Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
If all media had a popularity contest, which would win?
Michael Wolff, in his new book Television is the New Television: The Unexpected Triumph of Old Media in the Digital Age, posits that, hands-down, TV is the prom queen.
He contends:
- Despite the prophecies of television’s death by Internet, TV is healthier than ever. Many actually use the Internet to access television programs and thus spend more time watching TV. Therefore, the digital age has helped television to thrive.
- If one looks at the financial health of media, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., aren’t doing well. Sure, their developers made a ton of money, but the social media itself is financially based in venture capital and the stock market, not on money actually flowing into those entities. Ads are incredibly cheap compared to television’s, especially for events such as the Super Bowl. And digital ads aren’t especially effective–despite many of them being “personalized” by targeting what the viewer is interested in. Wolff sees digital entities as poor business models.
- While prognosticators proclaimed the digital medium the “new television,” the medium experiencing a true renaissance is television. According to Wolff, whom I heard interviewed on the “PBS News Hour,” “We spend more time watching TV than we do in front of our computers.” (Apparently that’s what the statistics he studied regarding Americans’ use of their time indicates. I have to say that most certainly isn’t true for me.)
- The book’s description on Amazon reads, “We all know that Google and Facebook are thriving by selling online ads—but they’re aggregators, not content creators. As major brands conclude that banner ads next to text basically don’t work, the value of digital traffic to content-driven sites has plummeted, while the value of a television audience continues to rise.” To that point, Wolff observes that BuzzFeed doesn’t count the number of “viewers” of its news and human interest stories; instead, it counts “traffic.” We are seen as a flow of traffic–a mass–by the aggregators. But those creating the content talk about consumers as “viewers” or “readers.”
- Television is popular for one main reason: story. According to Wolff, the stories produced for television are better than ever, the acting is strong, and the productions are well done. It’s the “new” medium we love.
I have to agree that I turn to television for my story fix almost as often as I turn to books. I’ve become an avid viewer, which has never been true for me before. I don’t endorse the level of morality or ethical behavior that’s depicted. Nor am I suggesting that the depiction of our society is one that aligns with my view. Those are issues about the message inherent in the story. I’m talking about captivating stories, gripping acting, and high production values.
What does all this have to do with books? We who care about books should be heartened because not only has television not died as a result of the rise of the computer but also books have experienced boosts. Many avid book readers read more because of their digital devices. Shopping for books is easier than ever, with instant delivery digitally or with Amazon flinging books at us within two days (or less) of our decision to acquire them. I can find any book in print online, unlike in the past when I relied solely on my local bookstore or library to showcase what was available.
Perhaps most importantly, television’s rise endorses our belief that story carries the day. If we can engage a person in a good story, whether in our fiction or nonfiction, that person is likely to come back again and again, looking to be enraptured.
We have a world of possibilities before us in connecting with readers.
In what ways has your consumption of television programs changed since the rise of digital availability? What about your consumption of books? Do you think those changes or good, bad, or neutral?
TWEETABLES
Is TV the superior medium? Click to tweet.
What does the success of new television mean for writers? Click to tweet.
What a fascinating topic, Janet. A good story–on TV or in print–will captivate me entirely. I can’t say my watching habits have changed much simply because, regardless of being in the digital age, I use my computer for work and almost begrudgingly interact via social media. I use social media as an author and salesperson, but I would be just as happy not using them. In addition, I still read way more than I watch TV or go to the movies.
I went to see a film last week but couldn’t remember the last time I had done so. I think last year I went once. I used to be an avid film goer, but considering all the entertainment awaiting me on TV, it’s hard to pry my couch potato self out the door.
Not to mention the undertaking it is just to go to a movie. Drive through traffic, watch 15 minutes of commercials, another 10 minutes of previews, feel like you’re supposed to buy crazy expensive snacks in order to complete the experience, deal with the quirks of other viewers . . . I’d so much rather get my story in my pajamas with my kitchen nearby!
Sarah, hear, hear! By the time I finish watching all the previews, I generally forget what movie I came to see. My husband was driven to distraction by loud popcorn chompers, who invariably would choose to sit right behind us.
I don’t watch much TV. We have a king of the remote … and a queen of the remote … and I am neither. 🙂 When someone puts on a classic … I’m there. If someone puts on Property Brothers, I am there. Otherwise, I’ll be in the corner, on the couch, reading. But I’ve been having some headaches lately and my eyes are a bit sore … so I’ve had to slow down on reading (gracefully bowed out of the marathon I was running). 🙂 That hurt more than my eyes. My girls love Netflix and have watched all the old shows that Shirlee listed. And I think it’s funny, interesting, and brilliant that someone probably has a best seller on … television. 🙂
Shelli, I did notice the irony of how the guy communicated his message about new TV–through a book.
I didn’t mean to put my comment there. 🙂
Since I started writing, in December of 2011, my TV viewing has dropped by about 99%. I watch things like Downton Abbey, Olympic hockey, the occasional episode of something on A&E like Longmire, but that’s about it.
I read A LOT MORE!! And I occasionally watch something on Netflix.
I do not miss TV, most of it is garbage. Also, I monitor what our youngest watches.
I feel smarter, cleaner, happier and safer with less TV in my brain.
Jennifer, television today certainly “educates” our kids in the ways of the world.
We have long been television-averse (we never got cable). Instead, we’d get movie DVDs from the library. I confess that we are now more likely to watch a season of a TV show we like. We own DVDs of some old shows–Dick Van Dyke, I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith. Thus, some of our new television is old television.
Ha! Very clever, Shirlee. Some of the old shows are great to watch. I’m a fan of As Time Goes By.
As Time Goes By is one of the best television shows ever. I never get tired of watching it. The writing is superb and Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer deliver it so well. 🙂
Christine, I agree. It’s funny, touching and sweet all at the same time. One of my all-time favorites.
Shirlee, we do the same. No ads that way either, but not as addictive. Glad to be free of TV – changed our family. By the way Jan, Newspaper distribution has remained quite constant through the internet revolution – to your point. Its not how it is delivered that matters, but how we engage the content.
Peter, thanks for mentioning newspapers. I hadn’t thought about them. We also still listen to radio. Those who prognosticate that some medium will die as the result of the rise of a new medium aren’t paying attention to our past record of consumption. We don’t disengage from the content; we find new ways to consume it.
A woman after my own heart! Yes, Shirlee, if I watch television, it usually will be an “oldie” from the 50s, 60s or 70s. I think I was OD’d on I Love Lucy as a youngster (my mom watched it every day), but I love Andy The Andy Griffith show (and Matlock as well, despite my dislike for shows about murder). The Dick Van Dyke show was brilliant–both the writing and the acting.
I suppose I’m in the minority in that I don’t watch television at all, save NASCAR coverage. There are a couple of reasons –
* The moral ambience of that which is presented is, on the whole, offensive. I’m not specifically talking about the lack of a Christian worldview; rather, there is quite a bit of cruelty-and-ridicule as entertainment, and I won’t buy into that.
* Storytelling through television doesn’t impress me. While it’s true that the acting is good, and that the quality of production is higher than it ever was, the stories themselves are limited by an inflexible ‘minute count’, and they tend to sacrifice nuance for satisfying resolution.
* The second point is why I won’t watch even ‘good’ television shows. We’re influenced by what we watch, and I feel that they coarsen my writing skills, and that the powers of observation and narrative upon which I’ve worked to try to develop depth in storytelling. With exposure to television’s style of narrative, these skills become inevitably attuned to the demand of rapid pacing and the metaphorical use of ‘primary colours’ in storytelling and character development. I would rather have a broader palette.
* I’ll be the first to admit that my attitude’s limiting, vis-a-vis attracting readers whose tastes for pacing of plot and delineation of characters has been shaped by TV, but that’s the breaks. If I don’t like what I’m writing no one else will, but if I write the way I think I’m meant to write, I may attract a loyal following who appreciate that which I have to offer.
Andrew, I hear you. Most television programming is coarse. I’m not sure I agree that the writing is rigidly subjected to the limits of the time-frame. With “new” television, each episode does need to create a strong arc, but today’s television is much more about telling a major segment of the story in an entire season, not in an episode. So lots of threads are woven throughout an episode that tease you to watch next week to see what happens (a la Charles Dickens). The nature of the narrative has changed considerably.
I thought about the serialization of much of the current dramatic programming, but I think that affects character more than plot; each individual episode still has to be self-contained, and it has to find its internal consistency within that time period, which makes for very quick plotting.
* Another factor, which may or may not be germane, is the opportunity an author has to give readers a ‘breather’; the chance to interrupt action by cutting to a different scene, and changing from rapids to a quieter river, as it were. Movies can accomplish this as well, but it seems to be almost impossible in TV. That’s one of the coarsening effects I’ve seen, that one gets used a limited range of pacing.
Andrew, I see your point. Last night I watched a Poldark episode (warning, mild sex scenes), and it was a quieter show, with little happening. I realized that the scriptwriters were setting up several new conflicts, but still, I wanted something to actually occur.
Interesting thesis. Thank you for sharing it, Janet.
I spent much more time using my computer than watching television. The ability to do research topics so quickly and easily via Google gives me great joy. Also, currently I am taking free online courses about a) the Irish language (a type of Rosetta Stone course), b) the history of Hadrian’s Wall, and another course on English history. I just finished a phenomenal course on the Irish War for Independence. I also enjoy spending my time listening to music (via computer), writing (again on my computer), and reading–good old fashioned print books.
In regards to television, there have been some series in recent years that I have enjoyed, specifically Downton Abbey, Merlin (a British series as well), and The Big Bang Theory. I have difficulty, though, watching most current television shows not just because of the language (which I do find offensive, especially when Jesus’ name is used as a way to curse) or the graphic sex, but because of the focus of much of the content. Perhaps I just haven’t done enough research on what’s available but most of what I have seen is crime drama usually involving a murder or the good guys shooting the bad guys or both. I don’t find either entertaining. (My apologies to all murder mystery and crime drama authors).
The point that Wolff makes about the difference between digital producers who view those who use their sites as “traffic” as opposed to television and book producers who refer to their audiences as “viewers” and “readers” is an important one. No matter how digitized a society becomes, people still want to be treated as persons. Something, I think, writers should never forget.
Blessings
Christine, I’m a big fan of PBS dramas because they are much more about the story than about violence.
I think the distinction between how people are counted–as traffic or as viewers or readers–is very telling. It’s much harder to be seen as a person in the digital world, which is why people say brutal and unkind things to others on social media. They’ve lost sight that they’re communicating with a person, not a bunch of words on the screen.
We haven’t had a TV in five years, and I don’t miss it at all. We watch movies, sports games, and Downton Abbey online.
It would benefit me to be more knowledgable about what my prospective reader watches, though.
Great discussion today, as always!
Television apparently is the major “voice” people access to see what our culture is up to. It’s not pretty most of the time, and it can be tempting to opt out. But you do sacrifice an awareness of what is influencing the majority of the people in our country.
Janet, you raise a very important point – by not watching TV I’ve lost continuity with the social and political landscape.
* For me, it was a deliberate choice; time is not a limitless resource, and while I watch movies on DVD, I pick ones that are useful for study, as a writer (currently I’m watching Lawrence of Arabia). You can learn a lot from a director like David Lean, in the way he took the time to develop T.E. lawrence’s character, and in the use of the camera to describe the cyclopean landscape of places like Wadi Rumm.
* That is what’s missing from television; the joy of the deliberate and measured footstep (Barb does watch some shows, and so I do have an awareness of how they;re structured).
* In spite of everything that seems to make the prospect hopeless…I still want to “be a writer”, and at this point will cheerfully cast overboard everything that I feel impedes that. TV was an easy choice.
Andrew, you’re making thoughtful and deliberate choices about what goes and what stays in you life. Kudos.
The internet hasn’t influenced our television watching at all.
We were stationed in Europe and our TV could only pick up Armed Forces Network, which airs shows from the previous year. We got used to not watching. When we came back to the States, the cost did not seem worth the trouble. We’ve been without television for over fourteen years now. Every time I see what’s on (plus the commercials and political ads), I don’t feel any need to subscribe.
Of course, we’ve always been avid readers and have been very disappointed that the newspaper is no longer brought to our little village. We pick one up whenever we go to the “big” town (population 10k) 30 miles away. I guess you could say a lack of newspapers has increased my internet use, but our television watching is still history.
Note: We have a Blue-Ray player and do sometimes watch movies and old TV shows.
Elissa, it sounds as though you live a quiet life in a quiet village. Well, someone gets to do it!
I have such an aversion to commercials that I watch very little television unless there is a good movie. Even force myself to watch the world news so I know what’s going on. I also string for the local paper and write a column, so I have my thumb on the people pulse there. But I find I’m tempted to live in a cave as far as media is concerned, and must remind myself that being insulated from the ‘world’ is not quite the same as being isolated.
Davalynn, thank you so much for using the words “insulated” and “isolated.” They express perfectly two very different ways of dealing with the world.
I usually turn the TV news on while I’m eating dinner – in the next room. I’ll walk in to see the weather or, sometimes, a story that interests me, but usually just listen to the rest. For entertainment, I’d much rather read a book, and I don’t mean the digital kind. I do spend a LOT of time on the internet though.
Janet – thank you for posting this! You know me, I am a HUGE proponent of the strength and reach of TV. Having worked both in Feature Film and TV, I have always been frustrated that “FILM” gets all the attention while TV consistently and mostly quietly delivers huge ratings. On almost any given night, even during the down time of the season (summer), TV shows receive huge numbers consistently beating out total ticket sales for most films . Just last night a re-run of Madame Secretary had 3.5 million viewers-huge numbers. And when you talk about a medium that has the power to reach and change culture, TV is the place to be! If you want to sell T-Shirts, Stuffed Animals and toys, feature films is the place to be but if you want to reach hearts, effect culture and delve into the rich lives of fantastic characters and deep stories, TV is the place to be! I LOVE it and I want to make our mark there. Praying for big steps this year in that effort! Thx again for posting, I love it! For anyone interested, here’s a great link to last nights TV ratings: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/07/13/tv-ratings-sunday-celebrity-family-feud-soars-big-brother-golan-the-insatiable-battlebots-rise/429605/
Hey, Guy, thanks for your professional opinion about TV. I appreciate your perspective. Reminding us where the influence can be made is important.
I read an article in which Dustin Hoffman was interviewed, and he said TV is the place for actors to be and that film is basically dead because the majority of movies are shot in 20 days. Yeah, just how much quality can one build into a film in 20 days? For perspective, he mentioned that The Graduate, which was a pretty straightforward production, was shot in 100 days. I suspect independent producers can take more time, but that was painful to read.
I agree with his comments but I will say that 100 days of production would KILL everyone involved these days. That’s a whole lot of craft services (snacks)! I think one of the biggest factors is that currently, Mid Range films-typically character driven dramas, romantic comedies, etc are no longer being made by the studios for the most part. Indie film continues to make them but their reach is not as wide as they look for distribution theatrically as well as international and ironically on TV, DVD, VOD, etc. I remember 10 years ago as an executive at a TV studio where we had to literally “back the truck up” (unloading gobs of cash) in order to get “A” list film talent to do TV and now they are begging for an opportunity to do film. The creativity, depth of character itself and story and the pay now brings in the best of talent and TV is in many ways, incredible right now! I could go on for paragraphs talking about this and even just the subject of how faith is now playing into TV. Watch shows like Blue Bloods (CBS), The Good Wife (CBS), and many more and you will see authentic, organic depictions of faith in america – sure some of it is skewed to Hollywood standards and can be offensive to our brothers and sisters sitting to the far right of us but in my eyes, the discussion of faith in America opens up opportunities to share myy faith and witness to others. It’s a fantastic time in TV right now. It is a double edged sword but the door is open wide to have an impact here. Thank you for this great discussion!
I love The Good Wife and how the daughter is serious about her faith. The episode in which two church members had mediation with their pastor as mediator was beautiful!
Television is simply a visual storytelling medium which has gone through many changes over the years. As popular as they are in syndication, the older shows like Andy Griffith, Little House on the Prairie, Barney Miller and other well-written, well-cast shows probably wouldn’t stand a chance in today’s prime time market. It’s the same with books.
I have written several books that were extremely well-received in their little pond audience. Hoping to expand my audience, I spoke with several publishing insiders. To a person, they all said (off the record) that even if I wrote like Hemingway, the only way I could gain a wider audience in today’s market was to sell my soul. I would have to sprinkle adultery, promiscuity, rape, violence and destructively controversial content throughout my manuscripts. They all agreed that there was little opportunity for clean writers.
I’m no prude and I understand that even the cleanest of books sometimes contain a little spice. Even the Bible has some. But I won’t write trash just to buy a new Mercedes. I’m happy with my Toyota. More importantly I prefer giving the public uplifting quality work along with keeping my self respect. Maybe I should contact some Christian agents and publishers because the mainstream demands trash.
I don’t know what genre you’re writing in, but some Christian authors have successfully published in the general market without having to sell their souls. »