Post One must reflect on a course screening from weeks (HBO and Quality TV)
—
‘Quality television’ is often associated with three things: an elite audience; links to other media forms; and, most importantly, a link to a prestigious production company.
Prior to the new ‘golden age of television’ (1970s and 1980s) (Thompson: 1997), most quality television programs came from national broadcasters such as the US’s ABC and CBS or Britain's BBC. However, large changes in broadcasting began. The 1970’s resulted in a huge shift of people switching from the traditional public broadcasting networks to a new style of television known as cable television. By the 1980’s cable television had gained a substantial share of television audiences. The traditional big three networks needed to take risks to be able to keep up. This led the way from up and coming networks to take a foothold in the industry.
Rather than targeting a mass audience, these new cable networks focused on niche or more specific demographics. These demographics were typically more affluent and educated and seen as more discerning in their viewing habits thus often dictating what was considered ‘quality’ at the time. By targeting specific audiences, cable networks were able to sell commercial air time to specific advertisers on the grounds that it would have a better chance of reaching their target consumer audience. This created a larger revenue stream for the networks allowing them to increase spending on quality programming which would attract more viewers allowing them to charge more for advertising. And so the cycle continued.
In the 1980s, HBO followed this new model and was at the forefront of creating new and original drama series’ and it continues to do this today. They are constantly creating highly influential television ranging from Oz to Game of Thrones.
Arguably one of the most successful ‘quality’ television shows HBO has had was Sex and the City. Started in 1998, it centers itself among four woman trying to navigate their life though New York City. The show is often criticised for its dialogue being perceived as too dominated by discussions about men and a lack of cultural diversity. The poor reception of the movies at the conclusion of the series and subsequent television series prequel have appeared to lower the perception of the quality of entire series. Whilst it is acknowledged that at the time it was airing on HBO it was considered a ‘quality’ program, when a 2017 lense is placed on the series, the quality of the program itself, is understandably, less.
The other side of this argument is that Sex and the City has all the features of ‘quality’ television. According to Robert J. Thompson (1996), for a program to be deemed of quality it must feature twelve main points:
Must not be like ‘regular TV’
Quality pedigree
Attract an upper class demographic
Must be desirable for advertisers
Large ensemble cast
Long lasting memory
Mixing genre
Writer based
Self conscious
Cover controversial topics
Aspires towards realism
Receive awards and acclaim
If we accept Thompson’s definition, then by all acounts Sex and the City is ‘quality’. At the time Sex and the City was groundbreaking. It was sharp, iconoclastic and highly feminine (Nussbaum: 2013). The show appealed to women of that age. It was, and still is, one of the few shows where all main cast members were female. Along with the four main characters, there were regular supporting cast members throughout the series along with many ‘quirky’ characters or special guest stars which allowed the story lines to remain interesting and fresh. Although each episode could be seen as a stand alone episode, there were also long running storylines throughout the series.
The complexity of the characters comes into play when looking at the quality of the program. As Emily Nussbaum stated, “they were simultaneously real and abstract.” These characters were so well written that people would identify themselves with the characters. Fans of the show would often proudly declare that they were a “Carrie” or a “Charlotte”. The show would often reference pieces of local culture such as Vogue and The New Yorker along with famous brands such as Monolo Blanik shoes and Birkin bags as a way of immersing the viewer in the culture of the characters. The use of real world brands made the show feel real even if the price tag attached would make it inaccessible yet aspirational for most viewers.
Sex and the City was often described as a sitcom or a rom com (Nussbaum: 2013), however this was not the case. Sex and the City is both a drama and a comedy. It features many elements of a drama with its intense focus on the drama of the lives of the main characters (relationships, pregnancy, abortion, cancer, death) while also often leaving the viewer laughing at the dialogue or the absurd or ridiculous situations that the characters would often find themselves in. The show never shied away from incorporating controversial topics.
Aside from the literal aspect of the show being about a writer, the show had been nominated for many different writing awards, and has won many awards itself for other aspects of its production.
To answer the question on weather Sex and the City could be classed as ‘quality’, the answer would be yes. Given both the ‘quality’ list from Thompson and the original list at the start of these piece, it is clear to see that Sex and the City ticks all those boxes, as a ‘quality’ television dramady.
Words: 904
Post Two ‘What does ‘television’ mean for me in my life?’
—
While the television is often on in our home, it's rarely the center of attention. That is of course, unless Survivor’s on.
Like many families, our family has our go to family television show. It’s one of the only times the whole family comes and sit together to talk, watch and hangout. Originally it was the American version which was on quite late given the ages that we were when we started watching together. We would usually have to record it and watch it the following day to watch the following day. We would then need to have this media blackout until we were all together to watch so as not to spoil who would get voted off the island. When Survivor was at its height, this was no mean feat!. When the Australian version came out in 2016, things started to change for us as a family. Australian Survivor is currently aired on Channel 10, a popular broadcast channel in our household. As a family, 7:30 works for us and we would often be able to sit down and watch it live, regularly, sitting down a bit earlier and catching the end of The Project. For us as a family and with the ages of my younger brothers, this resulted in much easier viewing. It was at a time that suited us, on a channel that was easily available.
A major issue with Australian broadcast television is that the shows are on far to frequently during the week. As a busy family, we don't have time to sit and watch the same TV show five nights a week. This has led to past family favorites becoming nothing more to something that is just on, no longer compelling viewing for us. An example of this would The Block on channel 9 and Masterchef on channel 10. These shows are on far too often for our viewing habits, and once you are one episode behind, it seems that the compelling viewing band is broken. As my mother says, “I just can’t make that kind of a commitment so why bother even starting with it?”
In the past three years the way we watch TV as a family has changed. We have recently subscribed to Netflix and Stan, joining our existing Foxtel subscription which came with on demand viewing. We suddenly went from having to record shows on the Tivo to watching them when we felt from the internet. What was even more revolutionary in these two years was the introduction of Chromecast and Fetch to our family. This meant we were able to cast our shows from our computers/phones to the TV. This changed, not just our viewing habits, but our lives. When The Handmaid's Tale and The Young Pope was released on SBS on demand, instead of watching week by week, as per broadcasted SBS, we were able to Chromecast it to the TV and watch everything all at once.
I have changed how I watch TV with my parents. Streaming, online and on demand services have allowed me to watch shows alongside my parents without actually having to watch it with them. The HBO show Game of Thrones is a prime example of this. Game of Thrones isn't something I personally feel comfortable watching with them, however I enjoy the show and the discussions that happen after. Being able to watch this on my computer has allowed me to still be involved in family discussion without having to watch all the awkward bits with them.
This seems to also happen with The Good Place on Netflix but for a different reason. Mum and I seem to struggle to find time to watch it together regularly, so we’ll often watch it separately but talk about it. Of course, when we get to watch it together it’s a bonus, even if it means I’ve watched that episode twice!
Growing up we were never allowed to watch TV in bedrooms. It was always thought that if we had a TV in our bedrooms that we wouldn’t come together as a family nearly as often. However it seems that this isn't the case anymore. Now days I watch TV in my room, whether it on my phone, computer or tablet. In fact, I probably watch more TV in my room then I do in the family room. Streaming has made this easier, now I can say comments like ‘I'm catching up on something’ or ‘I'll watch it upstairs’ and they are totally acceptable, where five years ago even they weren't. Or maybe it’s because I’m older and Mum and Dad don’t feel the need to supervise my viewing content anymore!
When I was child being able to record a TV show so that we could watch it later, or even over and over again, was considered standard practices. Today we don’t ‘record’ shows, we stream them, watching them when we want and often binge watch an entire series over a few days. With the changes that have happened over the last twenty years, I wonder what viewing habits will look like in the next 20 years.
Words: 855