide to watch a particular show/event because it provides them with some sort of psychological satisfaction. Jay G. Blumler claimed that we intentionally choose these programs—there was prior motivation [Blumler 239]. I know I personally am not motivated to watch a program because someone ‘tweeted’ about it. However, that does not mean my interest is not peaked by it, especially when it comes to real-life events like the Olympics or award ceremonies. For instance, I did not watch the 2009 Video Music Awards where Taylor Swift’s speech was interrupted by Kanye West. It was through numerous Facebook statuses that I found out about it. The next day, as I flipped through the channels and the Music Awards were being replayed, I tuned in just to see that one incident. Like Sarah stated in her blog, “increased ratings in these already popular television programs suggests that using social media websites while watching television can actually make viewers more interested” [Squires]. However, the decision to continue watching a television show after the first episode is dependent on me, not on Facebook or online forums. Once I am hooked, it is then that I believe social networking sites have a positive impact on ratings/viewership.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the people who utilize social networking sites do it to feel connected to anyone else who shares a similar interest. As Nordenstreng stated “the basic motivation for media use is just an unarticulated need for social contact” [Nordenstreng qtd in Katz, Blumler & Gurevitsh 166]. I believe this idea is not only linked to television, but these social networking sites [Television Without Pity comes to mind]. You are really able to connect with people who enjoy the same shows or just want to vent about a program. LOST is a perfect example—it is better to know a whole group of individuals are just as confused as you are when it comes to the plot line. Like Brian Stelter’s article asserted, “recent studies of online social networks have affirmed what researchers have long recognized: people seek to be around and be influenced by like-minded individuals” [Stelter]. Those who participate in these forums will probably have a longer interest in whatever show they watch simply because they have this “human contact” to look forward to after the program is over. I am an avid LOST viewer so I am online moments after the show finishes reading up on other people’s opinions or theories. So this “instant connection” is incredibly important in my opinion—especially in a time where immediate communication and instantaneous feedback is what everyone craves.
Michelle Kokot
Television and the Internet are always going to be connected. I do not think that in these days you can have one with out the other. I do think it is kind of crazy that there are people who have to immediately post something they have just seen on their twitter or facebook. People need to discuss things they've seen or experienced. It's human nature. With the internet, specifically facebook and twitter, people can do that easily and more efficiently. With the example of the Olympics, you can talk to people that are miles and miles away in the blink of an eye. As for revealing information of Olympic results, that wouldn't really change too much for those who haven't seen it yet. You wouldn't know exactly what happened just by hearing who won. You would have to visually see it to know, and experience the amazement yourself. I know that if I hear someone talk about how great or how not so great something is, that I will want to still see it if it sounds interesting enough to me.
ReplyDeleteWith Herzog's uses and gratifications approach, "his point was that people weigh the level of reward (gratification) they expect from a given medium or message against how much effort they must make to secure that reward" [Baran & Davis 232]. If a person wants to see, hear, or read something, they will do that by any method of their choice that will be most successful and satisfying. Most likely that medium used would be the internet because it is easily accessible and it has many options to offer. Because of sites such as facebook and twitter, people can find out any information they want with little to no effort at all.
Because of all the options people have now, the old and new media have to co exist together. "Each medium seems to offer a unique combination of (a) characteristic contents, (b) typical attributes, and (c) typical exposure [Katz, Blumler & Gurevitsh 167]. People will use the mediums that they desire because of the differences between them. While the internet can show you what is seen on television, not everything is available on both. It seems that for now there will always be a need for both and people will always use both.
I think that because of this instant connection made easy by the internet, you can connect to people faster. I think that is all it does. It doesn't make it impossible to hold a conversation (even on the same topic) in person. There are elements of being in person that the internet can't replace. Unless that is there soon comes a social network site that includes live chat with webcams while you post information to other peoples pages and add links and any other aspect of facebook and twitter. Until that site is created, you can't compare posting information online to having a conversation with someone where you can hear the tone of their voice, see their gestures and facial expressions, and feel their energy. The new media is simply growing and becoming a part of our lives, not replacing them.
All forms of media have a connection and feed off of one another. Sarah brings up a good point that in many cases this connection can be mutually beneficially. Although not all old forms of media can compete as well as the newer forms, such as the Internet and social networking sites, they are still available to offer information. “When students enter college, some forms of media use tend to sharply decline because these media don’t compete as well for their time and attention” (Baran and Davis 240). This is an easy way to look at the current intake of media. When I was home I received a daily newspaper, here at college I get The Chronicle once a week. I tend to look online to find news because the Internet competes for my attention by having the fastest updated information. With these new social networks, especially Twitter, news is spread instantaneously. While it could be looked at as "ruining" the surprise for some, it none-the-less has led to increased viewership, especially when taking the 2010 Winter Olympics. Most information is offered to the public live, however with the Olympics, most was pre-recorded. The outcome of these events was available on many sites, therefore Twitter was not alone.
ReplyDeleteSarah brings up that social networking sites offer a place for fans to openly communicate and have a "water cooler" conversation. Instant connection is not harmful, it offers many people a place in an assumed online community. Another aspect of this could be the fact that the media has found new ways to become part of our daily lives. “Would we care as much about sports if they weren’t constantly being promoted by media” (Baran and Davis 242)? The Olympics have been promoted on every form of media, old and new. It makes complete sense that the viewership of the Olympics would increase due to the constant coverage. Twitter has become as easy as a text message, which has allowed the media complete access to our lives, because when is the last time you left your cell phone home? Old and new forms of media coincide to please society as a whole. While us as college students might understand the efficiency of an online newspaper, there are many people in society who have grown up depending on a an actual newspaper. Perhaps eventually old forms of media will become obsolete, but for now they are in society and play a role in the media circus.
Kelsey Lain
In her article, Sarah discusses how the Internet improves television ratings via some empirical example. I agree that online chatter of television events can definitely drum up interest and ratings, however, in my opinion, the Internet is actually killing television as we know it.
ReplyDeleteOnline viewing of shows and entertainment viewing is killing television. Why would an individual watch programs at a set time on TV when he or she can watch the same program online, at one’s convenience, with a third of the commercials? Baran and Davis discuss in the readings the idea of fraction of selection, in which individuals make their media choices by weighing the expectation of reward against the effort required (Baran and Davis 232). The theory fits perfectly here, as the reward of watching something on TV or online is the same, the program does not change. However, it requires a lot less effort to view a program online, in which convenience is in the hands of the viewer, than it does on television, where the user must set aside time and put away other things they are doing to view a show.
As a constant consumer of media, I, like my roommates, watch a plethora of shows, such as Family Guy, Bones, Criminal Minds, Two and a Half Men, and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My roommates and I often socialize by watching reruns of these shows on television all the time. Although when new episodes premiere, we are often in class, doing work, or simply not around, thus, we watch them later online, on our own time. Celia Von Feilitzen writes in McQuail’s reader that when choosing between mediums, people often consider questions such as, “Is it possible to do something else whilst using this medium? Can the medium be used at any time, or only during defined periods? Can the medium be used anywhere, or only in a special environment?” (McQuail 360). The Internet seems to answer each of these questions better than television. TV programs can be viewed online at any time, not just during a designated period chosen by a network. Shows can be watched online anywhere, in the living room, bedroom, basement, even bathroom if one so chooses. To watch a program on the TV, however, one must have access to an actual TV. Good luck getting that into a bathroom. That’s why recent trends are showing websites such as Hulu, IMDB, and TV Now taking revenue from network shows advertising dollars.
One point that many critics of the Internet as a medium bring up is the screen size. They argue that television sets offer higher quality, larger, better pictures than computer screens. This may be true, however, Intel recently came out with new technology that allows the owner to hook the computer up to other electronic devices, such as an IPOD or television, so that online content can be viewed on other screens. Therefore, if you missed the last episode of Criminal Minds and want to catch up on an HD screen, you can download it to your computer, hook it up to the television, and watch it in high quality. If someone wants to re-watch their favorite Family Guy on the train, all they have to do is download it online, put it on their IPOD, Blackberry, or other electronic device, and they are all set
Thus, I think television today is in a major crisis. While the Internet can create a buzz to increase ratings on television, the real ratings have a future at the source, online.
I think Sarah brings up an excellent point in her blog. I personally believe that the Internet is extremely helpful for television, and can have a great positive effect on viewership. There are many shows that I currently watch that I would not have started watching were it not for the buzz I heard about on the Internet. I am somewhat new to Twitter—it took me a while to jump on that bandwagon—but now that I am on it, I truly think that Twitter and television (i.e. new media and old media) go hand-in-hand. There has been many times where I will notice that a show or something related to TV has entered the worldwide trending topics, and it will pique my interest, so I will try and find it and tune in to see why it is so popular.
ReplyDeleteThis happened many times during the 2010 Winter Olympics. There are many incredible moments from the games that I would have missed had it not been for Twitter or Facebook. I think it is interesting that the New York Times article that Sarah linked to mentions Johnny Weir—my roommates and I turned on men’s figure skating because we saw that he was trending at the time and it quickly became our favorite event of the games. The same goes for the MTV Video Music Awards this year, and the infamous Taylor/Kanye moment. Like Michelle, I was not watching at the time, but when I saw my Facebook news feed explode with all of the hype about it, I immediately looked up when the awards would re-air so I could see it for myself.
Another great thing about Twitter is that it makes watching television both more active and interactive. Baran and Davis mention that in this era of computer-mediated mass communication, interactivity is a major characteristic noted by researchers of uses and gratifications—“Interactivity significantly strengthens the core [uses and gratifications] notion of active user” [Baran & Davis, 237]. A great example of this that I have noticed can be seen with the new MTV reality show The Buried Life, which follows four young guys who are trying to cross items off their list of 100 things they want to do before they die. The guys on the show are very active on their Twitter, and every week while the show is airing, they ask their “followers” to see how quickly they can get “The Buried Life” as a worldwide trending topic. It has happened every week since they began this “contest”, even getting as high as the #3 trending topic worldwide. This means that there are thousands and thousands of people watching the show and tweeting at the same time, all working towards a common goal—what can be more interactive than that? This is also a great representation of one of the typologies of audience gratifications that Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch mention in their article, which is that mass communication can function as a builder of “personal relationships (including substitute companionship as well as social utility)” [166]. While the show is airing, a viewer is able to interact with the stars of the show, as well as other fans, which forms a sort of camaraderie over the Internet. In this way, I think that this type of instant connection is extremely beneficial to audiences.
I agree with most of the posters above, in that the Internet and television have become codependent; in fact, the Internet has greatly enhanced the television experience. Prior to fan pages and message boards, the only people with whom you could discuss a show were those in the room with you. Felitzen says in McQuail's reader that "Television's most important social functions are...that viewing has become a well-established habit, and that the programmes provide topics of conversation" (McQuail, 359). Television has always been a social activity, but the Internet provides an entire world of similar fans to discuss your particular show with. I have a favorite show that none of my friends watch, and it's pretty depressing when the episode ends and I have no one to discuss it with. Fan pages and message boards allow me to discuss theories and vent frustrations with others who care as much as I do.
ReplyDeleteBaran asks "Has the increasing availability of new media enabled us to make changes so that media might better serve us?" (Baran, 228). The answer, I think, is an obvious yes. True, the Internet could make television irrelevant - I know I'm on hulu and other more illegal websites all the time watching my favorite shows. But I also think people would miss the social experience of actually sitting in front of a set with other people, rather than sitting alone in front of a tiny screen. What the Internet does is enhance the experience of shows and give people more access than just the 30 minutes or one hour a week the television provides.
Media proliferation is apparent in the new media constantly emerging, as displayed through the mass mediated channel of the Internet. I think social media websites can have effects that can be positive and effects that can be negative. “Social situations can create an awareness of problems that demand attention, information about which might be sought in the media” (Baran & Davis, 241). On the one hand, they bring attention and awareness to news stories and global issues. On the other hand, they spread information to people who might not have wanted to hear them yet or increase attention to something who otherwise might not have been as big of a deal.
ReplyDeleteI think that although these new media outlets could affect viewership, it also depends on the program. “Thus mass media effects do not occur unless the individual himself chooses to use the mass media in a certain way” (Felitzen, 356) Media serves a variety of functions, but people will interpret them in their own ways, often for social purposes. For the Olympics, even if someone has heard about something that has happened I think they are likely to watch anyways. They will want to see what happened for themselves. However, if it’s American Idol results, what’s done is done and although they might still watch and will still talk about it, the excitement will probably gone and they could spend that time doing something else.
New media and old media will definitely face challenges as viewers and consumers are adapting to the changes. I don’t think old media will be completely gone, but I think some of it will be used a lot less, which will already be seen. I think that new media will continually develop and older generations will repeatedly turn to the old media, which they are accustomed to. As for the water-cooler discussions, I think this all depends on what is being discussed. Some news stories fade out by the end of the day while others last a while. If a news story is of enough interest, it won’t matter how long after it is revealed, it will continue to be discussed. Our generation is still adapting to new media, and I think there are many benefits as well as issues which it will pose in the future.
Felitzen states "Television's most important social functions are...that viewing has become a well-established habit, and that the programe's provide topics of conversation" (McQuail, 359). This is a true statement as television provides us with form of entertainment that can provide daily topic of conversation. However, The Internet has managed to become arguably the most powerful tool in history. It has become both essential and powerful in our daily lives. In Sarah’s blog, she offers some very solid points. I believe some social media websites such as twitter can definately influence people to watch a particular show. I think the critics example of Kanye West’ rant if perfect. I was not watching the VMA’s at the time. I happened to check my facebook and everything dealt with West and Taylor Swift. Even though, I already found out what he did through the Internet it didn’t stop me from tuning in.
ReplyDeleteI am personally more likely to watch a program if it is talked about. I really don’t watch many shows, due to the fact that I am an avid sports fan. I rather watch sports because it isn’t scripted, the outcome is unknown. However, I will tune in to certain shows due to the simple fact that a friend told me. My favorite shows are Lost and Dexter; if one were to tell me what they were about prior to viewing the shows I would of never watched it. However, due to all the buzz both shows had, I decided to tune in. I think the whole reason we watch a show is to see what is going to happen. If websites such as twitter spoil the ending of a show, what’s the reason for watching it? For live events that carry an unexpected out come the result may differ (Ex: Olympics, Award Shows).
Baran and Davis State, “old media increasingly compete for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, or efficiently” (Baran and Davis 240). I think due to the power of the Internet, new media could eventually wipe out old media. However I think they have no choice but to form a “friendship”. This “friendship” could take media to the next level. I think its inevitable to co –exist. Either intentionally or unintentionally the Internet helps TV ratings and viewership in a major way. As Sarah mentions we didn’t have to wait till the next day to talk about shows with our friends or colleagues. We can use the internet to spark conversation while viewing a show or after.
As far as the instant connection being beneficial or harmful to audiences is ultimately up to the viewer. Even though certain social media sites can make one watch a show or event, it can ultimately be harmful in my opinion. I watch shows for the outcome. If its spoiled for me what is the point of watching it? This possibly has to do with my old- school mentality, however I find it hard to conform to things such as twitter.
When I think of the internet I think of a cultural phenomenon. We as a society have become so dependent on technology that many of us even have a Smartphone so we don’t even have to leave the house without our computer, facebook notifications of e-mails. The idea that the internet is always with us is boggling to me. I don’t have a smart phone and am not a huge fan of growing fads or technologies. The reason I don’t want the internet on me at all times is because I believe our society has grown too dependent on technology. How many of us can travel a distance without a GPS? Do math problems WITHOUT a calculator? Or go 24 hours without checking Facebook? Technology has not only influenced our though process but it has also slowly taken over our lives and method of daily activities.
ReplyDeleteI am not a member of the Twitter community, so when I thought of the idea of twitter in relation to the 2010 winter Olympics I was able to view from an outside (non-addict!) stance. I think that Twitter could have been the reason for the increase in viewings. I am a loyal PerezHilton.com reader. Daily he has spoiler alerts and of course I can’t look away. Recently he posted the ending of Rob Pattinson’s new movie ‘remember me’ and I now CAN NOT wait to see it in theaters! I was planning on waiting till it came out on DVD but after the spoiler I am more inclined to view. The same circumstance could be true for the reporting and pre-spoilers of the Olympic Games. Any ‘tweet’ regarding an INCREDIBLE game or an ‘OMG’ moment is sure to catch a reader’s eye and intrigue them. It’s almost like FREE advertising.
McQuail discusses how ‘information about public affairs is of public interest and in the public interest.’ I completely agree. Since public affairs such as the Olympics are of interest to many, it is inevitable that it will stir up conversation. Whether it be face-to-face convos, a blogger making an entry or a 18 year old boy ‘Tweeting,’ information regarding public affairs has always been of interest and is now being discussed in new matters due to an increase of technology. ‘Communications diversity is in the public interest.’ (pg. 166-167)
“The initiative in linking need gratification to a specific media choice rests with the audience member.” (Baran & Davis 240) They go on to discuss how Uma Thurman didn’t MAKE us see Kill Bill, and Katie Couric cannot ‘compel’ us to be a news junkie. I found this idea interesting. Since the media choice is up to the audience member, they have the ability to view what they wish and (thanks to freedom of speech/press) write about however they feel. An interesting idea is that maybe an actor can’t compel a view to see a movie, but a popular blog could. Back to my earlier example, Rob Pattinson (who I love) didn’t compel me enough to see the movie Remember Me, but blogger Perez Hilton did.
Overall I think the internet is a vital tool in today’s society. I don't believe the internet is replacing television but rather acting as its support system. Even though I don’t agree with how dependent we have become on the use of technology. I believe that the internet and common social networks are vital for the success of other media outlets such as television and/or movies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what John said I agree with him 100 percent because the Internet is killing television as we speak. Going on the internet and finding something on Youtube or a different website makes it a lot easier for people to find information. In today’s society everyone wants to be one the first people to find out about any kind of news. Personally, I still do watch a lot of TV, but I am also always on my laptop going on websites. I am a huge sports fan so I want to know the score of a game right away and I don’t want to wait until the next sportscenter comes on late night. I do watch other shows on TV, such as, most of the Law and Orders and the CSIs. I could watch those shows online, but I prefer not to.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Sarah’s question, is the internet replacing television, I believe it is. I feel social networks are the main reason for the down fall of TV. Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter are the three main social networks there are today. Most people update their status every hour with a score from a basketball for example. This will lead me not to watch sportscenter for that score because I already know it from one of my friends. In one of the readings the authors explained that mass communication is used by individuals to connect themselves. I feel like most people are connecting themselves with their peers and interact that way, but most of the times some kind of media comes into play. They could be talking about sports or a highlight play and makes them not to hear about it again. Or they could be talking about someone’s profile picture on Facebook. There is a lot of things they could be talking about and this pulls them away from TV.
In the book Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch explain the idea of the five elements of the uses-and-gratifications model. They state “in the current media environment, old media increasingly compete for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, or efficiently” (Baran and Davis 240). This goes back to my idea about of going online to get a score of game. ESPN, which is where most people get the sports scores on TV, is on cable and it’s not free. Plus who knows when the score you want to see comes up in the hour long segment they show sportscenter.