Plan for the Week

TO DO THIS WEEK:

• FINISH MINIMIZING MARRIAGE AND ALL THOSE DOCUMENTARIES
• Start reading Thematic Analysis
• Do some research into interview structure and apply it to my rough plan
• Start writing my actual thesis draft
• Finish presentation for Wednesday
• Read Open TV
• Get in touch with Vee and SUBU people to let them know the info I want sent out
• Send out focus groups info myself - IN PROGRESS
• Finish participant information sheet
• Transcribe Heartstopper
• Finish typing up notes from stuff I read last week
• Watch Generation - IN PROGRESS

Events of the Week

• Guest lecture from Daniel Fountain - Talked about their research into queer craft and experiences curating exhibitions, as well as about things like the ethics of archiving and digital colonisation. All very interesting stuff, and as someone doing a research project about queerness it was obviously pretty relevant to what I'm doing!
• Formative review was this week, and it actually went pretty well! It was definitely stressful presenting in front of everyone including a researcher who kind of works in my actual field LOL but people seemed really interesting and engaged yay! Daniel made a really great point about my plan to provide focus group participants with paper, pens, and stuff to do with their hands - it might be worth keeping things that they make during the session and using that as part of my results, since people could use this as an alternate way to express themselves! The other main point that got brought up was how I'm defining TV, and whether shows made for streaming can be classified as TV. I'm still pretty adamant that they are (I mean the Emmys agree with me...) but based on my research it's a definite grey area in TV studies. I'm planning to read Open TV this week so hopefully that will illuminate some stuff. Also I'm being asked to tweak the wording of my question again ARGH.
• Oh yeah reminder to think about later but there were some really interesting points made about the didactic nature of TV and how a lot of early portrayals of queer characters were in the form of "very special episodes" and how that compares to today, when such episodes aren't really a thing anymore but a lot of teen shows at least still feel like they're trying to teach lessons. I mean as I said, Sex Education literally has the word education in the title. Anyway regrettably for everyone I can absolutely connect this to BtVS again. There's a lot of really interesting writing about how one of BtVS' big innovations with the teen show format was how it weaved serious "social issues" (queerness, abuse, bereavement etc.) into the main storylines instead of using the "very special episode" format.
• Progress continues to be made on the promoting my research project front! I've contacted the SUBU staff about advertising it to BU students. On the AUB front, I've reached out to some of the students who Vee mentioned had shown an interest at the SU meeting, and I'm now in contact with the LGBTQ+ officer and have let them know all the most important information. In even more exciting news, I've made some fun graphics that I shared with AUBSU and the LGBTQ+ officer that could be used to promote the project on social media:
• 
• 
• This week I started watching yet another slightly trashy teen show: Generation. Yeah that's right we're getting into the REALLY obscure shit. This thing ran for one season on HBO Max and then got cancelled. Anyway not much to report because they haven't actually revealed who the asexual character is yet and I wanted it to be a fun surprise for myself so I'm limited in what I can say past this being another example of the teen shows trend. Smart money's on Greta though, since they have been making a big deal of her being confused about her feelings and not wanting to hook up with anyone. That said Riley also seems like she has something going on with her attraction, but I don't think that part's intentional. OH J AUGUST RICHARDS FROM ATS IS A GAY DAD IN IT. THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.
• Rest of the week has been spent working on my thesis draft for the draft submission on Tuesday.

Reading of the Week

This week I looked at (hopefully) the last of the TV studies books - Open TV: Innovation Beyond Hollywood and the Rise of Web Television by Aymar Jean Christian, published 2018. I hope this one will be useful for me since it is specifically about so-called web TV, which can include things like shows produced for streaming services, which a lot of the case studies I've looked at fall under. Hopefully it will give me some more clarity about the place of streaming in TV studies. Notes from the book:

• Book tries to define new types of TV that have emerged in the advent of the internet - uses "open TV" to refer to "networked television distribution" i.e. distributed via the internet - "Because of corporate dominance in both legacy and open TV markets, I will often refer to (p.4) web-distributed series as independent or 'indie TV'" (p.5) - sort of unclear at the moment how Christian is distinguishing between the corporate productions (like the big Netflix productions maybe?) and more indie stuff but we'll see
• "Netflix and Amazon reimagined original series development by giving producers more autonomy while incorporating viewer taste through big data" (p.6)
• Interesting point about TV studies - "Yet most of media studies, particularly television studies, still privileges projects from corporate distributors as a basis for theory. This is untenable in a networked economy where independent agents are constantly organizing, albeit with less capital than corporations" (p.7)
• "I often describe web series as independent television or 'indie TV' to account for the way networked distribution - as opposed to linear network distribution - allows producers to function independently of the legacy development system. This is different than 'web TV' or 'IP [Internet Protocol] TV', more general terms that focus on the changing distribution technologies - networked, many-to-many connections - and not the changes in production and development practices new (p.7) technologies facilitate, namely, increased opportunities for small-scale independents. Web and IP TV describe platforms like HBO Now, where distribution is networked but development still occurs through a cable channel and studio primarily invested in legacy, linear distribution in this period" (p.8) - so streaming shows could maybe fall under the first category? I'd struggle to call a lot of them independent but they're definitely not the latter
• The book "focuses on series produced and distributed wholly independently of legacy distributors" (p.8)
• Useful stats maybe: "Netflix's investments in original programming" in 2012 "valued at over $100 million" and "By 2016, Netflix earmarked over $6 billion for six hundred hours of original programming, half for U.S. release, and its competitors in the short-form market moved into ordering long-form series" (p.10)
• "Frustrated by legacy development, major brands and A-list talent have always been a part of the [open TV] market" - mentions Dr Horrible as an example why can I never escape Joss Whedon. everywhere I go I see his face. (p.11)
• "Both the Primetime and Daytime Emmy Awards have recognized web programming since 2008, though both awards initially focused on series distributed by corporations. In 2016 the Primetime Emmys, arguably television's highest honor, expanded web categories to include acting for men and women, and variety programs [...] That year, Netflix ranked third in overall Primetime Emmy nominations, nabbing fifty-four [...] Netflix's haul was a near 60 percent increase from the thirty-four it received the year prior [...] Hulu received two, and Amazon received sixteen, up from twelve the year prior" (p.12) - I did go look at last year's Emmy nominees and yeah they do just throw streaming shows and regular broadcast shows together... and argument for judging both types of shows together perhaps?
• "I argue that networked distribution supports innovation in series creation by empowering producers, fans, and brands frustrated with legacy distribution" (p.13)
• Mentions "the 'scaling' of web television - the growth of corporate online distributors like Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube's 'multichannel networks' (MCNs) that bundle channels from hundreds of creators. These networked TV distributors harness the web's vast information capacities to create epic productions or massive collections of small productions with dedicated audiences, or what I call 'big data television'. Corporate web TV distributors support some independent creators but focus on delivering high margins to shareholders, replicating legacy television's development inequalities by focusing on increasing scales of production" (p.28)
• "How did the Internet become television for Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and independent agents?" (p.29)
• "The 2013 premiere of traditionally formatted comedies and dramas on corporate web channels" (p.32) - distinguishing between these shows and indie stuff made for youtube and websites like that
• "Web creators often address communities underserved by legacy television development, and many of the most passionate producers create stories about those marginalized by race, gender and sexuality, and class in politics and culture. They utilize open distribution to create stories for communities perceived 'too niche' - of too little value - for television and theatrical distribution" (p.108) - could also maybe apply to the larger online companies?
• "In the open TV market, intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and class become part of the way producers and fans understood a show's 'production value,' extending notions of 'quality television' beyond directing, acting, and cinematography, hwere white men dominate, to the ability to write to and connect with communities, where deep experience with cultural difference matters" (p.109)
• In legacy TV: "Although more visible, women, gay men, lesbians, and ethnic minorities are limited in the degree to which they can challenge stereotypes as characters and in their chances to lead franchises and marquee properties as characters (p.110) and producers (p.111)
• Argues that in the 70s, "public TV took a sharp turn toward assimilationist and postracial representation" (p.111)
• Representations of women, "racial and sexual minorities followed similar trends toward normativity and mass marketability, including the steady dilution of real conflict and difference even amid the appearance of characters of color on legacy networks" (p.111)
• LGBT specific stuff: "After decades of virtual invisibility, the 1990s and 2000s saw a sharp rise of popular and niche media targeting gay (p.112) men, lesbians, and, to a much lesser degree, bisexual and transgender people. Still, media representations focused almost exclusively on portraying gays and lesbians as 'normal', eradicating the sexual revolution's promise of celebrating difference and confining GLBTQ politics to matters of the home, primarily love, marriage, and military service. What was lost was the power of nonnormative sexuality to expand mainstream views of sex" (p.113)
• "Television represents gays and lesbians as middle-class or rich, white, male, and generally unconcerned with much beyond finding a partner and settling down. Across media, gay marketing stays away from politics" (p.113)
• Thought this was an interesting quote: in the open TV market, "Representation moves beyond vague and endlessly rehashed debates over 'positive' and 'negative' images - 'the primary site of hope and critique', Herman Gray laments - toward employing producers and actors who create worlds and characters that communities recognize" (p.113, quotes Herman Gray, Cultural Moves)
• "At issue in representation are two, often opposing, ideals: communities and markets. Niche marketing purports to ascribe market value to communities, shading out differences to create a unified, comprehensible type that can be sold to advertisers" (p.114)
• "Open TV producers are aware that advertisers need commoditized audiences. So even as they advance production, storytelling, and marketing (p.115) in various ways, some rely on established conventions to be intelligible to legacy market players - from writing broad characters in easily recognizable genres to employing dominant cultural frames" (p.116)
• Conflicting view on "new networks" - "[Producer Issa] Rae expresses disenchantment with legacy television development and hope for new networks like Netflix and Hulu - though in chapter 5 I express skepticism at these networks' ability to support open TV" (p.130)
• "Series about marginalized groups" have to "balance the marketability of broad 'universal' storytelling with the demands of community-focused niche storytelling" (p.133)
• "Distributing lesbian and gay identities neglected by legacy television networks involves a careful balance of making explicit appeals to difference while creating easily consumable commodities for complex communities [...] the goal of monetizing those shows - selling them to advertisers, television networks, or conglomerates - means that distribution portals often stray from purchasing anything too radical and instead focus on appealing to communities' desires for visibility" (p.143)
• Chapter on Netflix and other big web TV companies ('big data TV') starts by talking about how House of Cards "established Netflix as the premier home of big data television" (p.212)
• "Directly funded by TV fans, subscription networks like Netflix and Amazon were most successful in growing the web TV market initially but worked almost exclusively with Hollywood studios and producers. This made sense, since companies like Netflix financed original pro- (p.215) ductions directly from subscribers who paid for access to large libraries of legacy programming. By some measures, this development system worked. Netflix's House of Cards took the mantle of the web's first blockbuster hit until Orange is the New Black surpassed its audience, both estimated in millions. From 2012, when Netflix and Amazon announced original programming plans, until 2014, both companies' stocks grew dramatically, reaching all-time highs" (p.216)
• Argues that "original series from corporate subscription networks did not reflect the incredible diversity of indie web original production [...] where producers historically marginalized by their race, gender, and sexuality had greater control over their narratives" (P.216)
• "I find that the growth of web TV production marks a shift away from independent producers and marginalized communities to corporate intermediaries acting like legacy TV distributors" (p.217)
• "As Netflix's head of content, Ted Sarandos, told GQ, 'The goal ... is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us.' Netflix increased original programming dramatically after its first original in House of cards. (p.242, quotes Nancy Haas, 'And the award for next HBO goes to...', February 2013)
• This is barely relevant but a bit fucking crazy: "Netflix was reluctant to adapt systems to expressions of cultural identity, if only to reduce costs; for example, Netflix spent years fighting a suit from the National Association of the Deaf demanding that the site provide closed captioning consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act" (p.243)
• "Freed from the allure of broad appeal, Netflix could presumably empower creative producers by supplying data to support unconventional ideas for niche audiences" (p.244)
• "Netflix's predecessors in ad-supported and subscription cable established the strategy of developing 'edgy' series in response to competition for fan attention. Racial and sexual representation were key to this script because niche network shows must show willingness to take more 'risks' than broadcasters to 'draw critical attention ('buzz') and boost subscriptions.' Netflix's original programming had some cultural diversity" - lists Orange is the New Black, Sense8, House of Cards, The Get Down etc. as examples (p.245, quotes Jennifer Fuller, Branding Blackness on US Cable Television)
• Worth noting that streaming services like Netflix and Amazon (at least in the beginning mostly commissioned originals from established Hollywood figures and studios: "Hollywood studios profited handsomely from Netflix licensing original programs" and "Many of Amazon's TV pilots had producers with credits on wide-release films and legacy network shows" (p.246)
• However, "Diversity was hard to find among Amazon's and Netflix's producers, similarly to legacy networks. Netflix's series creators were mostly white, cisgender, and straight" (p.247)
• Accuses Netflix of "us[ing] diversity to attract buzz and attention without a focus on sincere writing" (p.248)
• "In general, streaming TV distributors either matched or trailed already-lagging broadcast and cable distributors in representations of race and gender behind and in front of the camera" (p.249) - not what I'd expect! Is that still true?
• Mentions "American television's neglect of queer people of color in representation" (p.254) - talking more about gay/bi characters but y'know. still applicable
• "The burgeoning networked TV distributors are not focused on improving on legacy television's performance in representing culture, least of all intersectionality. Research by Stacy Smith at the University of Southern California suggests that the new digital-first distributors like Netflix do no better on diversity than the old, behind or in front of the camera, in terms of gender or race" (p.255)
• "We have entered the networked era, characterized by a convergence of old network and new networked business strategies for developing original TV programming enabled by networking technologies: subscription, ad-supported, on demand, spreadable, sponsored, user-generated, short- and long-form, exclusive and nonexcluisve distribution all emerge as options for amassing revenue and cultivating fans" (p.257)

Possible further reading:

• Neighed to Order by Matt Sienkiewicz - article talking about BoJack Horseman

Previous week

Next week

Back to weekly journal

Back to home