Core Response #4: Digital Haptics and Obsolescence

Tara's essay for this week, written during the relative infancy of commercial Internet access, stimulated my interest in media and haptics and how computing in particular is able to harness a unique sense of immediacy to appeal to users looking for an "imagined space of possibility and change." [1] The third section of the essay in particular led me to wonder wonder which other manifestations of capital gatekeeping have arisen to stratify the digital wilderness in the thirteen years between the authoring of the essay and today. As I began to write this post from my seven-year-old Lenovo, which has been drifting to and from death's door for the better part of a month now, one of these manifestations became clear to me: the finance-driven world of personal computer technology and how the Internet experience differs for those who have varying degrees of access to it.

The United States Census Bureau reported that in 2013, 83.8 of respondent households owned a computer, and 74.4 of households had Internet access. [2] This one sentence should illustrate a rather alarming gap in and of itself - the Internet is essentially a utility at this point, and one in five American households don't have it. These statistics become even more shocking when income and race are taken into account: less than half of respondent households with an income of $25,000/year have Internet access, and approximately 60% of black and Hispanic households have Internet access. Those fortunate enough to afford these services must also consider Moore's Law, which states (here generalized) that computing capacities double every 18 months from what they were previously capable of, typically accompanied by an increase in price and an eventual need to upgrade as well. What becomes off-limits to households using outdated computers or slow Internet? Any site with advertisements becomes a nightmare to approach: users who don't use adblocking technologies find themselves bombarded with streaming video extolling bleach, and users who do quickly discover that the program hogs their already precious computing resources anyway. [3] The promise of volitional mobility is severely compromised when the "sense of directed movement through space" [4] is weighed down by cursor lag, screen freezes, memory leaks, and a wide array of other problems that an obsolete computer must contend with. Tech has become more and more intertwined with finance, a paradigm that we must remain constantly aware of if we intend to continue championing the Internet as a space for informational acquisition and personal transformation.

Works Cited

[1] McPherson, Tara. "Reload: Liveness, Mobility, and the Web." 

[2] United States Census Bureau. "Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013" <http://www.census.gov/history/pdf/2013computeruse.pdf>

[3] Anthony, Sebastian. "Iframe irony: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs." <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/182428-ironic-iframes-adblock-plus-is-probably-the-reason-firefox-and-chrome-are-such-memory-hogs>

[4] See [1]

CORE RESPONSE 5: Tracking Oxygen Media's Progress in Converging with the Internet

In her article “Flexible Microcasting: Gender, Generation, and Television-Internet Convergence,” Lisa Parks discusses Oxygen Media, the first “on air and online network for women, by women” at length (142). Parks says, “Oxygen’s plight to ‘superserve the needs and interests of women’ is certainly worth tracking in the years to come,” and I agree (148). Since I am not an avid Oxygen watcher, I had to research the company’s evolution since the early 2000s and found that in 2014, Oxygen Media promised a new interactive, cross-platform that would allow viewers to weigh in on the show while it’s airing live called “Play Live.” However, if you try to find it today, oxygen.com/playlive brings up a 404 error. The bright new future of female-centric media convergence seems to have not quite worked out as hoped. 

After the network was rebranded in 2014, none of its programs deal with making technology accessible to women, most likely because women’s ability to navigate the internet is now assumed. We now longer need Oprah to show us how to use technology.

It’s interesting that Parks considers women passive when “Oxygen is the No. 4 most social primetime cable reality network in 2014. And of the top 10 most social cable reality networks, Oxygen viewers have the largest number of followers.”

Despite its social media prowess, I would say that Netflix, not Oxygen, is the true convergence of TV and the internet and the very embodiment of “self programming.” Oxygen has been left behind, as it does not offer the viewer programming on demand with recommendations based on your carefully recorded viewing habits like Netflix does. In fact, you still need a cable TV provider to watch Oxygen shows on demand on their website. Oxygen engages with its audience through social media very successfully, but that’s where the convergence seems to end.

Now, Oxygen’s programming is mostly reality TV, but it has not lost its focus on women’s empowerment with new entrepreneur-themed shows announced in March of this year, such as “Time to Quit Your Day Job,” which will give new business women the chance to pitch themselves and their ideas to a panel of female investors. Another show, “The Hustle,” follows the daily struggles of young female assistants working for successful entrepreneurs.

In this way, I hope Oxygen Media continues to push for programming for women and continues to find success, even if it’s not exactly on the forefront of the convergence of internet and TV.

I agree with Parks that we “can’t afford to kill our televisions” (152) and “talk more about what we want to see” (153). What I want to see is more programming for women, by women. We also need to “care enough about television to fight over it, to realize that our creative potential might lay in it” (153). Oxygen Media seems to agree, and I wish them continued success as they push toward a convergent future. 

Duolingo and Klingon

Bringing us back earlier in the semester to Star Trek and Jenkins' article on Star Trek, especially his optimistic approach to the consumer-producer. The language learning app Duolingo is developing a set of courses for Klingon. The app also has a program called the Incubator where you can apply to help develop a variety of language courses.

 http://incubator.duolingo.com/

https://www.duolingo.com/course/tlh/en/Learn-Klingon-Online

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/04/09/qapla-duolingo-will-soon-teach-klingon-on-its-language-learning-platform/

Core Response 5: World's Funniest Fails

In “Flexible Microcasting: Gender, Generation, and Television-Internet Convergence,” Lisa Parks discusses the notion of “Television 2.0… which introduces the necessity of institutional reorganization and shifts in the format of programming as well” (Parks 134). As a means of adapting to this ‘reorganizing’ of television in an internet-crazed era, Parks offers the idea of “flexible microcasting,” which combines television and internet technologies to produce programming that is “carefully tailored to the viewer’s preferences, tastes, and desires” (Parks 135).

            Like the target of Who Wants to Be a Millionare?, television networks are once again attempting to pursue the mass audience through a revamping of familiar television platforms. At the start of the new year, Fox debuted World’s Funniest Fails. In a sense, this show may be viewed as a revamp of America’s Funniest Home Videos in that it showcases “epic fail” clips in front of a live audience. However, the platform has been modified to cater to today’s technology. Throughout World’s Funniest Fails, hosted by Terry Crews, a panel of comedians view and comment on each clip. As these comedians later choose their own favorite clip, and Crews is responsible for choosing the “Fail of the Week,” this show also attempts to tap into some sort of game element.

            Through its production, the show operates on the very notion of “flexible microcasting,” in that its basic formula relies on the blending of Internet content and televisual commentary. It was originally inspired by a YouTube channel, FailArmy, which is extremely interactive with viewer comments. Rather than accepting viewer submissions like America’s Funniest Home Videos, World’s Funniest Fails instead showcases viral videos, and thus relies on active Internet participation and viewership to structure each show. Therefore, this show “blends fantasies of private address and public participation”.  Part of the its interest stems from curiosity as viewers tune in to see and hear what their favorite comedian thinks about the same clip that overtook their newsfeed that week. Thus, although the show itself is not great – by any means – it offers an interesting perspective on how networks are still reliant on old platforms, such as the game show format, whilst attempting to relevantly operate in this postbroadcasting  era.

Core Response 5: The Gameshow and Gaming in the Post-broadcast Age by Damian Panton

     In “Flexible Microcasting” Lisa Parks highlights the use of interactive programming to encourage viewers of the post-broadcasting age to approach new digital mediums through televisual conventions rather than replacing television entirely. According to Parks, the revival of the gameshow was a successful attempt by networks to introduce computerization into an old medium that was largely accepted by mass audiences in the late 90s and early 2000s. Shows like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? set a precedent for capturing mass audiences of different demographics through the simple pleasure of allowing the average person a fantasy of wealth acquisition through personal achievement. Nearly ten years later, the popularity of the program inspired Microsoft to attempt a similar pairing of television and interactive programming in an attempt to bring families to their social gaming platform Xbox Live. The result was called 1 vs. 100, a massively multiplayer online game adapted from a program of the same name that aired internationally.

     1 vs. 100 was meant to be the foundation of what Microsoft called Xbox Live Primetime, a series of scheduled programs that pitted Xbox Live users against one another for real world rewards such as store currency or video games. When deciding which gameshow to pursue, Microsoft met with the producers of several different shows such as Survivor and American Idol before partnering with Endemol (makers of Big Brother, Deal or No Deal, and Wipeout) due to their program’s unique social elements that included active audience participation. On Xbox Live the show was split into two programs 1 vs. 100 Extended Play and 1 vs. 100 LIVE. During extended play, which ran throughout the week, players would compete as a mob of limitless size. The thirty minute “show” typically consisted of questions organized under a theme that changed each week. For example, week one of a season might be “Fanboy Week” wherein all questions dealt with tech, gadgets, comics, or anime. Week two might be “Lifestyle Week” during which many questions may be based off current headlines, pop culture, or were user generated. Extended play largely excused one from the typical gameshow constraints of accuracy and streaks in favor of encouraging participation each day. Those that earned the most points each week through extended play sessions would be chosen to participate in 1 vs. 100 LIVE for the chance to win store credit or videogames.

     The LIVE portion of the show tried to replicate the traditional television show as much as it could. Each episode was two hours long and aired every Tuesday and Friday for thirteen weeks. The host of the television program, Chris Cashman, reprised his role as the game’s live host in avatar form. Throughout the show would be thirty second “commercial breaks” for Sprint and Honda which each paid $1 million for the pleasure, and a guest interview portion where prominent members of the gaming industry would converse with Cashman as players checked their performance statistics. The players that were selected to compete were chosen based on the total amount of points they had accrued for the week during extended play, with “the one” having the most. Those that tuned in to “watch” but were not eligible to participate as either “the one” or “the mob” became “the crowd” and were segregated into groups of four that competed against one another for bragging rights (and the opportunity to increase their lifetime score).

     Like Who Wants to Be an Millionaire?, 1 vs. 100 proved to be insanely popular among audiences. The interactive nature of the gameshow was interesting enough to inspire 2.5 million people to play over the course of two seasons. But, only a year after it began, Microsoft announced the game wouldn’t be returning for a third season. Though gameshow’s were a relatively inexpensive gamble for networks, the technical challenges of developing a foolproof anti-cheat system and networking code to ensure everything was experienced by players in real-time skyrocketed the development cost of the program and caused it to remain sponsor-less in beta for far too long.

     Although the project was a failure in the economic sense, I think it was successful in a very unexpected way. The program showed how willing gamers were to abandon relatively autonomous means of gaming in exchange for a far more regulated activity that offered a chance to win money. Although Microsoft hasn’t attempted a similar project since 1 vs. 100’s cancellation, whenever asked about primetime programming on Xbox Live they claim that they learned a lot from the venture and will apply that to similar offerings in the future. Personally, I’m curious to see where the gameshow heads next. Microsoft is hoping to make a big push into augmented reality with their HoloLens device, maybe we’ll be able to compete for money wherever we go? They could call it life.

Police Media Networks

The television networks covering the Baltimore events are framing the protesters as "thugs." Here again, the vocabulary choice is generalizing a whole group of people and criminalizing them. Furthermore, the news helicopters are equivalent to the policing state in being complicit in framing violence (through removed camera angles) as an inherent characteristic of a racial group.

Core Response 5 (2.0) - The Medium Has Collapsed

In her chapter “Television Outside the Box”, Amanda Lotz gives an in depth and somewhat retrospective analysis of what she calls revolutionized television of 2007. Reading this chapter, eight years later in 2015, generally bolsters my own fascination with the ongoing evolution of post-network TV distribution. As digital “pure play” streaming platforms such as Amazon, Hulu and Netflix continue to escalate in popularity, and with the emergence of subscription based exclusive streaming services like Vessel, Lotz’s questions surrounding audience fragmentation remain relevant. Lotz argues that with the introduction of new technological advances in the reception and aesthetics of TV, “Viewers gained greater control over their entertainment experience, yet became attached to an increasing range of devices that demanded their attention and financial support,” (51).

The decentralization of TV viewing (that is to say we no longer only consume TV in our living rooms on our sofas) along with the disruption of linear programming and flow (we can set our at home DVR’s to record chosen programs with a few clicks on our cell phones) that Lotz and others began to observe in the early 2000’s have become dominant practices in television consumption.

Lotz highlights a distinction between mobile TV for convenience and portable TV for the desire of immediacy when discussing the viewer motivations for engaging in alternative modes of TV consumption. Mobile TV which allows viewers to “disrupt the networks” by use of DVR and VOD becomes even more disruptive in the form of portable TV – which in early stages came by way of DVD box sets and in newer formats consists of online streaming via tablets and mobile apps.

Portable TV redefines the medium itself by breaking apart the traditional structure of TV consumption and opening up the possibility of TV being viewed anywhere, at any time an in any conceivable way. We can essentially go about our daily lives in constant company of our favorite TV programs at our beckon call.  To take things a step further, these new modes of disruption have prompted an overhaul in the actual development and production of TV. Network executives are thinking about millennial online audiences who don’t have cable subscriptions. Tech startups are conjuring the next big online/mobile streaming platforms. Internet celebrity wannabes are clamoring to post viral content.  TV isn’t made for TV anymore. The medium has collapsed.  

In “Flexible Microcasting”, Lisa Parks outlines the different ways in which the Networks – through personalized and gender targeted programming, the re-imagining of traditional quiz shows, and use of Internet based branded content – attempted to “transition viewers into online domains,” (138). Parks uses the term “post-broadcasting” to describe the integration of on air broadcasting programs with Internet based computer technologies.

What is most interesting for me here is Parks’ reading of the failure of DEN as a partial product of its “anti-television rhetoric”. Parks states that, “The economic viability of the Den was built on the assumption that youth would want to turn off network and cable TV and turn on the DEN in a search for salient content – that is, content deemed too fringe for broadcast television,” (151). She posits that DEN’s unwillingness to tap into the hybrid potential of Internet TV contributed to its obsolescence. 

Almost prophetically, Internet streaming of TV programs began taking over as a prime popular mode of consumption just a few years after Parks’ chapter was written.  The Internet through Hulu, Netflix, Amazon (and countless other ‘bootleg’ digital options) has emerged as perhaps Network TV’s greatest ally, and simultaneously its most daunting competitor. Furthermore, with digital pure play platforms like Netflix and Amazon producing their own original content traditionally constructed meaning of TV has all but collapsed in terms of conception, production and consumption.