TVs in the internet age
Note: This is one of a number of early posts I'm writing to sort of set the scene (you'll notice the other earlier posts are also fairly broad and offer open ended questions). Since I want to have others contribute I thought it'd be good to have an early series of posts that serve as something to link to when people write about more niche topics.
I was told as a child that TV rots your brain, and then the internet came along and made me think TV wasn't so bad after all.
Ok, all joking aside, my colleagues who study society, media, and technology have been doing amazing work over the years on the ways in which the themes across different media formats reflect and shape political, cultural, and social zeitgeists. I specifically mention TV in the title of this post though. This is because TV in the internet era is serving an interesting purpose, particularly prestige programming.*
First, I know that a lot of prestige TV is only available on the internet. When I say 'the internet' I mean media like Instagram, TikTok, non-feature-length YouTube videos, things of this sort. I'm not saying that these platforms aren't interesting or that short form viral media doesn't shape culture and politics (Jordan Howlett's Instagram feed is sought after by movie stars who want to promote their upcoming releases for a reason), but at the end of the day what pops up in your social media feed is what you want to see. Or more accurately what an algorithm thinks you're more likely to want to see. Effective social media production then relies on being good at working the algorithm, and knowing which viewers are in your silo. I'm not here to knock it - some of this content is brilliant! TV is interesting though because for a show or movie, once its released, that's it - for viewers there's no tweaking an algorithm or following a different actor if you don't like the lead actor.
If HBO or Apple+ release a show it's 60 minutes at a time for 10 episodes, and it has to appeal to the widest possible viewership, which is less siloed than what people see on social media (not completely un-siloed though). Producers and directors making shows and movies that deal with politics and culture have more to lose if something doesn't land (they can't just do another dozen short videos to reset the feed), but they also have the space to build a world the viewer must inhabit with them. Obviously someone doesn't have to watch the show Andor, but if you choose to watch it then you have to live with Stephen Schiff's and Tony Gilroy's showrunning choices and Diego Luna as the main character.
Why is this important? Over the coming posts I want to unpack how format shapes politics and culture, and the ways that different longer formats shape and motivate political and cultural engagement in viewers and listeners. I mentioned TV here, but podcasts are also long formats where the listener doesn't get to choose the theme or the guests. It's not just how listeners adjust their political or cultural framing either - how do politicians and public figures use trends in different types of media taste to shape their messaging and policy positions? I think this latter point will be fascinating to unpack, especially when looking at media that lift up themes and stories that challenge mainstream ideas of relationships, gender, diversity, and power.
*Important to note that for the moment I'm particularly interested in prestige or higher concept TV. There's plenty of absolute garbage reality TV that rivals the stupidest social media feeds for mindlessness.