Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Film 202 - Journal Report 1 - article 2
The second article I read, titled "The viewers have...taken over the airwaves'? Participation, reality TV an approaching the audience-in-the-text" by Su Holmes, comments on how contemporary media evokes a new kind of relationship between the viewer's activeness in watching programs like reality TV and the characters on-screen. This form of media is said to bring about a degree of 'self-consciousness" in the viewer since reality TV shows depict actual people in real situations. Devices like mobile phones, the Internet, text messaging, and digital TV all contribute to the interactivity of media and its globalization. The article also explores the validity of one's image on a reality TV show and how rather than depicting an individual as they are the "television frame" acts as a "form of distorted mirror" that "assigns status" to a character. The viewer is also stressed as an active participant in reshaping the media by how it is perceived. It is not only television that is experiencing changes due its manner of being viewed but other forms of mass media as well. The "text" conveyed by the all powerful cathode ray is under constant scrutiny by its audience either consciously or subconsciously which has led to continual change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Again, Quinn - a deft summary. And again a post that would have benefited from some intervention from you. What do you think of the article? Do you buy it? Do you watch any reality TV - do you find it to be as Holmes describes? What is your "participation" like? How is this like or not like interactive work, especially as a form of mirror?
I pepper you with questions as I wouldn't mind hearing more of your thinking on all, or any of this.
In fact, Holmes, per your discussion, relays a number of ideas. I am not expecting you to comment on all of them. Feel free - in an article like this - to practice some selection and just write about a particular idea that engages you, that you'd like to take further.
I do appreciate your taking on a journal with the complexity of Screen. And your presentation of its diverse contents here is good. Find a way to find more room for you, though, in your discussion of the articles encountered. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.
Post a Comment