tag:theconversation.com,2011:/es/topics/cable-tv-5125/articlesCable TV – The Conversation2023-04-24T19:57:33Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2036492023-04-24T19:57:33Z2023-04-24T19:57:33ZTucker Carlson’s departure and Fox News’ expensive legal woes show the problem with faking ‘authenticity’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522669/original/file-20230424-1075-lksybg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C0%2C6390%2C4529&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fox News Host Tucker Carlson speaks during the 2022 Fox Nation Patriot Awards on Nov. 17, 2022, in Hollywood, Fla.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tucker-carlson-speaks-during-2022-fox-nation-patriot-awards-news-photo/1442331995?adppopup=true">Jason Koerner/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, Fox News thrived because the people behind it understood what their audience wanted and were more than willing to deliver: television news – or what Fox called news – from a populist perspective. </p>
<p>Fox is <a href="https://deadline.com/tag/ratings/">consistently the most-watched cable news channel</a>, far ahead of competitors like MSNBC and CNN. That’s in large part due to people like Tucker Carlson, whose show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/02/14/with-35-million-viewers-tucker-carlson-has-the-weeks-highest-rated-cable-news-show/?sh=c4328587f529">has been one of the highest-rated in cable news</a>. But on April 24, Fox announced that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/media/tucker-carlson-fox-news.html">Carlson is leaving the network</a>, and while no explanation was provided, it’s safe to say it wasn’t a lack of viewers.</p>
<p>Carlson’s departure came on the heels of Fox News’ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/18/business/fox-news-dominion-trial-settlement">US$787.5 million settlement of the lawsuit lodged by Dominion Voting Systems</a> over the network’s promotion of misinformation about the 2020 election. Dominion had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fox-news-media-tucker-carlson-part-ways-2023-04-24/#:%7E:text=Dominion%20had%20alleged%20that%20statements,in%20Biden's%20favor%20were%20false.">cited claims made on Carlson’s program</a> as well as on other shows as evidence of defamation, and Carlson <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/04/fox-dominion-trial-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-testify">was expected to testify</a> if the case had gone to trial. The settlement reveals Fox’s biggest strength and weakness: the network’s incredible understanding of what its audience wants and its unrelenting willingness to deliver exactly that. </p>
<h2>More real than elites</h2>
<p>I’m a journalism scholar who studies <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/imagined-audiences-9780197542606?cc=us&lang=en&">the relationship between the news industry and the public</a>, and I’ve long been interested in <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19312431211060426">understanding Fox’s appeal</a>. As media scholar <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Yk3Elf0AAAAJ&hl=en">Reece Peck</a> observes in <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/fox-populism-branding-conservatism-working-class?format=HB&isbn=9781108496766">his book about the network</a>, Fox’s success is less about politics than it is about style. Fox’s star broadcasters like Carlson <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/which-journalists-do-people-pay-most-attention-and-why-study-six-countries">found enormous success</a> by embracing an authenticity-as-a-form-of-populism approach.</p>
<p>They presented themselves as more “real” than the “out-of-touch elites” at other news organizations. Journalists have traditionally attempted to earn audience trust and loyalty by emphasizing their professionalism and objectivity, while people like Carlson earn it by emphasizing an us-against-them anti-elitism where <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/27/fox-news-tucker-carlson-elections/">expertise is more often a criticism than a compliment</a>. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/fox-populism-branding-conservatism-working-class?format=HB&isbn=9781108496766">Peck notes</a>, Fox broadcasters present themselves as “ordinary Americans … challenging the cultural elitism of the news industry.” So the allure of Fox is not just in its political slant, but in its just-like-you presentation that establishes anchors like Carlson as allies in the fight against the buttoned-up establishment figures they regularly disparage. </p>
<p>In short, NPR plays smooth jazz between segments, while <a href="https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php">Fox plays country</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large crowd of people surrounding a small group of people on a public plaza." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522671/original/file-20230424-18-r2qeby.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reporters surround Dominion Voting Systems lawyers during a news conference in Wilmington, Del., after the defamation lawsuit by Dominion against Fox News was settled April 18, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/PicturesoftheWeek-NorthAmerica-PhotoGallery/b8917d7cb42c459396ef17fe971ddcc3/photo?Query=Fox%20News&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=4879&currentItemNo=8">AP Photo/Julio Cortez</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Authenticity’ became a trap</h2>
<p>This anti-establishment, working-class persona embraced by many of Fox’s broadcasters has always been a performance. </p>
<p>Back in 2000, Bill O'Reilly, whom the network would eventually <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment.html">pay tens of millions of dollars a year</a>, called his show the “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2000/12/13/the-life-of-oreilly/b9cd54fb-3edd-4e68-a489-2e990e3a7bca/">only show from a working-class point of view</a>.” </p>
<p>More recently, Sean Hannity, who is a friend of former President Donald Trump’s and makes about $30 million a year, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/28/hannity-slams-overpaid-media-elites-then-journalists-respond-noting-his-29m-salary-and-private-jet/">slammed “overpaid” media elites</a>. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/fox-populism-branding-conservatism-working-class?format=HB&isbn=9781108496766">Peck observes</a> that this posturing is purposeful: It emphasizes “Fox’s moral purity, a purity that is established in terms of a distance from the corrupting force of political and media power centers.”</p>
<p>However, the Dominion lawsuit revealed that, after decades of using this distinctly populist – and often misleading – brand of performative authenticity to earn the loyalty of millions of people, Fox became trapped by it. </p>
<p>Internal communications between Fox broadcasters that were revealed in the months leading up to the trial’s scheduled start date showed the network’s marquee acts trying to reconcile their audience’s sense that the 2020 election had been rigged with their own skepticism about that lie. </p>
<p>Messages made public as part of the Dominion suit show Carlson, for example, said that he believed that Sidney Powell, Trump’s lawyer, was lying about election fraud claims. But, he added “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/business/fox-dominion-defamation-case.html">our viewers are good people and they believe it</a>.” Fox wasn’t telling its audience what to believe. Instead, it was following its audience’s lead and presenting a false narrative that aligned with what its viewers wanted to be true.</p>
<p>Once Fox’s broadcasters and the Fox audience became bonded by the network’s outsider status, those broadcasters felt compelled to follow the audience off a cliff of election misinformation and right into a defamation lawsuit. The alternative would run the risk of sullying its populist persona and, ironically, its credibility with its audience. </p>
<p>As New York Times TV critic <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/arts/television/fox-news-settlement.html">James Poniewozik observed</a>, “The customer is always right. In fact, the customer is boss.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a suit sits at a desk in front of a bright-blue backdrop." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522679/original/file-20230424-26-11anhr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill O'Reilly was one of the earliest Fox News hosts to present an ‘everyman’ persona to the viewing public.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TVOReillyAccuser/909647250fc34130acd81e7a9d51a191/photo">AP Photo/Richard Drew</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A trendsetter and a cautionary tale</h2>
<p>The Dominion lawsuit was more than a rare opportunity to see firsthand just how dishonestly Fox’s talent acted when the cameras were rolling. </p>
<p>It’s also a cautionary tale for those who see so-called authenticity as a marker of trustworthiness in journalism, and in the media more generally. </p>
<p>“As a society, we … love the idea of people ‘being themselves,’” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/02/social-media-analyst-emily-hund-influencer-authenticity-interview">says scholar Emily Hund</a>, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center on Digital Culture and Society and the author of “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691231020/the-influencer-industry">The Influencer Industry: The Quest for Authenticity on Social Media</a>.” </p>
<p>The question that many seem to implicitly ask themselves when deciding whether to trust <a href="https://items.ssrc.org/beyond-disinformation/trust-and-authenticity-as-tools-for-journalism-and-partisan-disinformation/">journalists</a> and others within the media world seems to be shifting from “Does this person know what they are talking about?” to “Is this person genuine?”</p>
<p>Media workers have noticed: <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/03/social-media-policies-are-failing-journalists/">Journalists</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2023/03/03/stars-are-embracing-authenticity-taylor-swift-prince-harry/11152779002/">celebrities</a> and <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90768656/ugc-influencers-content-marketing">marketers</a> routinely share seemingly personal information about themselves on social media in an effort to present themselves as people first and foremost. These efforts are not always necessarily dishonest; however, they are always a performance.</p>
<p>For decades, Fox’s prolonged popularity has made it clear that authenticity is truly valuable when it comes to building credibility and audience loyalty. Now, the network’s settlement with Dominion has revealed just how manipulative and insincere that authenticity can be.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob L. Nelson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tucker Carlson and his employer, Fox News, had an incredible understanding of what their audience wants: a kind of authenticity that is not genuine but instead manipulative.Jacob L. Nelson, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of UtahLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1789732022-12-05T13:28:04Z2022-12-05T13:28:04ZHow does a television set work?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471483/original/file-20220628-14509-wm9mhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=46%2C0%2C6205%2C4168&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The TV in your home is very different from the television sets of just a few years ago.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/boy-watching-television-royalty-free-image/77748497">moodboard/Image Source via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/curious-kids-us-74795">Curious Kids</a> is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">curiouskidsus@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>How does a TV work? – Caden, age 11</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>Look at your modern-day TV, and you see nothing less than a technological miracle. </p>
<p>Scientists began experimenting with the concept of television <a href="https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-of-the-television/#">more than a century ago</a>. But decades would pass before the Radio Corporation of America <a href="https://www.rca.com/us_en/our-legacy-266-us-en">brought it to the public</a> at the 1939 World’s Fair. More time passed before TV sets were in stores – and even then, it took awhile <a href="https://www.britannica.com/art/television-in-the-United-States/The-late-Golden-Age">until most people had one</a>. In 1950, fewer than 10% of Americans owned a television. By 1959, that number had grown to 85%. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black-and-white photograph of a mother and her two children watching television in the living room." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471490/original/file-20220628-14181-80kt8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the 1950s, television sets were bulky and the picture was in black and white.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/mother-and-children-watching-television-royalty-free-image/81774789?adppopup=true">H. Armstrong Roberts/Retrofile RF via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the ‘50s, TVs were expensive, screens were small and the picture wasn’t always crystal clear. </p>
<p>What’s more, early TV programs <a href="https://clickamericana.com/topics/science-technology/vintage-television-sets-from-the-1950s">were in black and white</a>; color wasn’t in wide use until the mid-1960s. </p>
<p>Viewers didn’t have a lot of choice, either. Instead of hundreds of channels to choose from, most cities offered only three or four. </p>
<p>And DVR didn’t exist. Programs appeared on a specific day at a particular time, and if you missed it – you missed it. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.uml.edu/engineering/electrical-computer/faculty/weitzen-jay.aspx">As a professor</a> of electrical and computer engineering, I am amazed by the remarkable advances of this technology in only a few decades. </p>
<p>Yet whether an early television with a 5-inch screen, or one of today’s smart TVs <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/samsung-tv-the-wall-biggest-screen-weve-ever-seen/">that practically cover the wall</a>, your set still has three primary functions: to receive audio and video data; to use that data to present the viewer with sound and a picture; and to provide the viewer with a way to set the channel and the volume. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Against a blue sky and white clouds, a TV antenna sits on top of a house." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472411/original/file-20220704-26-oton67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A rooftop antenna receives the TV signal sent by the local television station.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/residential-tv-antenna-point-into-beautiful-blue-royalty-free-image/1128664587?adppopup=true">Tim Allen/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Radio waves, transmission towers and antennas</h2>
<p>Early TVs worked with <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Analog_television">the use of “analog signals”</a> – essentially radio waves containing both the picture and sound of a television program.</p>
<p>Simply put, here’s how it worked: Using a giant transmission tower, the local television station repeatedly sent those radio waves through the air during the broadcast day. Antennas on the roofs of buildings and homes in the community <a href="https://itstillworks.com/outdoor-tv-antenna-work-4795028.html">intercepted those waves</a> and, through a cable, transported the signal to the television sets inside. </p>
<p>There, the TV unscrambled the signal and turned it into a picture with sound. What you saw and heard wasn’t as sharp as today’s TVs, but it was good. </p>
<p>By 2009, TV stations replaced analog signals with digital TV signals, <a href="https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/television/353844#:%7E:">which is the standard used today</a>. HDTV, or high-definition television, has an amazing picture quality compared to earlier TVs. Digital signals are still transmitted using radio waves, but the TV picture is <a href="https://innovationkidslab.com/birthday-binary-code-kids/#:%7E:">encoded in binary</a> – that is, a series of 0s and 1s. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="On a black background, the blue numbers '1' and '2' illustrate the binary code." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=274&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=274&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=274&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472636/original/file-20220705-14543-5300vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An illustration of binary code, which is the way digital signals are transmitted to your television.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/binary-code-background-royalty-free-image/1317329445">fotograzia/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Bits, bytes and frames</h2>
<p>Modern digital TV uses different information streams. For example, one stream is for the picture; another stream is for the audio.</p>
<p>Pictures are created by <a href="https://nsufl.libguides.com/virtual-stem/pixels#:%7E:">basic units called pixels</a>. Your TV screen has tens of thousands of pixels, and each one has a “color index” and an “intensity.” Basically, three colors – red, blue and green – form other colors in various combinations, and the picture is ultimately created from all the pixels together forming an image. Just like mixing paint to make any color you wish, varying the amount and intensity of each of the color pixels creates the desired image.</p>
<p>Groups of bits are formed <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Byte#:%7E:">into larger units called bytes</a>. They are the communication link between the content you are watching and your TV. <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Modem#:%7E:">A modem</a> packages and unpackages this information; at its heart, every TV or cellphone is based on a modem. </p>
<p>The packaged information can be transmitted over the air or sent via fiber or cable, where they come into your TV via a cable box. Streaming TV, a service that has become very popular, <a href="https://techjury.net/blog/what-is-streaming-tv/#gref">takes data from a computer network</a>.</p>
<p>Then it’s up to you, the viewer. Your modern digital smart TV has an interface that allows you to control all the functions. Basically, a smart TV is a computer, large monitor and receiver all in one package. </p>
<p>In the future, there will be more merging of the functions of your cellphone and TV. The TV will be a screen for your cellphone, for example. Also expect more <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Virtual_reality">virtual reality, augmented reality</a> and <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/4K_resolution">ultra-high definition TV</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BnmLC0QXugI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“Watch Mr. Wizard,” one of early television’s most popular programs for kids. This episode aired in 1962.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><em>Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com</a>. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.</em></p>
<p><em>And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178973/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jay Weitzen receives funding from. DoD, NSF, Commscope, Airvana</span></em></p>Pictures and sound, flying through the air to a box in your house? Back in the 1940s, it seemed like a miracle.Jay Weitzen, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1537042021-02-25T20:17:19Z2021-02-25T20:17:19ZMisinformation-spewing cable companies come under scrutiny<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386291/original/file-20210224-22-7ebqjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C0%2C4019%2C2685&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If its services help deliver misinformation to your home, what responsibility does Comcast have for that?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/ComcastServices/b31f921a4cad47f08c9d1a029c945ea2/photo">AP Photo/Mike Stewart</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Looking at political violence in the U.S., a New Jersey state legislator sent a text message to an executive of cable television giant Comcast: “<a href="https://view.newsletters.cnn.com/messages/16100821873563d3663112017/raw">You feed this garbage, lies and all</a>.” The cable channels Fox News and Newsmax were “complicit” in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection, the lawmaker, Assemblyman Paul Moriarty, said. Like other cable companies, Comcast brings those channels into American homes. What, Moriarty asked, was Comcast going to do about them in the wake of the assault on democracy?</p>
<p>A few days later, Washington Post columnist Max Boot suggested Comcast might soon “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/18/trump-couldnt-have-incited-sedition-without-help-fox-news/">need to step in and kick Fox News off</a>,” as a consequence of its assistance to Trump’s incitement of insurrection. A similar suggestion by Democratic members of Congress <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/business/media/disinformation-cable-television.html">ignited considerable controversy</a> and became a subject of contention at a <a href="https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-fanning-the-flames-disinformation-and-extremism-in-the-media">subsequent hearing</a> on “disinformation and extremism in the media.”</p>
<p><a href="https://view.newsletters.cnn.com/messages/16100821873563d3663112017/raw">A CNN media reporter, Oliver Darcy, observed</a> that Facebook, Twitter and Google have faced significant pressure to curb disinformation on their platforms – especially since Jan. 6. But, Darcy said, “somehow [cable providers] have escaped scrutiny and entirely dodged this conversation,” even though they are also “lending their platforms to dishonest companies that profit off of disinformation and conspiracy theories.”</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=W1Bpy_cAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">researcher</a> who studies both television news distribution and how profit motivates the spread of falsehoods, I’m curious about whether it’s feasible – or wise – for cable companies to play moderator to the channels they carry.</p>
<h2>A parallel between TV and online services</h2>
<p>Since Jan. 6, social media companies have cracked down hard on disinformation campaigns, including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/twitter-donald-trump-jack-dorsey.html">cutting off President Donald Trump’s Twitter account</a>. Amazon, Google and Apple also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/16/how-parler-deplatforming-shows-power-of-cloud-providers.html">sharply reduced the reach of the Parler social network</a> when that platform refused to remove posts apparently aimed at inciting violence – though Parler has since come back online.</p>
<p>But disinformation is not happening online only. Fox News has increasingly come under fire for on-air staff and guests who hawk right-wing conspiracy theories, including <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-news-faces-dollar27-billion-lawsuit-over-voting-machine-fraud-claims/ar-BB1doGXb">spinning lies</a> that voting machines somehow stole the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden.</p>
<p>Fox is <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/04/media/read-smartmatic-lawsuit-fox-news/index.html">facing a multibillion-dollar lawsuit</a> about those false claims. The company also recently <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fox-paid-seven-figures-to-settle-lawsuit-over-bogus-seth-rich-conspiracy-story-003236858.html">paid at least US$10 million</a> to settle a lawsuit from the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer over falsely alleging the killing was part of a left-wing plot.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A Fox building in New York City" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386292/original/file-20210224-13-1gm38uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fox News is just one channel that has brought cable providers under fire.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/view-of-an-american-conservative-cable-television-news-news-photo/1207206922">Alex Tai/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s next for Fox News?</h2>
<p>Amid the <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-domestic-terrorism-alert-20210127-rzq62ds25vhw3jopfmkqkbxsf4-story.html">threat of continued political violence</a>, Fox News appears poised to further “<a href="https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2021/01/fox-news-decides-to-turn-up-the-outrage/">turn up the outrage dial</a>” on television. </p>
<p>In recent months, the channel has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/08/newsmax-one-america-news-gain-prominence-they-push-trumps-baseless-theories/">lost viewers to even farther-right alternatives</a>, like Newsmax and One America News Network, and is responding by <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-launches-purge-rid-211350787.html">firing traditional journalists</a> and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-01-11/fox-news-changes-daytime-schedule-martha-maccallum-afternoon">increasing the amount of partisan commentary it offers</a>.</p>
<p>Comcast, with <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/497279/comcast-number-video-subscribers-usa/">20 million subscribers</a>, represents <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/251691/comcasts-pay-tv-market-share/">roughly a quarter of the pay TV market in the U.S.</a>, so it might seem Comcast has considerable leverage over Fox News’s content.</p>
<p>But Comcast isn’t just a content distributor through its cable network. The company also owns a <a href="https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/your-complete-guide-everything-owned-comcast-2017-10-12">huge swath of American media companies</a>, including Fox News’ direct competitors, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/02/03/in-january-2021-fox-news-ratings-fell-behind-cnn-and-msnbc/">MSNBC and CNBC</a>. Even if Comcast felt an obligation to lean on Fox, any significant pressure it might seek to apply could easily be met not just with customer complaints, but with legal challenges claiming anti-competitive behavior, particularly if this included threats of kicking Fox off its platform.</p>
<h2>Who regulates cable TV content?</h2>
<p>In the past, the American public has <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/spreading-the-news-the-american-postal-system-from-franklin-to-morse/oclc/32589147">entrusted the responsibility</a> of determining what sorts of communications <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/americas-battle-media-democracy-triumph-corporate-libertarianism-and-future-media-reform?format=HB&isbn=9781107038332">do and don’t serve the public interest</a> to public entities, like the Federal Communications Commission, which was originally the <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/809/federal-radio-commission">Federal Radio Commission</a>.</p>
<p>When radio and television broadcasting began, for instance, they relied exclusively on airwaves owned by the public and regulated by the government. At the height of their powers, from the 1930s through the postwar era, federal regulators tended to side with commercial station owners – <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-fcc-continues-to-redefine-the-public-interest-as-business-interests-75120">as they do today</a>. </p>
<p>But periodically they demonstrated they could do much more than just fine broadcasters for airing obscenities. They did not shy away from stripping broadcast licenses from purveyors of <a href="https://www.historynet.com/john-r-brinkley-the-goat-gland-miracle-man.htm">harmful disinformation</a> and <a href="https://latimes.newspapers.com/clip/33187761/shulers-radio-silenced-by-federal/">inflammatory rumors</a>. The most famous example is probably sham doctor John R. Brinkley, who advertised on air for questionable cures and sham surgeries, which <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/18642/charlatan-by-pope-brock/">killed dozens of people in the early 20th century</a> before he lost his broadcast license.</p>
<p>Moreover, <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_History_of_Broadcasting_in_the_United/nKFvnNl9vOEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=a%20tower%20in%20babel%20barnouw&pg=PA258&printsec=frontcover">federal court</a> and <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/117/red-lion-broadcasting-co-v-federal-communications-commission">Supreme Court</a> decisions established that when the commission reviewed TV and radio stations’ past editorial content as part of considering whether to renew their broadcast licenses, it wasn’t violating their free speech rights. Rather, officials were vetting users of public resources in an effort to protect the public interest.</p>
<p>Cable channels, of course, don’t need the public airwaves, and instead are distributed over privately owned networks. The owners of those systems, including Comcast, are the ones who decide which content providers can reach their subscribers. But their goals are not necessarily aligned with the public good so much as profit for shareholders.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The Comcast-NBC-Universal building in Hollywood, Calif." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386293/original/file-20210224-15-8947oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Comcast owns TV and film studios as well as its cable television distribution network.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/universal-studios-hollywood-is-a-film-studio-and-theme-park-news-photo/1145675414">Paul Harris/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Could anything change?</h2>
<p>Comcast’s power in the media landscape has <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20111111060846/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/21/opponents-line-up-against-proposed-comcast-nbc-merger/">long been controversial</a>. The company owns elements in every step of the media pipeline, from content creation to marketing and distribution to consumers. </p>
<p>Critics contend that sort of consolidation is anti-competitive and deprives the public of the benefits of market competition, from <a href="https://prospect.org/power/remote-control-comcast-monopoly-crushes-diversity/">decreasing the diversity of content</a> to <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/tech-antitrust-problem-no-one-talking/">higher prices</a> and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191028/08080343272/comcast-insists-innocent-little-daisy-consumer-privacy.shtml">weaker privacy protections</a>.</p>
<p>Media law scholar Tim Wu – who <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/02/23/scoop-anti-big-tech-crusader-poised-to-join-biden-admin-491855">may be joining the Biden administration</a> – has argued that media companies like Comcast should be regulated by a “<a href="http://knopfdoubleday.com/2010/11/02/the-master-switch-by-tim-wu/">separations principle</a>” that would bar companies that owned distribution systems from also owning content creators. Such a restriction would almost certainly require Comcast to choose between its media production subsidiaries and its cable network. </p>
<p>Whichever Comcast decided to keep or sell, the cable television system would be a standalone. It would no longer be a producer of content or a competitor with other channels – which might make it less fraught for the company to decide not to do business with content creators of any political stripe who spread inflammatory lies.</p>
<p>Another possibility could be for cable companies to engage in some form of <a href="https://theconversation.com/profit-not-free-speech-governs-media-companies-decisions-on-controversy-101292">industry self-regulation</a>. They might, for example, establish an independent board to examine problems like Fox’s disinformation spreading. The companies would have to agree to abide by the board’s decisions to sanction or suspend the distribution of channels trafficking in dangerous or inciting disinformation. </p>
<p>Such an approach borrows from established methods in other media industries. These industries follow a model of appealing to independent boards to make controversial decisions, such as <a href="https://www.filmratings.com/">film</a> or <a href="https://www.esrb.org/">video game</a> ratings, while blending in more recent <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/">self-regulatory measures</a> by digital platforms.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/">No version</a> <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/30/the-real-facebook-oversight-board-launches-to-counter-facebooks-oversight-board/">of self-regulation</a> is perfect or above criticism. And it may seem worrisome to let cable companies, either individually or collectively, decide on what speech is acceptable for public consumption. Indeed, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMIPyqyORAY">there is plenty of concern</a> over whether Twitter or Facebook should be making similar decisions unilaterally.</p>
<p>But it’s worth noting that government oversight has been weak for years, with many critics arguing that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-fcc-continues-to-redefine-the-public-interest-as-business-interests-75120">FCC doesn’t do much</a> to ensure that even traditional broadcasters promote the public interest.</p>
<p>The cable industry may not use the airwaves, but it does use other scarce public resources, negotiating with local and regional governments to lay wires under streets and on telephone poles over sidewalks across the nation. </p>
<p>Some cable companies even belong to or <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/12/t-mobile-sprint-merger-is-a-warmup-to-more-wireless-cable-mergers.html">partner with cellular providers</a> to deliver video wirelessly to mobile devices – which is very much like traditional broadcasting in the sense that it uses public airwaves. </p>
<p>It’s not a huge stretch, then, to imagine local or even federal regulators treating cable TV more like broadcast channels, and even returning to past practices of requiring stations to serve the public interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153704/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Braun does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cable providers like Comcast carry Fox News and other channels that feed conspiracy theories and lies into Americans’ homes.Joshua Braun, Associate Professor of Journalism, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1469062020-10-09T12:28:23Z2020-10-09T12:28:23ZMore penises are appearing on TV and in film – but why are nearly all of them prosthetic?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362230/original/file-20201007-14-ijqgh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=202%2C3%2C869%2C504&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Euphoria' is one of many premium cable TV shows to feature an abundance of prosthetic penises.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://preview.redd.it/20xysq8yfm631.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e35414d051b88b125e005186b66bb4b236cd826e">HBO</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve noticed an uptick of male frontal nudity in TV and in movies in recent years, you’re onto something.</p>
<p>In 1993, I studied patterns of male nudity in my book “<a href="https://www.wsupress.wayne.edu/books/detail/running-scared">Running Scared: Masculinity and the Representation of the Male Body</a>.” After the old <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/end-american-film-censorship/">Motion Picture Production Code</a> was replaced by a new ratings system in 1968, frontal male nudity in Hollywood movies in certain contexts was permitted. “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068509/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1">Drive, He Said</a>,” directed by Jack Nicholson in 1971, was an early film to include such a scene, while Richard Gere’s <a href="https://foxwilmington.com/headlines/american-gigolo-star-carole-cook-recalls-working-with-richard-gere-he-was-carrying-the-mother-lode/">nude scene</a> in 1980’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080365/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">American Gigolo</a>” helped to transform the young actor into an international sex symbol.</p>
<p>Yet female nudity remained far more common in movies, and there was no frontal male nudity on mainstream television as of 1993.</p>
<p>Since then, a lot has changed. Directors and audiences are becoming more and more comfortable showing male nudity. </p>
<p>But nowadays, while we’re much more likely to see penises in mainstream film and television, they’re seldom real. Prosthetic penises – once used for exaggerated effect – have become the norm. </p>
<p>To me, this says something about the unusual significance we continue to grant the penis, along with our cultural need to carefully regulate its representation. In a way, the use of prosthetic penises maintains a certain mystique about masculinity, preserving the power of the phallus. </p>
<h2>Skirting the production code</h2>
<p>There are a number of factors fueling the current wave of frontal male nudity. </p>
<p>In the 1990s, premium cable television channels like HBO became more popular, while streaming platforms like Amazon and Netflix took off in the 21st century. </p>
<p>These channels and platforms aren’t governed by the Motion Picture Association’s <a href="https://www.motionpictures.org/film-ratings/">ratings system</a>, which strictly limits the circumstances under which the penis can be shown. </p>
<p>According to the ratings – which still regulate theater releases – penises can be shown in nonsexual situations, such as when they appear during a concentration camp scene in “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/">Schindler’s List</a>.” But if a scene involves sex and frontal male nudity, the actors have to be a certain distance apart. So when Bruce Willis’ penis briefly appeared during an underwater swimming pool lovemaking scene in the “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109456/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">The Color of Night</a>,” the MPAA objected, citing his proximity to the woman, and the shot had to be cut. Uncensored versions of the film are now available on DVD. </p>
<p>Premium cable TV channels are not governed by these guidelines, and the HBO show “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118421/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Oz</a>,” which aired from 1997 to 2003, marked a major turning point. Set in a prison, it was notable for the sheer quantity of full frontal male nudity, with characters shown in a variety of contexts, including showering and in their cells, fully naked. </p>
<p>Another reason for the trend in male nudity has to do with justifiable criticism of the ways women <a href="https://rb.gy/fzbhdt">have been sexually objectified</a> on TV and in film. Female nudity has been much more common than male nudity, and most of it tends to involve young, attractive women being showcased in a variety of erotic contexts, with an emphasis on their breasts and buttocks. </p>
<p>Some filmmakers, such as <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/the-righteous-gemstones-male-nudity-hbo-series-review.html">Judd Apatow</a> and <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/manuelbetancourt/penises-euphoria-nudity-hbo-game-of-thrones">Sam Levinson</a>, have said they’ve wanted to level the playing field by featuring more male nudity.</p>
<h2>The proliferation of the prosthetic</h2>
<p>Like “Oz,” Starz’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1442449/">Spartacus</a>,” which premiered in 2010, was full of frontal male nudity. </p>
<p>However, there was a key difference: all the penises were prosthetic, which are made to be worn by the actors and look realistic when filmed. </p>
<p>One of the most famous prosthetic penises appeared in Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1997 film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118749/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">Boogie Nights</a>,” which is about a porn star, played by Mark Wahlberg. At the end of the film, viewers see a closeup shot of the actor’s extremely large prosthetic penis. </p>
<p>Prosthetics were used on and off through the years. But after “Spartacus,” their use became the norm. Now in shows like HBO’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4998350/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">The Deuce</a>” and “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8772296/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">Euphoria</a>,” they’re everywhere. Sometimes they’re even digital. In “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1937390/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">Nymphomaniac: Vols. I and II</a>,” director Lars von Trier digitally replaced the actors’ penises with those from body doubles.</p>
<p>Whether they’re tangible or digital they tend to have one thing in common: they’re big. </p>
<h2>The obsession with size</h2>
<p>The prosthetic penis gives filmmakers total control over its representation, and some have used its flexibility to directly address this issue of size. </p>
<p>Take the 2015 romantic comedy “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3844362/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">The Overnight</a>.” </p>
<p>Penis size is first introduced in the opening scene, when a couples has awkward sex due to the husband’s small penis. Later at a dinner party with another couple, penis size becomes the big issue again when a wife swap between the two couples is discussed. </p>
<p>The other man, played by Jason Schwartzman, has an extremely large one, while the man from the opening scene, played by Adam Scott, has a much smaller one, and becomes uncomfortable with the idea of being “exposed.” During a protracted skinny dipping scene, viewers get to see each actor’s prosthetic penis. Within the conventions of the romantic comedy, both couples are united at the end and committed to saving their marriages. </p>
<p>“The Overnight” attempts to deflate the myth that penis size matters. But at the same time that it tackles the obsession with size, it ends up reinforcing the notion – in part because of the opening scene – that bigger is better. </p>
<p>Similarly, “Euphoria,” a bold, experimental high school drama, also explores penis size, connecting the fixation on size to toxic masculinity. It shows how girls are also complicit by dwelling on size themselves – and assuming that it’s linked to sexual performance and masculinity. </p>
<h2>Toward a more honest representation</h2>
<p>“The Overnight” and “Euphoria” strive to critique our culture’s obsession with the penis, as do movies like “Boogie Nights” and TV shows like “The Deuce,” both of which are serious explorations of the pornography industry. </p>
<p>Yet by making the penis a central theme, these films and TV shows continue to grant it an aura of mystique and power that existed long before prosthetics and weaker regulations. </p>
<p>[<em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>In the end, the use of prosthetics comes at the expense of the most mature thing filmmakers could do: show diverse, real penises in a manner that holds no special meaning for the character or plot.</p>
<p>While “Spartacus” would lead you to believe otherwise, all gladiators did not have big penises. Nor did their penis size and shape have anything to do with their strength, power, masculinity or sexuality. </p>
<p><a href="https://historycollection.com/10-of-the-most-famous-quotes-never-said-or-misattributed/3/">Although apocryphal</a>, Sigmund Freud supposedly remarked, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” which was meant to suggest that cigars are not always phallic symbols.</p>
<p>It’d be nice if, on screen, sometimes a penis were just a penis.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Lehman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Directors and audiences are becoming more comfortable with male frontal nudity. But what message does it send when almost all of the penises shown aren’t real?Peter Lehman, Emeritus Professor, Film and Media Studies in English, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1218512019-09-02T16:37:24Z2019-09-02T16:37:24ZTIFF: Netflix and streaming means Canadian feature films struggle to find audiences<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289939/original/file-20190828-184196-qm6yoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The feature 'Once Were Brothers' is the first time a Canadian documentary opens TIFF. The film follows Robbie Robertson from his early life in Toronto and on the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve to the creation of legendary roots-rock group The Band.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of TIFF</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For 10 days this September, the Toronto International Film Festival — or <a href="https://www.tiff.net/calendar?series=new-releases&list&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy7_Os92l5AIV0_7jBx2T2QofEAAYASAAEgKoQ_D_BwE">TIFF</a> — will be the epicentre of the cinematic world. </p>
<p>The festival shines a spotlight on the latest trends with celebrity-studded red carpets and buzz-worthy premieres. But for makers of the many excellent Canadian feature films, life after the festival means facing new movie-streaming reality checks. In this Netflix era, they will inevitably struggle with significant challenges to reach domestic audiences.</p>
<p>Recently, the programming decisions of major film festivals have sparked <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/apr/13/stream-or-silver-screen-netflix-pulls-plug-on-cannes-is-hollywood-next">global debate about the future of cinema</a>. For the second year in a row, TIFF’s opening film comes from an over-the-top streaming service. Subscription video on-demand services, like Netflix and Amazon Prime, operate independently of delivery networks like cable; they are literally “over-the-top.” They bypass traditional programming as they deliver content via high-speed internet. They also are exempt from the rules that govern Canadian broadcasters.</p>
<p>Netflix is a source of controversy on the international festival circuit. </p>
<p>Their films have been absent from the Cannes Film Festival lineup for two years <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/no-netflix-films-cannes-second-year-running-1202596">due to an impasse</a> over theatrical release requirements in France. European <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/news/european-exhibitors-slam-venice-netflix-the-laundromat-1203279307/">exhibitors have also pushed back against the Venice Film Festival</a> for programming films that will get only limited exposure in theatres, and then will be available exclusively for Netflix subscribers.</p>
<p>This year’s TIFF’s <a href="https://tiff.net/the-review/tiff-19-opening-night-gala">selection</a> of the feature <em>Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and The Band</em> marks the first time a <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tiff-2019-opening-night-gala-robbie-robert-once-were-brothers-1.5216122">Canadian documentary has nabbed the prestigious opening slot</a>. The film is also a Crave Original, co-produced by a Canadian over-the-top service.</p>
<p>But TIFF’s opening night programming has yet to trigger an exploration of how Canadian-owned over-the-top services differ from transnational ones. As audiences cope with an increasing array of content choices, how will Canadian filmmakers gain access to audiences?</p>
<h2>Attention and access</h2>
<p>The ability of viewers to find content relies on both awareness and access. Content awareness has some potential to push viewers to different platforms. </p>
<p>But while Netflix can raise the international popularity of Canadian film, that doesn’t improve access for their Canadian subscribers. For example, in 2017, <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-nabs-canadian-zombie-pic-les-affames-1080848">Netflix acquired global distribution rights for <em>Les Affamés</em></a> (<em>Ravenous</em>), winner of the Best Canadian Feature Film prize at TIFF that year. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290191/original/file-20190829-106508-nnqa4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290191/original/file-20190829-106508-nnqa4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290191/original/file-20190829-106508-nnqa4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290191/original/file-20190829-106508-nnqa4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290191/original/file-20190829-106508-nnqa4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290191/original/file-20190829-106508-nnqa4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290191/original/file-20190829-106508-nnqa4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A still from ‘Les affamés’ (Ravenous)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of TIFF</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When Netflix acquired <em>Les Affamés</em>, it said the film would be available for subscribers in Canada in 2019 (likely once exclusive domestic licences expire). The acquisition <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/netflix-buys-quebec-movie-amid-tensions-over-streaming-services-investment-in-canada/article37813815/">was touted as proof</a> that the controversial Netflix deal would indeed include support for French-language films. <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-acquires-french-canadian-film-les-affam%C3%A9s">Scott Stuber, head of Netflix’s film group, said:</a> “This is another exciting example of the investment the company is making in Canadian culture and bringing its stories and artists to the world.”</p>
<p>Currently in Canada, this film is only available through transactional video on-demand platforms like YouTube or Google Play.</p>
<p>Another TIFF 2017 selection, <em>Meditation Park</em> by Canadian filmmaker Mina Shum, was theatrically launched in Canada at the same time Netflix streamed its release in the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. A social media buzz spread via Twitter, especially from <a href="https://twitter.com/IamSandraOh/status/970795094700785664">Sandra Oh fans</a> (<em>Killing Eve</em>). </p>
<p>Even more than a year later, when a fan was advised to add <em>Meditation Park</em> to his movie-streaming playlist on Netflix, Shum <a href="https://twitter.com/MinaShum/status/1161697512316526592">chimed in and said</a> her film is “streaming on CBC in Canada” — meaning that it can be found on the Canadian over-the-top service, Gem.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290194/original/file-20190829-106498-1pwsduc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290194/original/file-20190829-106498-1pwsduc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290194/original/file-20190829-106498-1pwsduc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290194/original/file-20190829-106498-1pwsduc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290194/original/file-20190829-106498-1pwsduc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290194/original/file-20190829-106498-1pwsduc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290194/original/file-20190829-106498-1pwsduc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A still from ‘Meditation Park.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Netflix</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Canadian content for Canadians</h2>
<p>A search of Netflix’s Canadian catalogue shows it’s not picked up many Canadian features. The tag “critically-acclaimed Canadian movies” leads to 15 titles. This list includes Academy Award-winners (<em>Room</em>), nominees (<em>Monsieur Lahzar</em>), box-office hits (<em>Bon Cop, Bad Cop</em>), internationally recognized stars (Ellen Page, Christopher Plummer) and directors (Atom Egoyan, Patricia Rozema). The broader category of “Canadian movies” (42 titles) adds in a few Christmas movies, which are also tagged as “Made-for-TV,” and some genre films (thrillers, sports, family). </p>
<p>Ironically, the American Netflix catalogue likely has a richer selection of Canadian feature films. The dearth of Canadian content for Canadian Netflix subscribers is further evidence of <a href="https://theconversation.com/video-on-demand-and-the-myth-of-endless-choice-100116">the myth of “endless choice”</a> for online audiences.</p>
<p>Content discoverability is about making sure that Canadian content will <a href="https://trends.cmf-fmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/CMF_-_Discoverability_Toward_a_Common_Frame_of_Reference_-_Final.pdf">“stand out” and “be easily found”</a>. </p>
<p>Policy and research tend to focus on <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/creative-canada/framework.html#a6">how the content captures attention or reaches global markets</a> through promotion, and on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118819188">how platforms organize and present that content</a>. But audience access is affected by much more than marketing and algorithms.</p>
<p>The Canadian federal regulatory framework for feature film financing and distribution contributes to the absence of these films from the Canadian Netflix catalogue. To ensure Canadian stories reach Canadian audiences, Telefilm requires a commitment from a Canadian distributor for projects with a budget of $2.5 million or more that seek support from its <a href="https://telefilm.ca/en/">feature film fund</a>. The pre-sale of broadcast rights is another source of production financing.</p>
<p>Canadian over-the-top streaming services like Crave and Gem have a strong Canadian content presence in their catalogues because their parent companies — Bell Media and the CBC — can exploit broadcast rights across all of their platforms. The broadcasters are further tied into this arrangement by <a href="https://nowtoronto.com/movies/features/netflix-crave-canada-streaming-legislation/">the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s requirements that they participate in Canadian content production</a>.</p>
<h2>The future of Canadian streaming</h2>
<p>Like Netflix and Amazon Prime, Crave is venturing into original content that will be shown in movie theatres. Their focus is on documentaries. Two previous Crave Originals — <em>Anthropocene: The Human Epoch</em> and <em>Sharkwater Extinction</em> —screened at TIFF 2018. After being released in theatres, both documentaries were <a href="http://playbackonline.ca/2019/03/20/sharkwater-extinction-anthropocene-get-earth-week-bows-as-crave-originals/">launched on Crave and CTV</a> as part of Earth Week programming.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290195/original/file-20190829-106530-1wf9ut5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290195/original/file-20190829-106530-1wf9ut5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290195/original/file-20190829-106530-1wf9ut5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290195/original/file-20190829-106530-1wf9ut5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290195/original/file-20190829-106530-1wf9ut5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290195/original/file-20190829-106530-1wf9ut5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290195/original/file-20190829-106530-1wf9ut5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A still from ‘Anthropocene The Human Epoch.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Jennifer Baichwal, Nicholas de Pencier, Edward Burtynsky)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The documentary genre has strong roots in Canadian film and television history. The common ground shared by nonfiction storytelling and broadcasting points to the Bell Media production of Crave Original documentaries as more of a synergistic business decision than a disruption of content delivery patterns.</p>
<p>Every year, TIFF is a catalyst for media attention about the health of the Canadian feature film industry. With a Netflix opener in 2018, coverage looked at <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/tiff-netflix-streaming-1.4812751">the streamer’s dominant presence in a growing subscription video on-demand (SVOD) marketplace</a> and efforts <a href="https://torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/tiff-2018-netflix-hopes-to-spark-buzz-with-big-stars-major-awards-hype">“to strengthen its image as a home to prestige films.”</a></p>
<p>Now that Crave is in the coveted gala spot, it’s time to take a closer look at the Canadian presence in over-the-top streaming offerings. How can Canadian filmmakers navigate the complex trade-offs between attention and access while trying to be discovered by audiences at home?</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121851/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Diane Burgess does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Even though a Crave produced film has become the first ever Canadian documentary to open TIFF, video streaming services like Netflix raises challenges for filmmakers looking for domestic audiences.Diane Burgess, Lecturer, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/876522017-11-29T02:27:24Z2017-11-29T02:27:24ZWhen envisioning the future of TV, think of a shopping mall<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/195941/original/file-20171122-6020-1bd7w8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Disney has announced that it will be launching its own streaming service for its central brands, and another one for live sports. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Earns-Walt-Disney/872b6899dde848cbb1bfdff8405ba7bf/1/0">Richard Drew/AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the biggest media industry stories this year is <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/08/11/disney-streaming-service-netflix/">Disney’s announcement</a> that it will launch its own internet-distributed television service in 2018. </p>
<p>There’s a lot we don’t know. The price is up in the air. And Disney – a company that owns everything from <a href="http://deadline.com/2017/09/marvel-star-wars-films-move-netflix-new-disney-ott-service-1202163292/">Star Wars</a> to Marvel to <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/08/20/why-disney-is-going-over-the-top-with-streaming.aspx">ESPN</a> – hasn’t clearly signaled how it will divvy its major franchises and brands across two or more services. </p>
<p>But much of the prognosticating – especially those betting on a <a href="http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/barry-diller-disney-netflix-1202613573/">battle between Disney and Netflix</a> – reveals a misunderstanding of the marketplace.</p>
<p>Don’t assume internet-distributed video will be dominated by a single service, or that all video services compete against each other. Instead, Disney’s new streaming service points to the growing range of offerings consumers will be able to choose from in the coming months and years.</p>
<h2>There’s room for multiple winners</h2>
<p>Disney, for example, recently suggested one of its new services would include only <a href="https://www.fiercecable.com/online-video/disney-streaming-service-will-be-priced-substantially-lower-than-netflix">family-friendly</a> content and would be priced “<a href="https://www.fiercecable.com/online-video/disney-streaming-service-will-be-priced-substantially-lower-than-netflix">substantially lower</a>” than Netflix. </p>
<p>But is that service a threat to Netflix, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-walt-disney-netflix-fox-analysis/fox-in-the-mouse-house-could-give-disney-an-edge-in-streaming-wars-idUSKBN1D801X">as some have suggested</a>? Of course not. </p>
<p>It helps to think of new television streaming services as specialty stores like the Gap, Chico’s or Justice. All sell clothing, but they compete minimally with one another because each targets consumers of different ages. </p>
<p>Likewise, while a department store such as Macy’s might compete a bit with each of these stores, they’re primarily concerned with other retailers that house many goods under the same roof – Target, Walmart and J.C. Penney. Even in a world of online retailers, there’s a huge variety among specialty sellers and Amazon’s one-stop shopping. </p>
<p>When it comes to streaming services, they might all deliver the same thing – video – via an internet connection. But it’s important to understand that all video services are not in competition. Many are quite complementary. Most offer completely different libraries of content and instead compete with cable and satellite packages. A Disney service would replicate only a small part of Netflix’s library, and would likely include much of the content offered on the Disney Channel. </p>
<p>Consumers with young children may decide that they need only a service with content for kids. Or they may decide they want a single library with content for both adults and children. Or they may decide that each provides enough value to subscribe to both. </p>
<p>Internet-distributed television simply offers much more flexibility; it’s up to consumers to assess what they want and how much they want to spread their spending.</p>
<p>In addition to differences based on the type of content these services offer, their revenue models are also distinct. Contrast YouTube and Netflix. YouTube – like other <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X17709098">social media platforms</a> – has low content costs because users create and upload most videos. Without substantial program costs, YouTube can develop a business supported through advertising. </p>
<p>In contrast, Netflix offers a deliberately curated library of content that it either <a href="money.cnn.com/2017/10/16/technology/business/netflix-earnings/index.html">pays</a> to license or creates. It provides a library valued enough by some to pay a monthly fee for access to it. Because of the difference in their revenue models and the content those models allow, Netflix and YouTube are far more complementary than competitive.</p>
<h2>The breakdown of channel bundles</h2>
<p>For decades, U.S. television viewers could choose from only two or three options: broadcast signals, an expensive cable or satellite bundle, or a bigger, even more expensive cable or satellite bundle.</p>
<p>People frustrated with bundles (“Why would I want all of these channels?”) used to call for “à la carte” cable: the ability to select individual cable channels for which they hoped to pay less than the high amount for a bundle with many channels they never viewed. </p>
<p>Of course, there was <a href="http://www.carseywolf.ucsb.edu/mip/article/channel-bundles-persist%E2%80%94-now%E2%80%94despite-digital-disruption">a reason</a> companies didn’t let customers pay less for fewer channels – the bundles are <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/streaming">the result of a business strategy</a> intended to maximize profits. </p>
<p>But even though traditional cable remains bundled, more and more entertainment companies – like Disney – are offering their content at a standalone fee, allowing consumers to cobble together a customized menu of services. When viewers decide whether to subscribe to Disney’s new service, they’ll think about how this added cost relates to what they’re already paying, and whether it’s worth it. </p>
<p>We’re still in the early days of this new way of delivering television and film. For every headline announcing a service <a href="http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/fullscreen-svod-shutdown-layoffs-1202614100/">shutting</a> <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16120606/seeso-shutting-down-streaming-service-comedy">down</a>, <a href="https://www.techhive.com/article/3204504/streaming-services/fubo-tv-all-the-details-on-this-sports-heavy-streaming-bundle.html">new ones</a> are launching. And <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html">FCC plans to eliminate</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/appeals-court-upholds-net-neutrality-rules-why-you-should-care-61064">net neutrality</a> will likely change this landscape tremendously. </p>
<p>It’s all part of the process of companies figuring out how much consumers want and how much they’re willing to pay. The new services offering content geared to a brand, franchise or genre – Disney, <a href="http://www.wwe.com/wwenetwork">WWE Network</a> (wrestling), <a href="https://www.shudder.com/">Shudder</a> (horror) – never plan on being in every home in the way CBS and NBC once were. </p>
<p>Just as we sometimes choose the one-stop shopping of Target, services such as Netflix offer convenience. But the trade-off for convenience is product choice – do you want to select among two sweaters or the 20 you’ll find at Old Navy?</p>
<p>Services that fail don’t portend the viability of all internet-distributed television. Nor do the successes. Rather, they simply offer lessons on particular value propositions. </p>
<p>The future likely includes a mix of specialty and multifaceted services.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Disney recently announced a forthcoming streaming service, leading some to wonder if the company is gearing up for a battle with Netflix. But not all streaming services are locked in a death match.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/784422017-06-01T01:55:18Z2017-06-01T01:55:18ZMainstream media outlets are dropping the ball with terrorism coverage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171670/original/file-20170531-25658-1975cei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Breathless reporting accompanies each attack, with little time spent addressing the underlying causes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Lehr/The Conversation via Google</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>News coverage of the Manchester terrorist attack was sadly familiar: cellphone videos of screaming victims; details of first responders’ hectic efforts; “Was it terrorism?” guesswork; speculation about the perpetrator. In this case, the horror was amplified by so many of the killed and wounded being young people.</p>
<p>Since the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, covering the type of violence inspired by al-Qaeda or the Islamic State (IS) has become a staple of the news media’s repertoire. Collectively, this reporting increases the public’s sense of vulnerability: An evil is out there, unpredictable and ferocious, sure to strike again.</p>
<p>But what’s behind that evil? When I watch or read mainstream news coverage of the attacks, they tend to treat them as distinct events, much like a train wreck or bank robbery. </p>
<p>As I worked on my forthcoming book, “As Terrorism Evolves: Media, Religion, and Governance,” it became clear that for all the breathless headlines about IS-inspired terror attacks, many know little about the complexities of terrorism and Islam. Who are these people who murder so wantonly? Why do they do it? And, most importantly, how might such attacks be stopped?</p>
<p>Answering such questions requires daily news coverage that consists of more than depictions of scattered chaos. A holistic approach to reporting about terrorism might better explain this phenomenon that’s reshaping our lives, much as the Cold War did 50 years ago.</p>
<h2>A journalistic void</h2>
<p>Western reporting about IS-inspired terrorist attacks almost always, explicitly or implicitly, notes a connection to Islam. But it often ends there. <a href="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/12/religious-lit-symposium/">Many journalists shy away from religious topics</a>, and this creates a vacuum of public knowledge that terrorists and anti-Muslim activists and politicians can exploit. </p>
<p>The result? A religion of 1.6 billion people is being defined in public discourse by the acts of the few who spill blood in a Manchester arena or a Baghdad marketplace. And because there is such limited understanding of Islam in the non-Muslim world – <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2010/08/24/public-remains-conflicted-over-islam/">55 percent</a> of Americans say they know little or nothing at all about Islam – many news consumers are prone to accept the idea that “Islam-equals-terrorism.” <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/">Results of a 2015 Pew Research Center study</a> underscored the pervasiveness of stereotypes and the tensions underlying them, with significant numbers of Americans viewing Muslims as anti-American and violent. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/13/iowa-republican-party-criticizes-steve-king-for-controversial-muslim-tweet/">When political figures denounce Muslims</a>, or when there is anti-Muslim backlash following an attack, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/24/reactions-to-manchester-bombing-show-how-anti-muslim-bigots-are-useful-idiots-for-isis/">terrorist organizations chalk up a victory</a>. Because some Muslims will inevitably see their religion as being under siege, they become susceptible to recruitment by the likes of al-Qaida and IS, who portray themselves as defenders of the religion.</p>
<p>Following terror attacks, anti-extremism responses from Muslim communities might receive some coverage. For example, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49nOBFv508&feature=youtu.be">an antiterrorism message</a> produced in Kuwait and broadcast soon after the Manchester bombing quickly went viral on social media and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/world/middleeast/zain-ad-ramadan-terrorism.html">received coverage from Western news media</a>.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, Islam usually disappears from the news until the next tragedy, even though approximately <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/31/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/">80 percent of Muslims</a> live outside the Arab world in countries of rising importance such as Indonesia, Pakistan and Nigeria. The global political clout of Islam is, in some ways, like that of Catholicism centuries ago. If the role of Islam in world affairs were to receive continuing coverage, perhaps news consumers would realize that there is far more to Islam than violence. And if antipathy toward Islam were to diminish, terrorists would lose a recruiting tool.</p>
<h2>Honestly addressing the threat</h2>
<p>That said, this coverage should also address state-sponsored extremism, most notably Saudi Arabia’s <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html">well-funded promotion of Wahabbist Muslim ideology</a>. This fundamentalist doctrine is intrinsically separatist and lends itself to militancy. <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism">It provides a purported theological rationale</a> for treating moderate Muslims – as well as non-Muslims – as enemies. </p>
<p>While Western politicians are restrained in dealing with this for reasons related to oil and regional geopolitics, the news media could play a more forceful role in describing how even purported allies help terrorism take root.</p>
<p>Journalists could also more thoroughly examine the sophistication of terrorist operations. Islamic State, for example, has deftly used social media to inspire terrorist attackers, even those with whom it has no direct contact. </p>
<p>The perpetrators of the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, California had received no training or orders from Islamic State, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/san-bernardino-shooting/">but they pledged allegiance to IS</a> and launched the attack based on what they had gleaned from IS’ online content.</p>
<p>Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaida, recognized the power of media <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winning-social-media-war-heres-beat/">when he wrote</a>, back in 2004, that “more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media…we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma [Muslim people].” </p>
<p><a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winning-social-media-war-heres-beat/">IS has used social media</a> to spread its message, recruit followers, train fighters and raise funds. Governments and nongovernmental groups <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/11/19/fight-against-isis-reveals-power-of-social-media/">have recently become more adept at pushing back against this</a> – the U.S. State Department has released over 300 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcQxGG6y-MY">YouTube videos</a> to counter the messaging of extremist groups – but the news media still tend to understate the organizational and military capabilities of terrorist groups.</p>
<p>Consider the long-running story of efforts to liberate Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, which Islamic State has held since 2014. Iraqi and American sources provide vaguely optimistic updates, which are duly reported. But this battle has been underway since October 2016. Despite the U.S.-backed onslaught, parts of Mosul remain under Islamic State control. What does this portend for future Islamic State military efforts and its far-ranging terrorist attacks? Relying on daily combat bulletins obscures the long-term realities that journalists should be analyzing.</p>
<p>More broadly, counterterrorism efforts by the United States and other countries deserve greater scrutiny. The public needs to know what’s working and what isn’t. Defeating terrorism will require a mix of hard and soft power. Shutting down terrorists’ recruiting pipelines is crucial. That requires innovative programs to reach those who are vulnerable to extremist appeals. </p>
<p>Terrorism is a pervasive enough part of our lives to merit more consistent news coverage, and journalists on the terrorism beat must develop expertise about this multidimensional topic. (Among the best are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/joby-warrick/?utm_term=.9e1b163e07c6">Joby Warrick</a> of The Washington Post and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/by/rukmini-callimachi">Rukmini Callimachi</a> of The New York Times.) But overall, terrorism-related journalism remains episodic and simplistic.</p>
<p>Since the rude awakening of 9/11, journalism, in my view, hasn’t kept pace with the bloody growth of terrorism. It needs to catch up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Seib does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Terrorist attacks are more than ‘breaking news,’ but the media aren’t taking a comprehensive approach to exploring the underlying issues.Philip Seib, Professor of Journalism and Public Diplomacy, USC Annenberg School for Communication and JournalismLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768432017-05-02T02:34:58Z2017-05-02T02:34:58ZPolitics don’t explain ESPN’s subscriber decline<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167380/original/file-20170501-17307-1kzkkju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Connecticut.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/ESPN/eadc494ceaef4d98a559840ee5a2f7bf/34/0">AP Photo/Jessica Hill</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent months, ESPN has come under fire from liberals and conservatives. Some progressives are urging fans <a href="https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/boycott-the-n-f-l/">to boycott</a> the network’s NFL broadcasts due to the league’s tolerance of off-field violence and its hesitancy to deal with brain injuries. Meanwhile, conservatives have been claiming that viewers are turning away from the channel due to its coverage of social issues and its “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/sports/espn-layoffs-sports-politics-bias.html">liberal bias</a>.” Most recently, ESPN host Jemele Hill’s controversial comments about President Trump <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2017/09/15/trump-demands-apology-from-espn-following-white-supremacist-comment/">sparked a conservative backlash</a>.</p>
<p>ESPN’s subscribers and revenue are, in fact, <a href="https://www.economist.com/news/business/21721664-sports-fans-are-producing-their-own-bootleg-highlights-espn-losing-subscribers-it">in decline</a>. But this trend started <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/being-espn-means-never-having-to-say-sorry">six years ago</a>, well before any of the incidents those who blame politics cite. </p>
<p>Instead, there’s plenty of evidence that ESPN’s subscriber drops are part of a broader readjustment taking place in the U.S. television industry. </p>
<p>My recent book, “<a href="http://www.amandalotz.com/portals-a-treatise-on-internetdistributed-television/">Portals: A Treatise on Internet-Distributed Television</a>,” explores how new ways to access television are disrupting the television industry. ESPN’s loss of viewers has drawn so much attention because many thought the network was invincible. But internet competition has challenged many sectors of the industry – ESPN included – while providing unexpected opportunities for others. </p>
<h2>What happened?</h2>
<p>It’s worth noting that ESPN is unique among cable channels. </p>
<p>Most cable channels earn revenue from both subscriber fees and advertising. But ESPN receives far more from fees than most. </p>
<p>Every month, cable and satellite providers pay ESPN between US$6 and $7 per household to offer the channel – a cost that’s part of the monthly bills subscribers pay. As a comparison, most channels receive less than 50 cents per household; many get less than a quarter. <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/overcrowded-cable-sector-esquire-spike-fyi-1202012647/">According to analysis by Variety</a>, the second highest subscriber fee after ESPN is for TNT at $1.58 per household.</p>
<p>ESPN is able to negotiate such a high fee from cable providers because it has purchased exclusive licenses to many major sports events. </p>
<p>Live sports draw the largest U.S. television audiences: Sports programs delivered <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/tops-of-2016-tv.html">nine of the top 10</a> U.S. television audiences in 2016. Even in an era of DVRs and video on demand, live sporting events remain “must-see” viewing. Realizing the importance of ESPN’s programming to many viewers, cable and satellite providers paid steady increases to maintain ESPN. The thinking goes that if they can’t offer ESPN, they’ll lose subscribers to competitors that do. </p>
<p>ESPN also earns considerable revenue from advertising, with opportunities for in-game sponsorships, in addition to the usual commercial breaks. </p>
<p>So over the past decade, while much of the rest of the television industry has grappled with losing viewers, advertisers, and revenue to disruptive new ways to watch shows on demand, ESPN seemed immune to the changes. </p>
<p>ESPN had 94.4 million subscribers in 2015 who paid an estimated average of <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/overcrowded-cable-sector-esquire-spike-fyi-1202012647/">$6.61 per month</a>. Multiplied by 12 months, that produced yearly subscriber revenue of more than $7.48 billion. ESPN banked on that revenue when it established multi-year licenses with professional sports leagues, including a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html">$15.2 billion deal</a> for rights to NFL games through 2021, an eight-year, <a href="http://m.mlb.com/news/article/37476712//">$5.6 billion</a> agreement with the MLB and a <a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/10/06/Media/NBA-media.aspx">$12.6 billion</a> deal for NBA games that runs through 2025. </p>
<p>ESPN made these deals thinking that subscriber revenue would never decrease. But it has.</p>
<h2>Television’s evolution</h2>
<p>The television industry has been undergoing considerable changes for over a decade, but the pace and scale of these changes have <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-2015-was-the-year-that-changed-tv-forever-52422">escalated since 2015</a>. </p>
<p>Cable channels are feeling the pain of this change in two ways. First, internet-distributed portals such as Netflix and YouTube now offer programming and new ways to watch TV. They’ve <a href="http://variety.com/2015/tv/features/broadcast-nets-move-closer-to-developing-ratings-that-consider-auds-delayed-viewing-habits-1201430321/">siphoned viewers</a> (and advertising revenue) from cable and broadcast networks.</p>
<p>Second, cable channels now reach fewer homes. Some homes have canceled their cable service entirely. Others have moved to more affordable, somewhat more customizable packages – “<a href="https://theconversation.com/could-hulu-and-google-upend-the-tv-industry-in-2017-70248">skinny bundles</a>” that offer fewer channels but more choice. As one of the most widely available – and most expensive – channels, ESPN was particularly vulnerable. It reached <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/overcrowded-cable-sector-esquire-spike-fyi-1202012647/">7.4 percent fewer homes in 2017</a> than in 2015, resulting in a massive loss of subscriber revenue.</p>
<p>Other channels, from A&E to USA, also confront these struggles. But these channels aren’t committed to multi-year, billion-dollar deals with professional sports leagues. Until the deals can be renegotiated, ESPN is slashing costs where it can: its personnel.</p>
<h2>Will sports broadcasting see a huge disruption?</h2>
<p>The crisis at ESPN developed because of the lack of competition. ESPN’s monthly fee grew so high because cable providers had no choice but to pay it; there was no alternative channel that also provided these games. Subscribers had no way to vent frustration because ESPN prevented cable systems from offering the channel on a separate “sports tier.” Subscribing to cable required receiving ESPN and the substantial monthly cost it added. This has been the case for some time, but the disruption introduced by streaming services has created competition and at last triggered an adjustment. </p>
<p>Flush with subscriber revenue, ESPN allowed the escalation of what could be called the “sports-industrial complex,” enabling <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nfl-made-13-billion-last-season-see-how-it-stacks-up-against-other-leagues-2016-07-01">rich profits for sports leagues</a> and teams and escalating player and coach salaries. The profitability of sports depends on these television deals. </p>
<p>Just as the rest of the television industry struggles with new competitors and new norms, there is no way for ESPN to go back to its previous position of demanding high subscriber fees and forcing all cable subscribers to subsidize its programming. </p>
<p>Some sports leagues are using internet distribution to cut out broadcast and cable middlemen entirely and now sell directly to their viewers. <a href="http://www.cablefax.com/programming/wwe-network-approaches-2-million-subs">WWE wrestling</a> switched to this model in 2014. The major sports leagues currently benefit from channels’ willingness to pay high license fees and bear the risk of a changing market. When those fees diminish, they may follow WWE and sell access to their games directly to fans. </p>
<p>Once the leagues identify that there is more revenue in selling directly to fans and selling advertising themselves, sports television could experience a seismic disruption. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on May 1, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76843/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In sports media – as in sports – no one is invincible.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/716762017-03-06T02:14:44Z2017-03-06T02:14:44ZAmerica’s broadband market needs more competition<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158608/original/image-20170227-26326-15wvoq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How many people are trying to connect America's cities?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/technicians-connecting-network-cable-connection-concept-88451932">Network workers via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The United States is home to some of the most creative people and businesses on the planet. Our filmmakers, artists, software engineers and scientists entertain the world and expand the boundaries of human knowledge. Their creative process is often a mystery, but their tools are not. Among these tools, few are more critical than the internet, which fosters creativity and innovation by facilitating access to information and supporting collaborative work. It is the enzyme that accelerates the creative economy, much like waterways, railroads and roads fueled the industrial era.</p>
<p>But there is a catch: Our world-class creators live in communities where internet access services are far from world-class. Take the example of Los Angeles, a major creativity hub: Using data from the California Public Utilities Commission, <a href="http://usc-annenberg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8f4cee8ba8fa478396e947cb595674f3">we mapped</a> the availability of different home internet services across Los Angeles County. We then combined the results with demographic data, which allowed us to analyze the interplay between internet infrastructure and community demographics in close geographical detail.</p>
<p>Our results show that <a href="http://arnicusc.org/publications/c2ig-policy-brief-1/">nearly two-thirds of Angelenos live in areas served by just one internet provider</a> that offers speeds meeting the Federal Communications Commission’s current definition of “broadband” service – <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report">25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload</a>. Competition is slightly stronger in the wealthier areas of the county, along the coast and in the San Fernando Valley.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=848&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=848&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=848&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1065&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1065&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158609/original/image-20170227-26298-1x7hu6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1065&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Only one-third of Los Angeles County residents have more than one option for internet service that meets the FCC’s broadband standard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hernán Galperin</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Weak competition yields high prices for consumers and little pressure for companies to upgrade their networks to offer better service. For example, in LA County, fiber-based services (capable of delivering speeds far faster than legacy technologies like cable or DSL) are available in less than a quarter of census blocks. By comparison, fiber coverage in cities like Stockholm and Paris (where residents have a choice of at least <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet-users-pay-more-and-have-fewer-choices-europeans">six providers</a>) is approaching <a href="https://observatoire.francethd.fr/">100 percent</a>. Further, the speeds offered in monopoly areas are 35 percent lower than those offered in areas with three or more competitors. This suggests that increasing competition in America’s broadband market would offer a better on-ramp to the creative lifeline of the internet.</p>
<h2>Little head-to-head competition</h2>
<p>The situation in LA County reflects two major trends in U.S. broadband markets:</p>
<p>1) The ongoing <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/22/498996253/timeline-at-ts-merger-with-time-warner-follows-decades-of-industry-deals">industry consolidation</a> in the telecom and cable TV markets;</p>
<p>2) <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16933/how-broadband-providers-seem-avoid-competition">Weak competition</a> between DSL (which uses existing landline telephone wires to deliver broadband) and cable-internet services.</p>
<p>One of our key findings is that there is almost no geographical overlap between competitors with the same technology. Of the more than 73,000 census blocks in LA County – the smallest unit of geography government data can be broken into – only about 2,500 (3 percent) are served by more than one DSL provider. Likewise, only 850 blocks (about 1 percent) are served by more than one cable-internet provider. Alas, most households have to choose between one cable provider and one DSL provider; often, one of them fails to meet the FCC’s broadband speed threshold.</p>
<p>Competition has reached such lows that recent mergers aren’t making much difference. Take, for example, Charter Communications’ acquisition of Time Warner Cable in May 2016, a mega-merger of cable rivals that was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-spectrum-cable-bills-20161004-snap-story.html">expected</a> to reduce competition and increase prices throughout LA County. But fewer than 1 percent of Angelenos lived in areas previously served by both operators. The merger couldn’t reduce competition because there was so little tto begin with, as companies divvy up territory to avoid competition.</p>
<p>The most recent <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report">FCC Broadband Report</a> finds that the situation in Los Angeles is typical of other large metro areas. And it is worse in rural America, where 40 percent of residents lack access to broadband services.</p>
<h2>Communities stand up for themselves</h2>
<p>A key barrier to more competition is the expense of installing wired networks across large areas. In the past, federal policies required the few companies with existing networks to allow competing providers to serve customers over those same wires. But <a href="http://scrawford.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/The-communications-crisis-in-America-final.pdf">those days are gone</a>, largely because the incumbent cable and phone companies successfully fought them in court.</p>
<p>As a result, many local governments have <a href="https://theconversation.com/municipal-broadband-offers-hope-for-lagging-us-internet-36473">taken matters into their own hands</a>. In 2014, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti launched <a href="http://citylinkla.org/">CityLinkLA</a> seeking to secure private investments in high-speed internet networks that would provide every resident with a basic level of internet service for free, or at very low cost. The system Garcetti envisioned would also be able to offer much faster speeds than today’s commercial service – 1 Gbps or more – at competitive rates.</p>
<p>So far, however, CityLinkLA has not attracted large investments in new broadband infrastructure, particularly for gigabit-speed services. Moreover, our analysis shows that fiber-optic investments have been concentrated in wealthier communities, exacerbating the <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/21/home-broadband-2015/">growing divide</a> between those with lightning-speed home connections and a digital underclass forced to rely on their smartphones and mobile data plans.</p>
<p>Geography and demographics present numerous challenges to the roll-out of advanced network infrastructure in many U.S. cities, including Los Angeles. However, an <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet-users-pay-more-and-have-fewer-choices-europeans">analysis</a> by the Center for Public Integrity shows that, when comparing US and French cities with similar population densities (such as Nice and Columbus, OH), Americans paid more and had less choice in broadband. If our people and businesses are to continue thriving in a knowledge-based economy, and if we seek to build new opportunities for struggling communities, we must do better. </p>
<p>Help is unlikely to come from Washington, where the newly appointed FCC chairman has <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-makes-it-harder-for-poor-people-to-get-subsidized-broadband/">consistently voted</a> against federal subsidies for broadband expansion projects. Rather, we should look at the example of communities across America, large and small, that are building upon existing city assets to accelerate the equitable deployment of next-generation internet infrastructure. For example, the city of Los Angeles already owns over 800 miles of fiber optic cable, and there is <a href="http://citylinkla.org/rfp/RFP-CityLinkLA-6-16-15-c2.pdf">significant spare capacity</a>. This and other locally owned assets can be leveraged to offer Angelenos, and Americans, the world-class internet service they deserve.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71676/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>World-class fiber-based internet service is available in less than a quarter of Los Angeles County. By contrast, it’s almost ubiquitous in Stockholm and Paris.Hernán Galperin, Research Associate Professor of Communication, USC Annenberg School for Communication and JournalismAnnette M. Kim, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Southern CaliforniaFrançois Bar, Professor of Communication and Spatial Sciences, USC Annenberg School for Communication and JournalismLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/702482016-12-20T17:49:38Z2016-12-20T17:49:38ZCould Hulu and Google upend the TV industry in 2017?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150577/original/image-20161217-18030-1152oms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">TV networks are trying to win back cord-cutters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-111689699/stock-photo-old-television-falling-down-from-sky-outdoors.html?src=DcN_tOOPx5e_4_a6m99KNg-1-18">'Falling TV' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The transformation of U.S. television that <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/126732/2015-year-changed-tv-forever">began in 2015</a> – with more companies distributing television content over the internet – continued in 2016. Over the past year, however, the pace of change was slower and drew fewer headlines, even as <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/on-demand-demographics-vod-viewing-across-generations.html">more viewers moved away</a> from live, network-scheduled viewing to recorded, on-demand or streaming services.</p>
<p>But several subtler developments point to coming changes in the new year. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.recode.net/2016/11/1/13490026/hulu-disney-fox-espn-fox-sports-streaming-tv">Hulu</a> and <a href="http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/cbs-google-youtube-carriage-deal-1201894255/">Google</a> announced plans to offer bundled channel services, joining those launched by SlingTV, Sony’s Vue and, most recently, AT&T’s DirecTV Now. All offer many popular channels currently available from cable and satellite services like Comcast and Charter. The main difference is that they stream all the content from these channels over the internet. </p>
<p>These new bundled channel packages are meant to compete with cable or satellite, and some have called them “<a href="http://fortune.com/2016/12/14/cord-cutting-slows-skinny-bundle/">skinny bundles</a>” under the assumption that they’ll have fewer channels and be cheaper. But that’s not necessarily the case. </p>
<p>So why would a viewer want to switch to these services? Why are they starting to saturate the market, and what do they mean for the future of television? </p>
<h2>Not necessarily cheaper (or better)</h2>
<p>As they’ve come to market, many of the services aren’t so “skinny” after all: <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13788934/directv-now-att-internet-tv-service-questions-pricing-channels">DirecTV Now</a> offers a package with more than 100 channels that currently costs US$35 per month but will eventually cost $60 per month. The cheapest <a href="https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/?ultra">Vue package</a> costs $30 a month for 45 channels. </p>
<p>The average monthly cable bill <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/09/23/average-cable-tv-bill/">surpassed $100</a> this year, once set-top box fees, special channel fees and taxes are figured in. So these new services might look like a significant amount of savings. </p>
<p>But while some customers may pay less by switching, it’s worth noting that someone who signs up for a new bundled service will still need to pay for internet service. And many of the traditional cable companies – Comcast, Charter, Cox – are also internet providers. Although these companies might be <a href="http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-loses-5-50-a-month-when-a-customer-ditches-video-analyst-concludes?utm_medium=nl&utm_source">losing cable subscribers</a>, they’ve been able to retain them as internet customers and charge them more because customers lose discounts offered for combining cable and internet service. </p>
<p>Internet providers have also started charging more for internet access. In the last year, many <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/10/07/comcast-internet-data-caps/">established monthly caps</a> on data that require subscribers to pay additional fees if they exceed the cap. Having all of a household’s television delivered by the internet – which would be the case if you started streaming all of your television via a bundled service – exhausts a lot of data.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, though bundled services offer many of the same channels, they have limited on-demand libraries and don’t have DVRs to let viewers record shows. Viewers outside the largest cities won’t have access to local programming or live broadcast shows. And while they allow viewers to watch on internet-connected TVs, computers and mobile devices, some limit how many devices can be used simultaneously. (For example, DirecTV Now only allows two devices to be used at a time.) </p>
<h2>An opportunity to profit</h2>
<p>Ever since high-quality, streaming services emerged in 2010, it was clear that the business of television was in for radical change. </p>
<p>Bundled channel services have an opportunity to be immensely profitable because – since they’re streamed over the internet – anyone in the country can buy them. Cable services, on the other hand, are geographically limited to the houses reached by their wires. </p>
<p>For Hulu and Google, an especially attractive target is the 20 million so-called <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/tvs-looming-threat-cord-nevers-1444151008">“cord-cutters” or “cord-nevers”</a> that don’t pay for cable and watch television only via on-demand, internet-distributed services such as Netflix. </p>
<p>Traditional channels and networks were initially <a href="http://www.recode.net/2016/7/14/12188984/apple-skinny-bundles-web-tv-hollywood-reporter">hesitant about joining</a> internet-distributed services. But now they’ve changed their tune and are eager to make deals to be included. DirecTV Now has all of the broadcast networks except for CBS and The CW, and Hulu’s service is reportedly just as robust. Such advertiser-supported channels find bundled channel services more attractive because they can prevent viewers from fast-forwarding through commercials.</p>
<h2>For viewers, a different flavor of the same thing?</h2>
<p>When customers sign up for these bundled services, they aren’t able to choose from a menu of channels. In fact, these new services are starting to look more and more like the cable and satellite services that give customers <a href="http://www.carseywolf.ucsb.edu/mip/article/channel-bundles-persist%E2%80%94-now%E2%80%94despite-digital-disruption">no choice but to pay for far more channels than they want</a>. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, internet distribution still liberates television from the shackles of scheduled programming. Viewers have a lot more choice in what and when they watch. <a href="https://theconversation.com/appeals-court-upholds-net-neutrality-rules-why-you-should-care-61064">Net neutrality policy has been important</a> because it created rules that ensured internet providers must treat all content the same – that they can’t charge websites to load more quickly or give advantages to sites they own. This encouraged companies to innovate, leading to more competition and more choices. </p>
<p>Notably, the new administration is <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/trump-net-neutrality-fcc/">rumored to be hostile</a> to net neutrality policies. So the future of these internet-distributed bundles is already in question.</p>
<p>While the bundled services are another stepping stone in transforming the business of television, they’re likely little more than that. They do, however, indicate new willingness on the part of networks and channels to embrace a competitive environment that includes broadcasting, cable and internet distribution of television.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70248/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Next year Hulu and Google will introduce their own bundled channel services. Will it spark an online TV revolution or simply lead to more of the same?Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374422015-03-27T09:50:36Z2015-03-27T09:50:36ZWhy has TV storytelling become so complex?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76143/original/image-20150326-8709-11xvq2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Seismic changes in the television industry have transformed the ways stories are told and consumed.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/TV/search.html?page=1&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=193018853">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you watch the season finale of The Walking Dead this Sunday, the story will likely evoke events from previous episodes, while making references to an array of minor and major characters. Such storytelling devices belie the show’s simplistic scenario of zombie survival, but are consistent with a major trend in television narrative.</p>
<p>Prime time television’s storytelling palette is broader than ever before, and today, a serialized show like The Walking Dead is more the norm than the exception. We can see the heavy use of serialization in other dramas (The Good Wife and Fargo) and comedies (Girls and New Girl). And some series have used self-conscious narrative devices like dual time frames (True Detective), voice-over narration (Jane the Virgin) and direct address of the viewer (House of Cards). Meanwhile, shows like Louie blur the line between fantasy and reality. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a5Ha3IWeXOo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The House of Cards’ Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) will often directly address the audience – one of many storytelling devices that have emerged in television in recent years.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many have praised contemporary television using cross-media accolades like “novelistic” or “cinematic.” But I believe we should recognize the medium’s aesthetic accomplishments on its own terms. For this reason, the name I’ve given to this shift in television storytelling is “complex TV.”</p>
<p>There are a wealth of facets to explore about such developments (enough to fill <a href="http://nyupress.org/books/9780814769607/">a book</a>), but there’s one core question that seems to go unasked: “why has American television suddenly embraced complex storytelling in recent years?” </p>
<p>To answer, we need to consider major shifts in the television industry, new forms of television technology, and the growth of active, engaged viewing communities.</p>
<h2>A business model transformed</h2>
<p>We can quibble about the precise chronology, but programs that were exceptionally innovative in their storytelling in the 1990s (Seinfeld, The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) appear more in line with narrative norms of the 2000s. And many of their innovations – season-long narrative arcs or single episodes that feature markedly unusual storytelling devices – seem almost formulaic today. </p>
<p>What changed to allow this rapid shift to happen?</p>
<p>As with all facets of American television, the economic goals of the industry is a primary motivation for all programming decisions. </p>
<p>For most of their existence, television networks sought to reach the broadest possible audiences. Typically, this meant pursuing a strategy of mass appeal featuring what some derisively call “least objectionable programming.” To appeal to as many viewers as possible, these shows avoided controversial content or confusing structures. </p>
<p>But with the advent of cable television channels in the 1980s and 1990s, audiences became more diffuse. Suddenly, it was more feasible to craft a successful program by appealing to a smaller, more demographically uniform subset of viewers – a trend that accelerated into the 2000s. </p>
<p>In one telling example, FOX’s 1996 series Profit, which possessed many of contemporary television’s narrative complexities, was quickly canceled after four episodes for weak ratings (roughly 5.3 million households). These numbers placed it 83rd among 87 prime time series. </p>
<p>Yet today, such ratings would likely rank the show in the top 20 most-watched broadcast programs in a given week.</p>
<p>This era of complex television has benefited not only from more niche audiences, but also from the emergence of channels beyond the traditional broadcast networks. Certainly HBO’s growth into an original programming powerhouse is a crucial catalyst, with landmarks such as The Sopranos and The Wire. </p>
<p>But other cable channels have followed suit, crafting original programming that wouldn’t fly on the traditional “Big Four” networks of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. </p>
<p>A well-made, narratively-complex series can be used to rebrand a channel as a more prestigious, desirable destination. The Shield and It’s Only Sunny in Philadelphia transformed FX into a channel known for nuanced drama and comedy. Mad Men and Breaking Bad similarly bolstered AMC’s reputation. </p>
<p>The success of these networks has led upstart viewing services like Netflix and Amazon to champion complex, original content of their own – while charging a subscription fee.</p>
<p>The effect of this shift has been to make complex television a desirable business strategy. It’s no longer the risky proposition it was for most of the 20th century.</p>
<h2>Miss something? Hit rewind</h2>
<p>Technological changes have also played an important role. </p>
<p>Many new series reduce the internal storytelling redundancy typical of traditional television programs (where dialogue was regularly employed to remind viewers what had previously occurred). </p>
<p>Instead, these series subtly refer to previous episodes, insert more characters without worrying about confusing viewers, and present long-simmering mysteries and enigmas that span multiple seasons. Think of examples such as Lost, Arrested Development and Game of Thrones. Such series embrace complexity to an extent that they almost <em>require</em> multiple viewings simply to be understood. </p>
<p>In the 20th century, rewatching a program meant either relying on almost random reruns or being savvy enough to tape the show on your VCR. But viewing technologies such as DVR, on-demand services like HBO GO, and DVD box sets have given producers more leeway to fashion programs that benefit from sequential viewing and planned rewatching. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Serialized novels – like Charles Dickens’ The Mystery of Edwin Drood – were commonplace in the 19th century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Drood_serial_cover.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like 19th century serial literature, 21st century serial television releases its episodes in separate installments. Then, at the end of a season or series, it “binds” them together into larger units via physical boxed sets, or makes them viewable in their entirety through virtual, on-demand streaming. Both encourage binge watching. </p>
<p>Giving viewers the technology to easily watch and rewatch a series at their own pace has freed television storytellers to craft complex narratives that are not dependent on being understood by erratic or distracted viewers. Today’s television assumes that viewers can pay close attention because the technology allows them to easily do so.</p>
<h2>Forensic fandom</h2>
<p>Shifts in both technology and industry practices point toward the third major factor leading to the rise in complex television: the growth of online communities of fans. </p>
<p>Today there are a number of robust platforms for television viewers to congregate and discuss their favorite series. This could mean partaking in vibrant discussions on general forums on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/breakingbad/">Reddit</a> or contributing to dedicated, <a href="http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page">program-specific wikis</a>. </p>
<p>As shows craft ongoing mysteries, convoluted chronologies or elaborate webs of references, viewers embrace practices that I’ve termed “forensic fandom.” Working as a virtual team, dedicated fans embrace the complexities of the narrative – where not all answers are explicit – and seek to decode a program’s mysteries, analyze its story arc and make predictions. </p>
<p>The presence of such discussion and documentation allows producers to stretch their storytelling complexity even further. They can assume that confused viewers can always reference the web to bolster their understanding.</p>
<p>Other factors certainly matter. For example, the creative contributions of innovative writer-producers like Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams and David Simon have harnessed their unique visions to craft wildly popular shows. But without the contextual shifts that I’ve described, such innovations would have likely been relegated to the trash bin, joining older series like Profit, Freaks and Geeks and My So-Called Life in the “brilliant but canceled” category. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the success of complex television has led to shifts in how the medium conceptualizes characters, embraces melodrama, re-frames authorship and engages with other media. But those are all broader topics for another chapter – or, as television frequently promises, <em><a href="http://nyupress.org/books/9780814769607/">to be continued</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Mittell has received funding from the NEH in the United States, and the DFG in Germany.</span></em></p>Many refer to advances in television storytelling as novelistic or cinematic, but the medium deserves a term of its own: complex TV.Jason Mittell, Professor of Film & Media Culture, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/378742015-02-25T10:56:49Z2015-02-25T10:56:49ZThe origins of the all-powerful news anchor<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72938/original/image-20150224-25702-1mvg30e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">NBC newscaster John Cameron Swayze was television's first "anchor man" – though not for presenting the news. The term referred to his status as permanent panelist of the quiz show Who Said That?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/John_Cameron_Swayze_News_Caravan_1955.JPG">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amidst the media tumult over NBC anchor Brian Williams’ apparent journalistic crimes, a little history on the role of the news anchor can help with some big questions. How did we get here: a place where news organizations put so much power in one person, a place where that person is allowed – even encouraged – to frequent entertainment and “fake news” shows?</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, the anchor has not always dominated American television news (a topic I’ve recently <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08821127.2015.967149#.VOSXh0Lxpq4">written about for American Journalism</a>). The title wasn’t even affixed to the nightly newscaster until the mid-1960s. </p>
<p>But over time, the position’s prominence has grown, influencing the economics and control structure within news organizations. And as we’ve seen, the rise of the star anchor can hamper the news gathering ability and journalistic integrity of major media networks. </p>
<h2>Anchoring the…quiz show?</h2>
<p>When television gained a large audience in the late 1940s, the main newscaster was hardly the most important element of the broadcast. As late as 1948, NBC’s main offering, The Camel Newsreel Theater, was controlled by the advertiser and a newsreel company. The narrator was never even seen by viewers. </p>
<p>CBS spent the 1940s creating the newscast format we know today, with a newscaster guiding the viewer through the news. But over the course of a few years, CBS used more than a dozen newscasters, considering the role less important than the visualized stories.</p>
<p>In 1948, CBS executives settled on Douglas Edwards for its nightly newscast, mainly because none of the famous <a href="http://dca.lib.tufts.edu/features/murrow/exhibit/boys.html">Murrow Boys</a> of CBS Radio wanted the job. The next year, NBC switched to the newscast format and the sponsor wanted John Cameron Swayze to be the face of the renamed Camel News Caravan.</p>
<p>Swayze was television’s first “anchor man,” but not for his newscasting. In addition to news, he was also a permanent panelist on the quiz show Who Said That? Since the other celebrity panelists came and went each week, Swayze was called the “anchor man” of the quiz show, because he was the one permanent personality. NBC and media writers clearly distinguished between his role as “anchor man” on the quiz show and his position as newscaster on the nightly news. The designation of “anchor man” then spread to other quiz shows in the late 1940s and early 1950s.</p>
<p>The term transitioned from quiz shows to formal news in 1952, when Walter Cronkite was chosen to lead the political convention coverage. In a CBS press release, his role was described as “anchor man.” Cronkite became a hit with viewers so CBS continued using the anchorman descriptor. From the mid-1950s through the mid-1960s, the term became synonymous with political convention and election night coverage. </p>
<p>Even when Walter Cronkite replaced Douglas Edwards on the CBS Evening News in 1962, he was considered an anchor only during political conventions and a newscaster on the nightly news. Meanwhile, the anchorman designation faded from quiz show use after Swayze left <a href="http://youtu.be/2CYoMqSbh5I">Who Said That</a>?</p>
<h2>Prominence equates to power – and control</h2>
<p>While Cronkite is usually celebrated as television’s first and most iconic anchorman, another aspect of his 1962 promotion can be viewed as the start of the slippery slope that has led to today’s problem at NBC. Cronkite not only became the main newscaster for CBS, but he also insisted on the title of managing editor – which gave him overall control of the newscast. </p>
<p>As Cronkite became the most famous face at CBS, he also had final say over the network’s signature broadcast. With Cronkite’s long and celebrated journalism career, few questioned his credentials for the managing editor title. Staff members did learn Cronkite expected to be on camera for at least six minutes during the newscast. They started referring to his on-camera time as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Evening-Stars-Making-Network/dp/0395339685">“the magic.”</a> </p>
<p>“Anchor” started to replace the term “newscaster” in television news in the mid-to-late 1960s, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Viewers-Watch-Reappraisal-Televisions/dp/0803940777">after television news surpassed newspapers as the most popular news medium in the United States</a>. The rise of television news coincided with a period political scientist and media scholar Daniel Hallin calls the “high modernism” era of journalism – when journalists promoted the idea that they were objective and uniquely qualified to publish and present the news of the day. It was a time when Walter Cronkite could confidently look in the camera and finish each broadcast with “And that’s the way it is.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72936/original/image-20150224-25664-mlu4vq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72936/original/image-20150224-25664-mlu4vq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72936/original/image-20150224-25664-mlu4vq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72936/original/image-20150224-25664-mlu4vq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72936/original/image-20150224-25664-mlu4vq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72936/original/image-20150224-25664-mlu4vq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72936/original/image-20150224-25664-mlu4vq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">And that’s the way it is: Walter Cronkite’s rise to fame established the power and influence of the network news anchor – many of whom maintained editorial control of the newscast.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walter_Cronkite_on_television_1976.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In this period, more than 9 out of every 10 homes had at least one television set, but viewers had few channel choices (and had to watch programs live), leading to communal dinner hour news viewing. Local stations had also begun to invest more heavily in news, so the “anchor” term easily transitioned to newscasters across the country. In a 1967 New York City <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Deciding-Whats-News-Newsweek-American/dp/0810122375">survey</a>, sociologist Herbert Gans found that 40% of viewers said they chose their newscast because of the anchor, while only 10% watched because of the quality of the program.</p>
<p>The instances of newscasters doubling as hosts of entertainment shows, or making cross-promotion appearances (as Brian Williams was keen to do) are as old as the job itself. Like Swayze, ABC newscaster John Daly worked on a quiz show (What’s My Line?). Also in the 1950s, Edward R. Murrow often interviewed celebrities on his Person to Person program, while Walter Cronkite hosted You Are There, a weekly reenactment of an historical event. After he became a famous anchor, Cronkite made an appearance on his network’s Mary Tyler Moore Show, alongside the quintessential lampoon of the news anchor, Ted Baxter. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-ViBf2Riqqo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A memorable 1970 debate on the Dick Cavett Show about the merits of television news, featuring Janis Joplin, Raquel Welch and NBC’s Chet Huntley. For decades, news anchors have been making appearances on entertainment shows.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Putting all their eggs in one anchor</h2>
<p>In the 1970s, ABC considered the anchor as the easiest path to higher ratings. First ABC raided NBC for Barbara Walters, paying her one million dollars to co-anchor the news. When that approach did not bring in enough viewers, ABC offered the anchor job to both CBS’s Dan Rather and NBC’s Tom Brokaw. Both men leveraged ABC’s offers into main anchor jobs at the their respective networks, forcing both Cronkite and NBC’s John Chancellor into premature abdications of their anchor chairs.</p>
<p>With each successive negotiation, the main anchor amassed both more money and more power over the network newscast. But those newscasts had reached their peak. In the 1980s, government broadcast deregulation meant less pressure to fund and broadcast news programs, as viewers accumulated more viewing options through cable and satellite programming. New corporate owners of the three major networks started <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9780943875583">slashing</a> news budgets, especially as viewers started drifting away from the broadcast networks’ nightly newscast.</p>
<p>Even as bureaus were shut down and employees were fired, the salaries and power of the main anchors kept increasing, revealing the growing divide between the anchor and the rest of the news organization. An anchor’s perceived ability to bring viewers to the newscast trumped even the authority of the network news presidents, so the main anchor not only controlled the newscast, but also had heavy influence over the network news operation. As CBS News endured deep budget cuts in the mid-1980s, CBS’s Dan Rather briefly ended his newscast with the word, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Anchors-Brokaw-Jennings-Rather-Evening/dp/1559720190">“courage.”</a> Critics whispered he could show real courage by cutting his salary to save some jobs. Twenty years later, CBS tried to revive its news ratings by poaching Katie Couric from NBC, with disappointing <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/18/entertainment/la-et-onthemedia-20110518">results.</a> </p>
<p>The past thirty years have seen the network nightly news audiences getting smaller and older. Since younger people aren’t watching network news, one strategy has been to get the anchors to appear on programs that are more popular with these viewers. One of Brian Williams’ strengths was the ease at which he could change personas, from serious newscaster to genial talk show guest. Williams appeared on a number of entertainment programs – some more than once – including <a href="http://youtu.be/TGW_guW7KbI">30 Rock</a>,<a href="http://youtu.be/aHmf-rv9obw">Saturday Night Live</a>, <a href="http://youtu.be/D25l1SWOF9M">The Tonight Show</a>, <a href="http://youtu.be/PQ-qvI_10Qg">The Late Show</a> and <a href="http://youtu.be/f_aBkZPhdBI">The Daily Show</a>. His inflated Iraq war story didn’t raise too many eyebrows on entertainment programs, but when he presented that version onto the nightly news, the reaction was swift and harsh.</p>
<p>Even with diminished importance, impact and audiences for the nightly newscast, news executives have made few changes to the overall format and have continued to bestow great power to the face of the nightly news, mainly because it is less expensive – and more likely to positively impact ratings – to pay one person a lot of money, as opposed to gambling on a new approach, or investing in more news gathering capabilities. But as NBC is learning the hard way, the impact on ratings can work both ways.</p>
<p>While many see the Williams suspension as a veiled half-year tryout for Lester Holt, one wonders if NBC – along with the other networks – might use this experience to re-examine the risky tradition of bestowing so much power, and salary, to just one member of a vast, multi-million dollar, legacy news operation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Conway does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the beginning, newscasters weren’t even visible to TV news viewers. With Walter Cronkite, everything changed.Mike Conway, Associate Professor of Journalism, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/375082015-02-13T18:30:11Z2015-02-13T18:30:11ZYou had me at hello: how Jon Stewart’s first episode gave birth to his brand of satire<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71903/original/image-20150212-13226-16gsc91.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=203%2C34%2C1073%2C858&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.adventurouskate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Jon-Stewart-the-daily-show.jpg">vinzeins.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On January 11 1999, when Jon Stewart took over as host of The Daily Show from Craig Kilborn, no one could have predicted that, 16 years later, Stewart would become an icon of satire. </p>
<p>Under Kilborn, the show was more of a parody of a weekly news magazine: the jokes were often slapstick and lacked any broader political point. That would all change the day Stewart stepped in. While the first show certainly wasn’t as slick as its later iterations, it was clear that Stewart possessed a unique brand of political satire. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some might be surprised to learn that The Daily Show existed before Jon Stewart, with Craig Kilborn as the host.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2010/05/craig-kilborn.jpg">CBS</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Kilborn version of The Daily Show was far less politically oriented, and often included silly segments (like the recurring “This Day in Hasselhoff History”). The first episode with Stewart acts a segue between that sort of classic comedy and the more politically poignant satire that became Stewart’s trademark. </p>
<p>In Stewart’s first episode, the segment of While We Were Out has remnants of Kilborn’s version of the show. The humor here is neither political nor especially satirical; it’s just straight mockery (<a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/608qa8/while-we-were-out---nba-lockout">click here to watch</a>).</p>
<p>But from there, the first episode tacks towards political soap opera of the year: the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. We learn right away that Stewart isn’t going to accept political rhetoric and blustering, and will be keen to identify faulty logic and partisan spin. He satirically <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/w4l8c2/the-final-blow---strom-thurmond">points out to viewers</a> that the key question will be how the Republicans can take a “pointless, tawdry trial whose outcome had already been decided and make it last.”</p>
<p>Next, we get a glimpse of a refashioned Stephen Colbert. Under Kilborn, he’d assumed the character of a doltish correspondent. Now, <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/hs1gwh/colbert---merchandising-clinton-s-trial">reporting from the steps of the Capitol on Clinton’s impeachment trial</a>, Colbert dives directly into political satire.</p>
<p>Stewart asks Colbert to report on whether the trial is being framed by bipartisan agreement or partisan bickering. Colbert responds that the trial is actually being framed by “merchandising and product placement.” </p>
<p>“The Democrats are being brought to you by Chili’s El Diablo baby back rib fajitas,” Colbert says. “The Republicans are being brought to you by lying, vindictive hypocrites and Old Navy performance fleece.”</p>
<p>Certainly – as we can see from that clip – Stewart wasn’t pulling any punches: he was highlighting political buffoonery and the role of big money in politics, while going after both sides. </p>
<p>But as Colbert would later point out in an <a href="http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/08/11/an-interview-with-stephen-colbert?page=7">interview with IGN</a>, on Stewart’s first day the show had the same writers, the same executive producer (Madeleine Smithberg) and the same correspondents that Kilborn had. It was – as Colbert put it – “a gradual evolution.” He recalls Stewart saying, “Let’s see if we can’t maybe make the field pieces reflect something that’s happening in the headlines of the day, so there’s more of a natural transition, the show doesn’t change tonally, completely.” </p>
<p>Yet on that first day Stewart made a point of <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kmjlyd/a-hastily-thrown-together-editorial---change">telling the audience directly that the show was going to be different</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1mw3wd/michael-j--fox">Stewart’s hosting debut included an interview segment with guest Michael J Fox</a>, and it would give us a glimpse of the exact sort of rapport that would characterize much of Stewart’s interaction with guests – namely, Stewart’s refusal to follow a predictable script. </p>
<p>Next came an example of what would become perhaps Stewart’s most defining quality: his sharp critique of the media. <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/w9na2l/this-just-in---sitting-bulls---">In the segment This Just In</a>, he covers the death of the “Native American” actor who wept on the 1970s-era Keep American Beautiful ads – pointing out to viewers that the actor was actually an Italian-American. Meanwhile, the title of the bit – Sitting BULLS–T! – includes the sort of puns characteristic of Stewart’s writing team. </p>
<p>And, like always, <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/vnh0k1/moment-of-zen---throat-guy">the show ended with a moment of Zen</a>.</p>
<p>From day one, it was clear that Stewart was bringing something new and exciting to television. The only thing missing from this first episode was a Fox News zinger (though Stewart would certainly make up for that over the next 16 years). </p>
<p>Now with Stewart’s Tuesday announcement that he’ll be stepping down as host, the The Daily Show’s future is in flux. Who will be the next host? Will there even be one? And will he or she attempt to replicate Stewart’s brand of humor, or try to reinvent it? </p>
<p>Either way, let’s hope that we’ll still have our moment of Zen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37508/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sophia A. McClennen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On January 11 1999, when Jon Stewart took over as host of The Daily Show from Craig Kilborn, no one could have predicted that, 16 years later, Stewart would become an icon of satire. Under Kilborn, the…Sophia A. McClennen, Director, Center for Global Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/357472014-12-19T22:07:21Z2014-12-19T22:07:21ZThe Stephen Colbert legacy<p>If you were following politics over the last few election cycles, you were most likely getting some of your information from satire. In fact, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-a-mcclennen/does-satire-news-influenc_b_6079176.html">research has shown</a> that in today’s political climate, satire has become one of the most influential sources of public discourse in our nation – especially for younger voters. Sometimes, satirical news shows even create news of their own that’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-daily-show-springs-showdown-with-native-americans-on-redskins-fans/2014/09/19/c6c5f936-3f73-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html">later reported on by mainstream outlets</a>. </p>
<p>A number of comedians have played a significant role in advancing the centrality of satire in public discourse today, but <a href="http://www.footnote1.com/was-colbert-the-best-political-satirist-of-our-time/">I would argue</a> that Stephen Colbert might well have been one of the most important of all. This is why the end of his show – The Colbert Report – marks a turning point in our nation’s political satire. </p>
<p>What will the show’s legacy be? And what’s next?</p>
<p>Colbert created an extraordinary character: a right-wing, bloviating pundit who was both outrageous and adorable. When Colbert ended his nine-year run of The Colbert Report last night (so he could take over The Late Show from David Letterman in May), he put this character to rest. Colbert’s persona was largely based on Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, but it also drew inspiration from a number of right-leaning pundits, including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. He also sprinkled his own charm and charisma into the character. </p>
<p>According to Colbert, he was portraying “a well-intentioned idiot.” </p>
<p>In-character satire is a very unique form of comedy because it demands that its audience thinks critically. Jon Stewart, for instance, does straight satire. While he uses irony and puns, he speaks as himself. Colbert, in contrast, added another layer of complexity to his satire because he embodied an exaggerated version of what he was critiquing. </p>
<p>As Colbert explained in a Rolling Stone <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/stephen-colbert-on-deconstructing-the-news-religion-and-the-colbert-nation-20090902#ixzz3MAKQl0LF">interview</a>: “Jon deconstructs the news in a really brilliant comedic style. I take the sausage backwards, and I restuff the sausage. We deconstruct, but then we don’t show anybody our deconstruction. We reconstruct – we falsely construct the hypocrisy. And I embody the bullshit until hopefully you can smell it.” </p>
<p>The Colbert character offered the public a series of unique features of satirical comedy. First, and perhaps most importantly, Colbert played a hyper-patriot. He was, to use one of his neologisms, “Megamerican.” That stance offered the left a much-needed opportunity to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/12/12/stephen_colbert_schooled_fox_news_hard_comedy_bill_oreilly_and_the_exposure_of_right_wing_patriotism_lies/">reclaim patriotism</a>. When Colbert first launched his character the right had an almost completely monopoly on patriotism – so much so, that a critique of the right was often cast as treason. </p>
<p>Colbert, along with the Colbert Nation – his audience of hardcore followers – offered an alternative that was both funny and nuanced. </p>
<p>Next, by <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/evil_fox_news_idiocy_unchecked_as_stephen_colbert_departs_demented_loons_set_to_run_free/">embodying a pundit</a>, Colbert was able to critique the dangers of the hyperbolic, divisive, and inflammatory nature of most punditry. Time and again, Colbert reminded viewers that a nation that votes out of fear is not a healthy democracy. </p>
<p>This leads directly to a third crucial aspect of his persona: the unique ways it fostered critical thinking and engaged discourse. As I explain in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Colberts-America-Democracy-Education-Politics/dp/1137014725/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418152939&sr=1-2&keywords=mcclennen">Colbert’s America</a> and in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Satire-Saving-Our-Nation-American/dp/1137427965/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418152962&sr=1-1&keywords=mcclennen">Is Satire Saving Our Nation?</a>, one of the key features of Colbert’s satire has been the way he works to expose logical fallacies, faulty arguments, and false binaries. One of the best examples of this was his recurring segment “the Word,” where Colbert delivered a prepared monologue as text bullets flashed on a graphic to his right. It forced the audience to navigate this information in a way that was critically engaging: to find the humor, the viewer needed to identify hypocrisy, doublespeak, and puns.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/95KTrtzOY-g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“The Word” was a recurring segment where Colbert delivered a prepared monologue as text bullets flashed across the screen, forcing the audience to navigate this information in a way that was critically engaging and intellectually stimulating (and hopefully funny!). In the clip above, President Obama delivers “The Decree” – a play on Colbert’s schtick.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now that Colbert’s show (and character) has ended, many are wondering about his legacy. Did he change the world? Or did he merely offer a fun diversion from it? </p>
<p>True to form, Colbert refused to give a definitive answer. </p>
<p>First he told viewers: “I promised you a revolution and I delivered.” But then he switched gears, saying, “I did something much harder than change the world. Folks, I samed the world.” </p>
<p>Colbert was referring to the ways that many of the crises he satirized are still very much present today: a political oligarchy dominated by the Bushes and the Clintons, a vicious debate about torture, an ongoing war in Iraq, a harsh political rhetoric that shuns compromise, and more.</p>
<p>Colbert’s point? Satire is but one tool in a complex political landscape; it neither controls nor influences politics to the degree that some imagine. After all, he doesn’t work for “Influence Central,” as he joked.</p>
<p>Instead, his job was to be a comedian – And one who inspired his audience to think critically, to resist the status quo, and to question accepted truths – but he also believed that his primary goal was to entertain. </p>
<p>As he (jokingly) put it: “If all we achieved over the last nine years was to come into your home each night and help you make a difficult day a little better – man, what a waste.” Indeed, as viewers learned over the years of The Colbert Report, the release satirical comedy offers is never a waste.</p>
<p>And sometimes, when all goes right, satire combines comedy with just the right amount of political insight and populist energy to make a real difference in how the public understands its most pressing social issues of the day.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35747/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sophia A. McClennen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you were following politics over the last few election cycles, you were most likely getting some of your information from satire. In fact, research has shown that in today’s political climate, satire…Sophia A. McClennen, Director, Center for Global Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/263662014-05-08T11:09:54Z2014-05-08T11:09:54ZIs mutual obsession placing BT and Sky’s future at risk?<p>These days you can easily get your landline and mobile, your internet access, and your TV package from a single provider. Whereas consumers previously had four separate contracts, one will now suffice. Simple maths would suggest this spells trouble for 75% of the traditional set of providers.</p>
<p>BT and Sky are aware of the threat and, despite their different origins, have responded with similar strategies of diversification. BT reported <a href="http://www.btplc.com/Sharesandperformance/Quarterlyresults/Quarterlyresults.htm">upbeat results</a> today and Sky last week, but it remains unclear whether diversification is paying off. Sky’s big push towards broadband domination has <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56167c4e-cf6e-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html">hit a dead end</a> and BT’s bet on <a href="https://theconversation.com/kick-off-for-bts-big-bet-on-television-sport-16438">sports programming</a> looks unlikely to return its <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5cc8366-d679-11e3-b251-00144feabdc0.html">£2bn investment</a>. And the two seem to be hurting each other directly by doing things the other knows better.</p>
<h1>Convergence and unbundling</h1>
<p>BT’s roots might be in phones, and Sky’s in pay TV, but this distinction is no longer relevant if consumers can get both online. All that matters is a good “bit pipe”, the plumbing that connects you to the internet. These days, such connection might be via cable, DSL, or even mobile 4G. </p>
<p>Gone are the days when the internet was just about surfing web pages. With calls and TV now an integral part of our internet experience, paying separately for these services on BT’s & Sky’s bills seems odd. And what’s more, few people like their online freedom of choice restricted. There is no obvious reason why our choice of bit pipe should tie us to particular phone deals or content packages.</p>
<p>Providing mere connectivity is of course a chilling prospect for many firms in the affected industries, who fear nothing more than being <a href="https://theconversation.com/mobile-operators-neednt-fear-big-spender-zuckerberg-23634">reduced to selling a commodity</a>. But although sports content or social media may appear sexier, offering good plumbing actually remains a sizeable business. </p>
<p>True, the converged market space is contested, and this will only intensify as European markets integrate <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19371a32-c57c-11e3-97e4-00144feabdc0.html">across borders</a>. But chances are the winners will be those companies that provide the fastest, most ubiquitous and reliable internet access, irrespective of whatever else they sell.</p>
<p>While BT is distracted by its multi-billion pound content adventure, and Sky is equally hamstrung by programming commitments, the likes of Vodafone are focusing on enabling exactly that kind of high-performance package.</p>
<p>And it is not only that consumers are unlikely to forgo a fast bit pipe for a slower one with a bit of added content. It is also that TV might not be sold in pre-bundled packages for much longer anyway. People increasingly like to assemble their own menu. You can pay for selected shows on Sky’s <a href="http://www.nowtv.com/">Now TV</a>, sign up to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/10/22/with-netflix-rolling-is-it-time-for-hbo-to-go-direct">HBO directly</a>, get your news through the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/video">New York Times videos</a> site, and rent your favourite films through Blinkbox, for example. Set against such freedom of choice, the strictures of pay-TV bundles seem increasingly arcane, especially if these then come tied to the bit pipe. </p>
<p>This is not to say that content cannot differentiate comparable products at the margins, such as US mobile network Sprint’s attempt to spruce up its <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/90a5cd9e-cb9d-11e3-8ccf-00144feabdc0.html">deals with Spotify</a>. But this is a short-term tool, not really exclusive, and unlikely to make up for any shortcomings in the the core product.</p>
<h1>Focusing on the strategic core</h1>
<p>The industry trends of convergence and unbundling require a new sense of focus. BT would benefit from containing its outlays in BT Sports and refocusing on top-notch connectivity. It has advantages in network reach and has taken encouraging steps towards <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc29b858-b5b9-11e3-a1bd-00144feabdc0.html">complementing coverage with mobile technology</a>. Seamless connection on all devices, whether at home or out and about, would be a compelling offer for discerning customers. BT could try harder to increase speeds and its customer service has room for improvement too.</p>
<p>Sky would probably do well to refocus on content creation and curation, especially with regards to sport. This would allow it to offload its network infrastructure to a firm like Vodafone that would <a href="https://theconversation.com/vodafone-misses-opportunity-to-reinvest-verizon-proceeds-17758">benefit from a stronger backbone</a>.</p>
<p>Money and attention that would otherwise go to its networks business could then be fully concentrated on the quality of its content offering. Among other things, it would stand a better chance of securing expensive assets such as the premier league rights offered in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10559693/Premier-League-aims-to-pit-BSkyB-against-BT-in-early-TV-rights-sale.html">upcoming auctions</a>.</p>
<h1>Not the end of the world</h1>
<p>If BT executives envy their peers at Sky for the greater appeal of content products over mere bit pipes, they will take comfort from several other revenue growth opportunities that are closer to BT’s strategic core. The most obvious is the internet of things. Any “thing” that is being connected constitutes a potential customer.</p>
<p>Further opportunities are to be found in services that add value to connectivity. Security solutions for devices are one example, as are solutions to make the internet experience consistent across users’ devices and locations. Companies that provide bit pipes should also be able to monetise the big data they generate, and they might be allowed to charge higher rates for particular types of traffic as <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/wsj-fcc-net-neutrality">net neutrality rules weaken</a>.</p>
<p>It is understandable that the recent market upheavals have had companies like BT and Sky scrambling for a viable strategy. It is high time though that they remembered their core capabilities. A converged telecommunications market calls for differentiation, yes, but not through content – rather through the quality of the bit pipe. </p>
<p>Both BT and Sky need to consider whether they can afford to be master of two trades when both are under pressure. The companies’ respective strengths in connectivity and content are their best hopes of weathering the current industry transformations. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ronald Klingebiel researches and advises companies in the telecommunications and high-tech industries. His work attracts support from both corporate and government funding sources.</span></em></p>These days you can easily get your landline and mobile, your internet access, and your TV package from a single provider. Whereas consumers previously had four separate contracts, one will now suffice…Ronald Klingebiel, Assistant Professor of Strategy, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/127502013-03-27T19:01:21Z2013-03-27T19:01:21ZNetflix: a house of cards or the new HBO?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21674/original/swzvfvv9-1364168992.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Popularity of digital video streaming services such as Netflix suggest that the future of TV may well be online.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In arguably the TV event of 2013 so far, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/">House of Cards</a> – a $100 million, 13-episode TV series starring Kevin Spacey, directed by <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000399/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1">David Fincher</a>, and commissioned by Netflix, premiered exclusively online available only to Netflix subscribers in North and South America and in Scandinavia.</p>
<p>Metacritic, a site that aggregates critics’ reviews, reported that it received <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/tv/house-of-cards-2013">generally favourable reviews</a>. It was also popular with viewers, and quickly became Netflix’s <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/house-cards-is-netflixs-streamed-421142">most-streamed program</a> ever. </p>
<p>This is good news for Netflix. Over the past 18 months the company had been in dire straits, during which time it received a lot of <a href="http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-technology/netflix-to-expand-service-to-4-nordic-countries-20120815-2496w.html">press</a> for its <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/06/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-expands-20110706">bold international expansion</a> as well as its <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/2012/05/02/is-netflix-about-to-be-a-has-been-suddenly-problems-seem-overwhelming">financial difficulties</a>. Some observers postulate that it could become the next HBO, while others doubt that it will even survive the next five years.</p>
<p>So what is going on? How can a company that could be teetering on the brink spend $100 million commissioning a TV series, let alone push ahead with global expansion? Is Netflix’s business model sustainable? And if it is, what does its entry into original programming mean for the future of television?</p>
<p>Netflix built its brand with a compelling proposition as a virtual video store, where customers had 24/7 access to order DVDs online and rentals were shipped to subscribers via the US postal service with a postage-paid return envelop and no late fees, for a monthly subscription of $7.99. Netflix won customers away from the major video chains at the top end of the mass market; Redbox DVD kiosks focused on attracting cost-conscious customers; bricks-and-mortar behemoths like Blockbuster slid into oblivion.</p>
<p>In order to prepare customers for an eventual transition from physical disc rentals to streaming video rentals, Netflix introduced its “Watch Instantly” streaming service for about 10,000 titles from a much larger library, as a free value-add within the monthly subscription price in 2006. In doing so, it became the first mover of any scale in this emerging space.</p>
<p>The streaming video on demand (VoD) market for movie and TV shows only really took off in 2011, as Netflix was joined by Hulu Plus and Amazon’s streaming service for its Prime customers and annual revenue for SVoD (subscription VoD) in the US market online <a href="http://www.homemediamagazine.com/netflix/ihs-netflix-tops-apple-online-movie-revenue-27414">grew exponentially</a> from only $4.3 million in 2010 to $454 million in 2011 +10,000%.</p>
<p><a href="http://advanced-television.com/index.php/2012/06/04/netflix-tops-apple-in-us-online-movie-business/">Total revenue</a> for the online movie market (including SVoD, rentals and sell-through) tripled from $389 million in 2010 to $963 million in 2011.</p>
<p>Netflix had consistently met its financial targets and its share price rocketed to peak at $291 after it announced plans to expand into 43 Latin American countries following its previously successful international expansion into Canada.</p>
<p>Then it made an almost <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/12/netflix-ceo-hastings-fears-hbo-go.html">catastrophic mistake</a> when it attempted to drive subscribers towards a faster transition away from physical DVDs to streaming. Netflix announced that it was splitting the two services, rebranding the DVD-only rental business as Qwikster with a monthly sub of $7.99 for DVD rentals only, and hiking the monthly subscription price more than 60% to $15.98 if customers wanted to have both DVD rentals plus streaming. Or, for $7.99, customers could continue to subscribe to the streaming-only Netflix Instant service. </p>
<p>The customer backlash was immediate and severe. DVD subscription churn increased significantly as angry customers departed in droves — one million per quarter. Netflix’s share price nosedived from its record high of $291.23 bottoming out at $52.81 per share in mid-2012.</p>
<p>Netflix quickly backtracked, abandoning the price increase, dumping new DVD rental service Qwikster and apologizing to customers. But the damage was done; a PR disaster ensued. The brand suffered badly and so did earnings.</p>
<p>Let’s dig a little deeper.</p>
<p>In December 2012, Moody’s <a href="http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Netflix-to-a-Ba3-from-a-Ba2-CFR--PR_261971">downgraded Netflix</a> ratings on two out of three scales – the CFR and Probability of Defaulting.</p>
<p>The rationale for Moody’s downgrade was that Netflix faced significantly higher risks transitioning from a high contribution margin DVD business to a lower margin, fixed-cost streaming service that would require a much higher level of subscribers to break even, in a market with low barriers to entry and intensifying competition some who might have differing motivations for entering this market, deeper pockets and might be prepared to undercut Netflix in order to take market share. </p>
<p>It also expressed concern about the damaging loss of many DVD customers following the Qwikster debacle, and speculated that streaming customers are likely to be “less sticky” than Netflix traditional DVD base, so it anticipated greater subscriber churn. This in turn would require Netflix to ensure a superior product offering to competitors and to deepen engagement with customers to attract sufficient volume of new subscribers and reduce churn to maintain market leadership and restore past levels of profitability.</p>
<p>Moody’s did, however, acknowledge that Netflix certainly had potential to increase its subscriber base and co-exist with rivals in a US market comprising 80 million US broadband households. Forbes magazine speculated that there could be <a href="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml">up to 120 million broadband households</a> in the US by 2019.</p>
<p>What options does Netflix have?</p>
<h2>Raise prices</h2>
<p>Following the angry customer backlash triggered by a hike in fees, Netflix has little choice currently than to stick to the $7.99 price-point. Management have taken a price hike off the table in the medium term. It is significant too that Hulu initially launched at $9.99, but was forced to reduce to $7.99 after it failed to gain any traction.</p>
<h2>Increase the subscriber base</h2>
<p>Netflix is the leading premium content streaming service in the American markets, way ahead of its domestic rivals. It currently also has the largest global footprint as Amazon operates only in the US and Europe (LoveFilm) and Hulu is only in US and Japan. No other direct competitor has truly global reach yet and a factor preventing truly global reach are territorial licensing restrictions that remain part of legacy contracts for existing release windows, but they impact Netflix, Hulu et al equally.</p>
<p>At the end of 2012, Netflix had 25.5 million in the US market and 33 million subscribers globally. Hulu Plus only had 3 million subscribers. Amazon does not release such data.</p>
<p>Concerns about Netflix being a company in transition are legitimate. DVD offered higher margins because once the cost of acquisition, warehousing, fulfilment, and postage were recouped, each video rental’s net was profit – split on a revenue sharing basis pre-agreed with the studio/network and Netflix, so the more times the unit was rented the more profit was realised leveraging economies of scale. </p>
<p>Streaming is different because it suffers from diseconomies of scale: as more popular rentals cost more to stream, a company will need more servers, and thus pay higher electricity bills. Add to that higher upfront establishment costs when entering new international territories, and profit margins are thinner. This means that to breakeven, Netflix requires many more subscribers in its home market (the US) than it did for DVD in order to achieve the same levels of past profitability - Moody’s estimated 35 million. Netflix has a solid base upon which to expand. It has increased its subscriber base by 4 million annually but that growth is slowing in the US market – hence the need for rapid expansion internationally.</p>
<p>In order to attract new subscribers and to reduce churn, Netflix must either pay premium prices for an exclusive window following theatrical release, as it has done with Disney in a deal that from 2013 provides Netflix with a range of Disney classics. From 2016, in a second stage deal, <a href="http://www.homemediamagazine.com/netflix/ted-sarandos-disney-netflix-streaming-deal-game-changer-29031">Netflix will have an exclusive window</a> before pay TV for Disney, Marvel, Pixar and LucasFilm movies.</p>
<p>Add to this Netflix’s original programming such as Lilyhammer, House of Cards, and Arrested Development. Others will follow at the rate of five new series annually. These programs will premiere exclusively on the Netflix platform, which will allow it to differentiate itself from rivals.</p>
<h2>Add value and package content at tiered price points</h2>
<p>The traditional Pay TV model may become the preferred strategy for Netflix once Disney’s exclusive content deal activates in 2016 and Netflix has established its brand as a premium content provider. The key question is: if the only place highly engaged audiences can see a popular Netflix TV series or a Marvel or LucasFilm or Pixar movie in the first post-theatrical window is on the Netflix platform, will they pay a small monthly subscription? The history of pay TV indicates that they probably will.</p>
<h2>Is Netflix the new HBO?</h2>
<p>Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos recently stated that Netflix’s goal was <a href="http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix-founder-reed-hastings-house-of-cards-arrested-development?currentPage=1">“to become HBO before it becomes us”</a>. </p>
<p>In the fourth quarter of 2012, Netflix added 2.05 million subscribers in the US market, one year after the Qwikster debacle. With 25.5 million subscribers, <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/1721184/netflix-now-boasts-more-subscribers-showtime-starz-hbo-next">if Netflix were a cable company</a>, it would rank second behind HBO (28-29 million subscribers) and considerably ahead of Showtime (21.3 million) and the rest of the pack. </p>
<p>Netflix’s commissioning of quality original programming, combined with premium content deals, will offer a compelling and differentiated value proposition to online audiences.</p>
<h2>Netflix and the future of TV</h2>
<p>If the programming strategies of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon et al succeed, we may see the emergence of the first serious competitors to challenge industry incumbents. We already know that the future of home video is online, as the DVD and BluRay become obsolete. Online television services with potentially global reach could prove a serious threat to pay TV opereators and major networks in the looming battle for eyeballs and audience engagement online. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12750/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Silver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In arguably the TV event of 2013 so far, House of Cards – a $100 million, 13-episode TV series starring Kevin Spacey, directed by David Fincher, and commissioned by Netflix, premiered exclusively online…Jon Silver, Senior Lecturer in Creative Industries, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.