Internet Killed the Telecast Star
Growing up, watching TV was a production. Maybe more so for my family than anyone else, but who knows? We would gather ‘round the telly with a hearty helping of our favorite homemade snacks and watch an episode—or five—of the PowerPuff Girls, Madeleine, Toad Patrol, State of Grace, and other wholesome TV shows. Our mother would braid our hair as we supplied as profound a commentary as our 4-year-old minds could muster. Even when I was a smidge older, and could kinda-sorta-not really process the complexities of the 1%’s emotional struggles on The Young and The Restless, or pretend to guess how much a car other than my pink-and-white Barbie Jeep (or a cooking device other than my rad Easy Bake Oven) could possibly cost on The Price is Right.
Nowadays, much of my TV-watching experience consists of cozying up with my laptop and a bag of popcorn in the relative safety of my room so I can binge-watch Game of Thrones. Who needs companionship when you can enjoy Jon Snow’s face without interruption? On occasion, I emerge from my woman-cave and acknowledge the rest of my family just long enough to remind everyone that I still need to eat dinner. And on my particularly benevolent days, I would join my sisters in the basement to watch whatever mindless drivel they had recorded from Disney Channel or TLC.
Evidently, quite a few disparities exist between the two watching experiences I just described. The ostensible shift of viewership from more communal experiences to individualistic ones reflects itself in my personal life as much as it does in that of the next person. I attribute this shift to the increased production of content specifically for Netflix and YouTube, and other internet streaming or downloading sights, and the marked ease of content acquisition relative to television of yesteryears. Thanks to this greater dependency on the internet for entertainment, one could say that the digitization of the television may very well have the same effect on radio that the advent of television had on radio back in the day.
Nowadays, much of my TV-watching experience consists of cozying up with my laptop and a bag of popcorn in the relative safety of my room so I can binge-watch Game of Thrones. Who needs companionship when you can enjoy Jon Snow’s face without interruption? On occasion, I emerge from my woman-cave and acknowledge the rest of my family just long enough to remind everyone that I still need to eat dinner. And on my particularly benevolent days, I would join my sisters in the basement to watch whatever mindless drivel they had recorded from Disney Channel or TLC.
Evidently, quite a few disparities exist between the two watching experiences I just described. The ostensible shift of viewership from more communal experiences to individualistic ones reflects itself in my personal life as much as it does in that of the next person. I attribute this shift to the increased production of content specifically for Netflix and YouTube, and other internet streaming or downloading sights, and the marked ease of content acquisition relative to television of yesteryears. Thanks to this greater dependency on the internet for entertainment, one could say that the digitization of the television may very well have the same effect on radio that the advent of television had on radio back in the day.
Television vs. YouTube-- What Do the Experts Have to Say?
Quite a bit, I'm sure. To understand how these two forms of spectatorship have evolved-- and predict how they will continue to do so-- we must evaluate these two formats and how they appeal to the user, whilst strategically referencing what scholars have said. And as a member of this digital age, I'm going to overcompensate and call myself a scholar as well. This comparison will focus specifically on YouTube, since my knowledge of Netflix is painfully limited and based largely on hearsay. YouTube is an internet platform that allows users to upload videos to an online profile. These videos can be made public so that others can see, like, and add them to playlists. Oftentimes, content has a linear aspect to it, modeled after the modality of television in that one video in a playlist or web series precedes the next. Nevertheless, this quality merely alludes to the flow of television; it does not replicate it. Flow denotes a constant stream of content from the programmer, and the viewer can dip in and out as he or she pleases. According to WIlliam Uriccho, "YouTube lacks flow in this sense, offering instead a set of equivalently accessible alternatives at any given moment" (The YouTube Reader, 32).
Quite a bit, I'm sure. To understand how these two forms of spectatorship have evolved-- and predict how they will continue to do so-- we must evaluate these two formats and how they appeal to the user, whilst strategically referencing what scholars have said. And as a member of this digital age, I'm going to overcompensate and call myself a scholar as well. This comparison will focus specifically on YouTube, since my knowledge of Netflix is painfully limited and based largely on hearsay. YouTube is an internet platform that allows users to upload videos to an online profile. These videos can be made public so that others can see, like, and add them to playlists. Oftentimes, content has a linear aspect to it, modeled after the modality of television in that one video in a playlist or web series precedes the next. Nevertheless, this quality merely alludes to the flow of television; it does not replicate it. Flow denotes a constant stream of content from the programmer, and the viewer can dip in and out as he or she pleases. According to WIlliam Uriccho, "YouTube lacks flow in this sense, offering instead a set of equivalently accessible alternatives at any given moment" (The YouTube Reader, 32).
In this screenshot of the YouTube homepage, you can see that there is a list of options on the left hand side that cater specifically to what the user may be looking for. By adding the "For You," YouTube adds a sense of personalization that discourages group viewing. What may appeal to one viewer may not entertain another, based on their history of, say, watching the "Trolololol" Guy and "Chocolate Rain" versus commentary on the latest Skyrim release. What's more, the most popular videos occupy the largest portion of the screen, which ironically conveys a sense of oneness with popular culture while isolating the individual as (s)he watches.
Yet again, this discourages group interaction in the traditional sense, in the way that television does. In fact, William Boddy reasons that the "increasingly fragmented television audience" is to blame for the transition to "digital television" (The New Media Book, 243).
Yet again, this discourages group interaction in the traditional sense, in the way that television does. In fact, William Boddy reasons that the "increasingly fragmented television audience" is to blame for the transition to "digital television" (The New Media Book, 243).
Do You Actually Think That Internet Streaming Will Replace TV?
Well, no, reader. I think that internet technology is to television what television once was to radio, hence the title-- a play on words of the popular 90's song "Video Killed the Radio Star" (Ironically, the only way to reference this video is through YouTube). Radio is still around, despite the fact that its popularity now can hardly rival its popularity during its heyday. Uricchio claims that radio's decline stemmed from its inability to adapt to new technologies, which almost resulted in its complete evanescence (The New Media Book, 221). Conversely, television changed in order to accommodate society's greater cultural reliance upon digital technology, hence ithe presence of television shows on Netflix and the like.Youtube appeals to a different kind of spectatorship, much like Facebook appeals to a different kind of sociability. Likewise, while sites such as Netflix and Youtube have revolutionized the viewing experience, I doubt that they will wholly displace television in future. In short, I doubt that Disney Channel stars will be out of a job when the next set of cat videos hits the internet.
Well, no, reader. I think that internet technology is to television what television once was to radio, hence the title-- a play on words of the popular 90's song "Video Killed the Radio Star" (Ironically, the only way to reference this video is through YouTube). Radio is still around, despite the fact that its popularity now can hardly rival its popularity during its heyday. Uricchio claims that radio's decline stemmed from its inability to adapt to new technologies, which almost resulted in its complete evanescence (The New Media Book, 221). Conversely, television changed in order to accommodate society's greater cultural reliance upon digital technology, hence ithe presence of television shows on Netflix and the like.Youtube appeals to a different kind of spectatorship, much like Facebook appeals to a different kind of sociability. Likewise, while sites such as Netflix and Youtube have revolutionized the viewing experience, I doubt that they will wholly displace television in future. In short, I doubt that Disney Channel stars will be out of a job when the next set of cat videos hits the internet.