Television, contemporary output and critical analysis of Raymond Williams - Essay Example

Television, contemporary output and critical analysis of Raymond Williams BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Television, contemporary output and critical analysis of Raymond Williams Introduction To Raymond Williams, television is a complicated blend of imagery and persuasion that is dependent on socio-cultural factors to achieve relevant contemporary meaning for the view or television analyst. Flow represents how the viewer is able to decode messages related to their personal or cultural identity, somehow extracting meaning from within the incessant content of mixed or sometimes similar messages. Advertisers and network agencies have their own agenda regarding television content in terms of attracting homogenous groups of viewers together to understand a product or brand identification. Cultural symbols are being presented within these messages that are a part of programming and narrativised. The inherent or learned cultural codes within people of different demographics help to identify with content and make sense of not only the flow of ideas and images, but to somehow make sense of the self in the process. Williams’ views are directly related to cultural dimensions in the viewer and seem to represent an accurate view of flow and interpreting value through presentation and contemporary output. Evolution of television Cultural codifications: Inherent or learned processes that help viewers make sense of themselves. Consider the evolution of television. In 1953, the Butterball turkey is introduced. In 1954, Swanson advertises its first television dinner on The Milton Berle Show (Lempert 2002). In 1962, Pepsi creates Diet Pepsi (Lempert). Advertising in television has ingrained many of the different cultural codes that are used today in making sense of life, in a sense finding commonality with others based on lifestyle elements. It is a fundamental principle in advertising to work aggressively to persuade action on behalf of the viewer based on these cultural identifications. The system uses knowledge regarding buying behaviours and consumption patterns related specifically to their relationship in the social world. Contemporary social relationships are often inherent motivators that turn an individual toward one product or another. These messages are directed through comprehensive practices of eliciting a social or interpersonal connection with buyers and are therefore very deliberate practices and controlled in terms of exposure to desired audiences. Cable and satellite television consumption has increased from 886 hours to 1010 in 2007 (Gluck 2008). Advertisers have key knowledge of the time periods which are most relevant to their target sales audience and deliberately place similar culturally-oriented materials amidst programming content with a similar theme or lifestyle practice. In order to assess Williams’ view of flow, it is necessary to understand the cultural elements that are impacted by long-standing television advertising. It has been a fundamental part of many developed countries’ cultures that is popularized in households and the professional environment. Innovative advertising peaks the interest of many of diverse cultures or stirs up social controversy based on its presentation. In order to determine whether Williams’ flow model is useful is understanding these coding systems and what drive their relationship to contemporary television content. Williams also sees the sub-genre created through television news sources that add a form of continuity to living and maintaining a connection with similar or diverse groups. Williams is a realist to understand that many factors relating to output are controlled by producers and genre distinctions are present. By making these statements, it suggests that the author prefers a more standardized television format that creates a social unity, seemingly in favour of collectivist cultural renewal rather than individualistic and having niche significance. Williams believes that short-comings with flow is that it is interrupted in the social sphere, as though social changes and cultural changes minimize the full impact of contemporary television. One author describes the television genre as “discursive clusters generated by a complex set of cultural practices by industries, producers and audiences” (Pierson 2009, p.479). Creating genres looks to Williams to be a complication in prioritizing flow since it is diverse based on market characteristics. However, as previously identified, advertisers require this intensive presentation into consumers’ lifestyles and households in order to generate revenue, therefore it must be coordinated with hard local broadcasting guidelines and presentation times. Williams is seeing flow as a constant, yet interrupted system with concentrated interruptions in the social sphere. It is a dualist mentality, in some respects, as he criticizes genre creation yet supports the importance of advertising. Shales (2002) reminds further of the evolution that has occurred in society in relation to their functional views on what is considered acceptable programming. He reminds in the 1950s classic, Earth vs the Flying Saucers, audiences laughed at the special effects as the saucers crashed into well-known structures pertaining to government (Shales 2002). Today, these attitudes have been replaced with a shifted social consciousness based on environmental stimulus and such productions would have a different impact and response from audiences. Williams’ recognizes that the viewer will identify with different signs and images based on their own cultural dimensions or those engrained over a long period such as advertising or news media. He sees these as an interruption to a more consistent or relevant flow, however it is the basis for the hard production elements of television broadcasting to shift with cultural trends. Alston (2009) describes a new type of television referred to as the antihero in television shows produced in the U.S. such as Mad Men and Dexter where key actors are villainous yet trusted and respected elements of the program experience. Programming such as this is in demand based on genre preferences or sub-genre attitudes related to their role in society. However, these shows are also considered the antihero bubble that will inevitably be replaced with a new social consciousness and demand for innovation in content (Alston). So, perhaps Williams is correct when he assesses his model of flow as being interrupted by genre creation since the level of its flexibility continues to complicate the process of delivering a consistent message or intention that can be quantified at the social level. As these identified programs are currently in production and already being subject to contingent replacement plans, the antihero bubble, it is a recognized fact that content and flow will remain inevitably in a state of temporal and cognitive flux. Williams is seeking a democratic culture where people have a forum with which to exchange ideas and envision their future lives (Williams 1974). He projected future technologies for this purpose, with a system-wide functionality that controls the social thought process. This is, in some ways, an envisionment of the current World Wide Web and its functionality. However, rather than having thoughts controlled by it, it is manipulated by changing trends that are noticeable through the creation of different social media networks. This is likely going to be affected by changing social dynamics, with more reliance on television and vice versa over the passage of time. Flow would seem, under Williams’ view, to require consistency in order to achieve the ultimate goal of social unification and positive self-identity. Contemporary culture is in an ever-changing state based on common values and genre preferences. Williams envisions or rather sees a form of fluidity to content and control in production with all of these dependent on society as being a static and predictable situation. What makes Williams’ model of understanding so relevant is that it is based on realism and the recognized relationship between the environment and how flow is decoded by the viewer. Williams does not identify with common persuasive actions on behalf of companies and advertisers in relation to trust-building. Clark (2009) identifies that trusts are a large issue when it comes to advertising due to an erosion of societal confidence. To meet with these needs, larger concentrations of promotional advertising is usually the by-product, however always in line with changing social trends and demands at the ethical or even sales levels. Williams does not categorize trust as a necessary function of determining flow, rather just an understanding of the dynamics behind content and presentation, in relation to the psycho-social sphere of living. There is a great deal of psychology involved with Williams’ view, taking into consideration the fundamentals of societal communications structures and human behavior related to environment and within the self. Though Williams’ perceptions are more meta-physical through identifying with the self, he understands the practicality and complexity of the delivery of contemporary programming and its limitations. His model is useful if certain non-genre trends remain consistent over an elonged period of time. How is this supported necessarily? Bignell (2004) cites that television elicits a common language to the experience that imposes order and regulations. Williams acts with the fundamental understanding that it can be a control tool or heavily concentrated persuasive power, something that would require considerable investment on behalf of regulators, networks, and other productive leadership regimes. By its very definition, the meaning and value of television as a tool for order would suggest there would need to be consistency in the flow with disruptions, such as an advertisement, causing social or psychological havoc in the communications cycle. Therefore, Williams’ model of understanding flow is not necessarily practical without realizing that nothing will be static in the social environment. Television is significantly different today than in the 1970s when presentation was tightly controlled over network systems that were still in the infancy stages. Today, with access to multimedia and virtually unlimited choice in programming options, contemporary output has changed format, production speed, and the ability to democratize television flow for the pursuit of an idealistic civil unification. What has changed in contemporary programming is volume that provides over-exposure to multiple social images, thus impacting the viewer environment in some fashion. Whether it is an announcement about a potential sale product or an in-depth documentary on urban living, some element of the experience will be decoded according to lifestyle and then have an intended by-product effect based on behaviour or attitude. Television has a behavioural modeling impact on some individuals, therefore the level to which they assess knowledge is only limited by cognitive processes or time allotment of viewership. This is why Williams’ model is so relevant today. All stakeholders involved in television production have a motivation which is generally in the pursuit of gaining audiences. This is accomplished by placing relevant information during the most predictable period where viewers of homogenous values will be available. Messages may not always be congruent and conflict consistently, thus somewhat shattering the delusion of consistency. A nestled and comfortable mood instilled by a favorite programme can be terminated by a rambunctious animated character in an attempt to sell children’s’ pants. The point in this scenario is that there is an element of behaviour and attitude that will be created by how messages are encoded based on the level of importance given to the unwanted commercial interlude. Individuals who measure themselves against common social implications in television flow would find a spontaneous shift from attitude to be disruptive and would likely change their future viewing behaviours. Williams’ view of flow takes these elements into consideration, thus again making it a practical view of flow under a sociological lens. Elements of personal culture are witnessed throughout various channels, usually those that are tied to foundational national beliefs, however also in terms of lifestyle. When viewed as a recreational tool, television provides interesting dialogue in a comedic or dramatic style associated with programming relevant to personal needs or lifestyle preferences. These are deliberate efforts to gain viewership, however they also impose order when using characters and dialogue as a model. They provide the technical or social acceptability of certain phrases or slang (as two examples) which provide a sense of acceptable living by majority standards. Williams’ model is relevant and useful to understanding contemporary output as it reinforces that order is imposed even if the intent is enlightenment, something that would be pursued for recreational purposes or self-enjoyment. Conclusion The goal here was to determine whether Williams’ view of flow, and its limitations, had useful and practical benefits for television analysts (or general society) based on the realities of contemporary output. In many ways, Williams recognizes the depth of personal involvement and psychological absorption of content and how it impacts the viewer’s environment. His view is idealistic, however, as there is the assumption that his view must exist in a rather predictable social environment in order to have lasting social repercussions. He is certainly a realist and he recognizes that certain symbols within inconsistent programming defeats the goal of essentially contemplating a better tomorrow through the interface with broader society. Williams refers to the reliance on television with lifestyle and environment to be liberal-pluralist, therefore by definition incongruent. Goals from one end of this cycle/spectrum impose persuasion and altered behaviours whilst the other end seek control. The end result is a consumer disposed with incongruent thoughts and images thereby not achieving an accurate representation of reality. Numerous signs and images are also included in this content mix, thereby shaping new attitudes or compiling new thoughts upon pre-existing ones. The viewer is then left to determine whether the experience had any long-lasting existential benefit or whether it was just a mild pursuit of self-enlightenment. Williams seems to recognize these limitations and the fluctuating nature of the viewer that his views could be considered relevant, however requiring adjustment, in relation to contemporary television output. It is his recognition of duality in flow that supports contemporary output assessment. References Alston, J. (2009). Too much of a bad thing; no one on TV can be merely good or evil anymore. That’s why were’ suffering from Antihero Overload, Newsweek. Jan 12, Vol. 153. Bignell, J. (2004). An Introduction to Television Studies Routledge Clark, N. (2009). The trust crisis, Marketing. London. August 5, pp.24-26. Gluck, M. (2008). [internet] The future of television? Advertising, technology and the pursuit of audiences, University of Southern California. [accessed 19.11.2010] [available at http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/futureoftv.pdf] Lempert, P. (2002). Being the shopper: understanding the buyer’s choice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pierson, D. (2009). Thinking outside the box: a contemporary television genre reader, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 86, 2, pp.478-451. Shales, T. (2002). From the louds to the louts, Electronic Media. 21, 8, p.23. Williams, R. (1990). Television: Technology and Cultural Form London: Routledge. Read More