Burgess and Green Article: YouTube Pop Culture

I will be the first one to admit that I am a YouTube fiend.  Yes, a fiend.  I could spend hours upon hours watching the ridiculous videos of stupid people and funny dogs. This article talks about YouTube in general, and the popularity between how much is user created with how much is traditional media.  When discussing the ones that were watched the most, they broke it down into categories which consisted of most responded, most discussed, most popular, and most recent.  The only time that I ever watch YouTube for the traditional media, is when we watch a clip from a movie or something like that in one of my classes.  Other than that, I'm all about watching the user created :)  In the article, it says that "user created content makes up more than two-thirds of the content coded in both the most responded and most discussed categories" (51). I believe that the only reason YouTube is as popular as it is, is because of all of the people who watch the clips.  Who would have thought there would be over a million hits for the little girl who thinks the monster is "gonna kick my asssk."  What happened when there were millions of hits with her?  Ellen DeGeneres brought her on her show to interview her because she was the cutest thing in the world.  It makes me think about how YouTube is similar to facebook.  Facebook is so successful and so popular, and making so much money because of us, the consumers who tag pictures of ourselves, who post on each others wall, who update our statues, etc.  We comment and watch a million times over hours of YouTube videos, and people become popular because of it.  Bottom line:  YouTube is the greatest thing to do when you're bored since sliced bread.  OK, I may be exaggerating, but it is still awesome to see people make fools of themselves.

Lewis/Mcmurria Artielces- Makeover TV

Today's articles that I read talked about the history of Makeover TV in the US, UK, and Australia, as well as "Good Samaritan Reality TV".  In the Lewis article, she does exactly what the title is:  she talks about the History of makeover TV in those three countries listed.  at some point through the article, she brings up the Moran essay that we read the other day about format TV.  Personally, my favorite kind of reality TV is the makeover reality TV.  I like watch Extreme Makeover: Home Edition-----even though Ty Pennington gets on my last nerve, I usually only watch it once they move the bus, and you see the after house.  That's not terrible, right?  Lewis also goes on and talks about how the HGTV and TLC network channels helped the US with the success of makeover reality series.  It seemed to me that she was talking about how the UK had the biggest success with it, and started it first before the US and Australia got the format.  As for Australia, she says that the development of makeover format had been shaped by international formats and ideas (455). 

In the Mcmurria article, it talks a lot about what we call "Good Samaritan Reality TV" like for example, the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.  ABC started this whole line of good Samaritan TVs shows post 9/11 that seemed to really take off and become a huge hit.  Some people argue that networks are just exploiting these people for good TV...which makes me think of what we talked about in class the other day on whether or not Oprah overall helps these people on her show, or exploits them more just for TV ratings.  Like I said, I really like EMHE, and I was fortunate enough to go to the set when they helped with the Indiana man because he lived about 25 minutes from my house in Indy...and you know what, he submitted his video to get help, he is a great guy, and what they did was amazing for him....so I think in the EMHE case, it is not exploiting of the people.  I know in the article that they don't show how some families sue over the poor quality of their house being built, but you also have to think...they have professionals build these houses...do you really think they did a poor job?  Maybe, but maybe some families are spoiled now with what they got, and they want to try and get as much money as they can...as if what they already was given to them wasn't enough.  If you are helping a family in need by doing something good for them...I just say go for it.

Makeover TV- Moran/Peck Articles

So in class we are still on reality TV, but we've gone into talking about make-over television series.  The two articles we talk about today have to deal with 1) how reality TV is created, and 2) Oprah's secret to her success.  Now, I will be honest and say that I wasn't expecting Oprah to be considered in the category of a makeover reality series, but after reading the Peck article, I can see how people can classify her as being in that group.

In the first article by Albert Moran, he talks about the format of reality television becoming a huge success around the nation.  It all started out as a country creating a format in one nation, and then selling the format and "license a re-broadcast of the programme in other parts of the world" (461).  By doing this, you have the same cheap format of reality TV that could be popular in any country, but with just buying the format, the other countries can tweak it to their appeal which would be better suited for their type of audience---and it is still cheap to make and sell.  Moran goes on to say that "Format trading has become serious business at the international round of television trade fairs" (465).  I think that is absolutely right, because reality TV is becoming and still is such a huge success from when it started 30 something years ago... it makes networks a lot of money because they are so popular, and yet, the format is cheap to buy!

In the Janice Peck article, I had told you at the beginning of this post that I was a little skeptical on whether or not I thought that Oprah's talk show was considered part of the "makeover" reality TV shows.  They call her success the "Oprah Effect."  Back when her show started in the 80s, she was a part of the trash talk TV shows that never lasted.  Knowing that she had to do something to stay successful, she decided that she would talk about positive things on her shows....that she wanted to help people on her shows become good people.  Around this time, there was this "new thought" religion going around where everyone just wanted to believe that happiness is all about how you act and behave.  Oprah took advantage of that and started this whole "mind cure religion" by telling people that happiness starts within yourself, and that once you become happy, is when you can start living a successful and happy life.  By saying this, the millions of viewers watching her, decided that she was right and wanted to follow her.

I can't say that I am one of these "cult followers" of Oprah.  I really don't like watching her show that much anymore like I used too.  The only time I ever watch Oprah is when she does her "favorite things" episodes.  Because I like to live vicariously through the audience members that get all of the cool things on her show for free!  Not fair...too bad I will never be able to go on her show for her favorite things.  Maybe in another life....

Reality TV- Collins/ Murray Articles

In the Sue Collins article, she talks a lot about what it means to be a "celebrity" in today's society.  She talks a lot about dispensable celebrity and celebrity as a commodity.  I really found it interesting to learn about how reality celebrities only get picked to appear on talk shows only when the shows can't find A-List celebrities to be on that night.  In her article, Collins says "Reality celebrities might make it on The Tonight Show, or The Late Show which primarily book A-level talent, but they are unlikely to displace stars looking to be booked or become part of the stable of regular guests needed to sustain the shows" (104).  She also went on to say that they typically need around 4500 celebrities to interview...so I can see why they need the reality celebrities to filter in between the A-List celebrities.  Personally, I think that it is ridiculous to see all of these celebrities...if you can even call them that, make so much money with just promotions, and stuff.  I remember watching an interview with Mike "The Situation" from Jersey Shore, and hes expected to make around 5 million just by doing promotional stuff, including taping the series.  Hopefully, reality TV doesn't overcome "regular TV" in the future where we start giving prestigious awards to people like the situation, or to someone who's nickname is "Snooki."

In the Murray article, she basically talks a lot about documentary TV versus Reality TV and weather or not they are the same.  She talks about how networks and the viewers get confused when watching either type of shows because they are so closely defined similarly that they consider them both one of the same.  Documentaries, however, are to be defined in the past as being educational and informative.  Murray talks about also how they are described as being "serious historical or social significance" (43).  I agree with her concluding argument because you can distinguish between the two because of how closely each are related to each other by definitions.  You pretty much determine what they (the shows) are based on what the networks say that they are.  If they think that the demographic of their audience will watch the show more if they think its a reality show vs. a documentary, then that is what they will call it.  I completely agree with that.

Haralovich/Magder Articles: Reality TV

When reading both of these articles, I really like the Haralovich article more interesting and entertaining to read more than the Magder article.  Both articles talk about Reality TV but with the Haralovich article, you get into a specific reality tv series, such as survivor, and pretty much talk about the background of the show, and the narrative pleasure.  In the Ted Magder article, "The End of TV 101", Magder talks mostly about reality TV as a whole and how they came about to television, and why they are so popular...basically the business side of it.  Yeah it was interesting to see how the creators of the shows competed with NBC's must see Thursday line up, and how they advertised the hell out of the programs to be successful, but its just all politics and money.  So with that being said, I think I'll focus my blog today on the Haralovich article "Expect the Unexpected."

Before I talk about the article, I would like to leave you with a link to a blog that I found that gives us insight as to many reasons reality TV has become so popular.  If you happen to want to view it, just click here on this:  Blog Link

Survivor is a hybrid genre.  It is a game mixed with adventure mixed with drama.  Everything is focused all around "chance."  Two major taglines are used throughout the Survivor series: you see the tagline "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast" which is the basis for how to play and win the game.  Then you have "expect the unexpected" which I find to be really catchy since everyone always seems to be thrown off with the way that the shows evolves throughout not only each episode, but each season.  I guess I should start out by saying that I have not watched a single survivor episode.  People may think that I am crazy---well i'm not, it just never appealed to me to watch a show like that.  Which is kind of ironic because I am currently obsessed now with watching "Lost" which is pretty much like survivor, but its non-reality. People love the unexpected, and always wanting to know what is going to be the next thing that happens.  That's what we call narrative pleasure---the desire to know what happens next.  Which Survivor is great at doing.  In the article Haralovich says that "Rather than anchoring viewers, survivors uses chance to place them in a space of uncertainty" (83).  In doing that, the audience is just gushing over what is going to happen next, and just crave more of it, which is what makes survivor so popular.  It lets people become involved with these contestants and lets us as viewers follow them throughout each episode, making everything feel so real every situation.  Another way of describing Survivor is that it is a "dramality", according to Haralovich, as  being a convergence of drama/reality.  These hybrid shows are becoming more and more popular as we get further and further into the future of television.  I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 10 years, you will be seeing less drama/comedy shows, and more reality based, or mockumentary shows lining up the fall television line up. 

Reality TV-- Poniewozik/ Raphael articles

Our class has finally entered its last  5 weeks of the semsester which means that we finally get to talk about reality TV---Yay! a guilty pleasure of mine, if I do say so myself.  I will admit that I love watching Jersey Shore, I'm pretty sure i've lost a couple brain cells while I watch it, but it is fun and entertaining as hell to watch.

The first article I read was the Poniewozik article which talks about whether or not Reality TV should be accepting or not.  I really love what he says at the end of page one, the very last sentence that read "In 1992, reality TV was a novelty.  In 2000, it was a fad.  In 2010, it's a way of life" (1).  I think that is so true.  First off, it has been considered to be very popular, with tagging along other network series and classifying itself as its own genre.  Not only that, but the article says that it has even been considered now as a professional job.  I don't think it is a bad thing if someone wants to be a reality star, and I don't believe that reality TV becoming so popular is a bad thing either!  Poniewozik classifies reality TV into two categories--- one where the reality TV is all about competition, and the second one is the ones where it's just for fun watching people do lude, drunken things for a laugh.  I have to admit that I watch both types, and I'm ok with that!  I love watching shows like "So You Think You Can Dance" because it appeals to me.  I used to be a dancer for 10 years, and getting to watch these amazing artists have a shot at becoming a professional dancer and get recognition is an awesome thing.  I also watch Jersey Shore because who doesn't love watching people make fools of themselves and also makes you feel better about yourself at the same time.  All the more power to them, you know why?  They're making more money than I am right now, so good for them!

In the second article that I read by Raphael "The Political Economic Origins of Reali-TV" talks about where reality TV came from, and how it started.  Believe it or not, in the beginning of all of the reality TV, it went on a hiatus for a little bit, because it just didn't do well in syndication, according to Raphael.  Reality TV came about because of budget costs to the prime time networks.  The Screen Actors Guild didn't want to participate in a merge with union workers, and companies and writers went on strike.  Raphael states that "economically, the genre [reality tv] fit the needs of producers and distributors alike for cheaper programming" (124).  It ended up working out because, Reality TV became popular, and it didn't push network televison series away, but was right up there with the shows as its own genre.  It was so much cheaper for networks to make reality tv shows because they didn't need to use star names, and they didn't have to pay as much to edit, or produce the shows, which helped the costs for union workers.  I think that reality TV was a good thing to do, because not only does it provide for a fun watch, when you don't want to overthing on a reality show, but it has helped shape new comedy series that uses that reality type look.  For example, Modern Family.  It is a non-reality tv series, however it seems like it is because the characters use the "on camera interview/confessions" through out the episode.  How did that help Modern Family become so funny and successful? Answer: it won them best comedy series this year at the Emmys.