Sunday, 30 September 2012

Is Political Economy a form of Science Fiction: Expanded Blog


In the Television Media format there are a diverse range of genres and facets that either intertwine or that work independently. A singular category that appears to be entirely unnoticed is that of Science Fiction, or Sci-Fi as referenced in popular culture. This genre is focused on futuristic of fanciful storylines which rely heavily on a vast fan-base of supporters to maintain shows, such as ‘Stargate’ & ‘Star Trek’, which regular appear in culture and are a major force in there political economy. The classification of Science Fiction can be a vastly interpretive one with many shows having substantial critiques and modern commentaries. The newly re-mastered and re-vamped ‘Battlestar Galactica’ television series has used current world events, such as Terrorism and the resulting ‘War on Terror’ as material for evolving plot lines and underlying messages. The key to understanding the effects and context of television, especially that of Science Fiction, is recognising the influence of Political Economy. The comprehensive appreciation of the primary elements of media must be placed within the context of certain popular shows, for instance the long-running popular Science Fiction serial of ‘Stargate’ and ‘Doctor Who’.

The fundamental aspects of Political Economy are concerned with the method of outside forces on economics, ownership of certain media, and political influences on the media’s production. The media is dominated by the ideologies of “whoever owns and controls” that format, and they possess and exert control over the outlet for either political manipulation or profit. The effect and control of media can be determined and limited by government legislation. However, this has still led to a rise in cultural imperialism, the imperial domination of world media maintained to a certain degree through the dissemination of culture, ideologies, traditions and beliefs. Especially, the rise of an Information Age that has resulted in the globalisation of communication which has caused the encroachment of, particularly, Western Cultures on consumers. The 2004 Free Trade Agreement between America and Australia resulted in increased discussion over the intrusion of American culture and television on Australian products, due to them having decreasing support and exhibition compared to Hollywood. The percentage of Australian Films produced compared to those of American cinema, and the domination of film production a distribution, led to an agreement citing that a certain proportion of film and television will remain Australian. This is an example of limiting Political Economy, and this form of control has been utilised by various other countries. The evolution of Cable and Satellite Television has become the foundation for more expensive and realistic programs appearing on television, although to access this the patron is required to pay a monthly fee. The use of Political Economy to gain profit from the distribution and restricted presentation of shows, allows for a domination of certain markets (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler 2006:21-23). The Fox Network, owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, used its domination of ratings and massive news coverage to manipulate the 2001 Presidential Election when the Network declared, in an unpopular result, that George W. Bush had been elected president, despite the fact that all other networks had previously declared Florida and the Presidency to Al Gore. The controversial election and apparent discriminatory actions involved in the election led to innumerable recounts, although Bush retained the presidency (Michael Moore 2004: Scene 1). The use and limitations of Political Economy are decisively associated with the involvement of Textual Analysis in determining the position of a media text.

The long running and award winning Sci-Fi Channel show, ‘Stargate’, contains many core components that are essential characteristics to Political Economy. The original show, ‘Stargate SG-1’ is incredibly popular with both men and women because of the essential grouping of characters including a principle female character (Samantha Carter) and quintessential male character (Jack O’Neill). In 2002 the show moved from its founding channel, Showtime, to the more Science Fiction oriented Sci-Fi Channel. This was due to a mix of costs and ratings, since the show had been doing fantastic in viewership but Showtime wanted to replace it. During this change over, one of the crucial characters left the show. This resulted in a considerable upheaval of viewers, especially female audiences that rapidly declined after the change because rumours of the show focusing on a male audience instead began to circulate (Scodari 2003:122-124). Originally, the Fox owned network, Showtime, signed a 2-year contract to syndicate ‘Stargate’. The deal included 44-hours of shows (over two year) with financial terms that involved each station earning seven minutes of ad time each episode, according to MGM officials (Schlosser 1997:1). During this period, Showtime also decided along with MGM to premier a companion Website “intended to draw viewers ore deeply into the series”. Within the Website, Episodic information as well as insider’s perspectives would be introduced (Tedesco 1997:1). Although, directly this does not generate profit it does allow the Network operators to control the flow of information and hopefully cause the audience to become dependent on the website. After several years airing on Showtime, ‘Stargate SG-1’ eventually became a “force in the action-hour genre”. During 2001, after having four seasons in syndication it caused the show to average a household rating of 2.7 (Nielsen Rating) and recognised as the “second-highest-rated action series” (Schlosser 2001:1). The appearance of a spin-off to the high successful ‘Stargate’ franchise, named ‘Stargate: Atlantis’, not only created a new fan-base to focus on but generated new interest in the original series resulting in a continuation of the series. As Stargate moved into its tenth year, it became the longest-running sci-fi series in North America, eclipsing the X-Files. During this period of growth and expansion the show garnered n international following with the show airing in over 120 territories including the UK, Australia, Germany and France. In addition, the series had inspired an ever-expanding selection of magazines, DVDs, books and other merchandise (Binning 2006:29). The rise of iTunes had spawned another economic forum for selling ‘Stargate’. In 2006, MGM decided to make its television content available starting ‘Stargate SG-1” and eventually its spin-off (Okalow 2006): 13). Although the shows success was limited, after numerous cancellations and returns the Sci-Fi Channel decided to cancel the show after its 10th season had aired. This resulted in fan backlash but the decision to conclude the series via movie format and continuing the series in a similar matter allowed for only a small impact on ratings (Reynolds 2006:8). The tumultuous history of the ‘Stargate’ franchise opened up a variety of profitable and politically accessible avenues for Showtime, MGM and the Sci-Fi Channel. Although, compared to the longer-running BBC operated ‘Doctor Who’ it fails to achieve the high levels of publicity which competing shows receive.

The British made and manufactured ‘Doctor Who’ serial that ran interspersed from 1963 until 1989, finally returned to both UK television and the international television arena in 2005. In the lead up to the continuation of the ‘Doctor Who’ franchise Britain became a testing ground for new styles and forms of media to advertise and promote the return. The series has even continued to use a plethora of new technology to increase viewership and interest in the show. Including, but not currently limited to, mini-episodes on mobile phones, pod cast commentaries, interactive red-button adventures, video blogs, companion programming and ‘fake’ meta-textual websites. After airing the first season in 2005, it was decided by the BBC to create two spin-offs aimed at different segments of the public. The series, Torchwood (an anagram for Doctor Who) would involve one of the breakout stars from Season 1, Jack Barrowman. The show focused on a Human agency that researched aliens, but the show had a darker more sexual tone as opposed to ‘Doctor Who’. The series was aimed at the adult viewers who had been raised watching the original and seemed to be focused more on the characters rather then story or plot. The ‘Sarah Jane Smith Adventures’ were aimed directed at new viewers between the ages of 11-15 years old. The appearance of the original companion, Sarah Jane Smith and K-9 helped to garner further support for the show. Although, the BBC had originally been seen as “an embarrassment to the to the Corporation now spans the media landscape as a multi-format colossus”. The BBC and ‘Doctor Who’ has found some evident limitations, such as the broadcaster mainly being used for public service and that the network can only take the trans-media storytelling so far. (Perryman 2008:21-39). The new series of ‘Doctor Who’ utilized numerous technological advancements that had no precedent.

The television format of media can be analysed using Political Economy, although this format has limitations but allows for a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of how series and advertising co-operate in a globalised world.

Bibliography:

Binning, C. (2006) “North America casters rejoice in series’ success”. Playback: Canada’s Broadcast and Production Journal, NA, (Periodically): 29

Fahrenheit 9/11, dir. Michael Moore, 2004  

King, J. (2007) “Mystery Science Theatre 3000, Media Consciousness, and the Post-modern Allegory of the Captive Audience”. Journal of Film & Video, 59, (4): 37-53

O’Shaughnessy, M. and Stadler, J. (2006) Media and Society. Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Reynolds, M. and McNamara, M.  (2006) “MGM Insists ‘Stargate’ Won’t Shut”. Multichannel News, 27, (34): 8


Perryman, N. (2008) “Doctor Who and the Convergence of Media”. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14, (1): 21-39

Samson, O. (2006 “New Media Pricing is key on movie downloads”. Playback: Canada’s Broadcast and Production Journal, NA, (Periodically): 13

Schlosser, J. (2001) ‘The Quiet Force In Action”. Broadcasting & Cable, 131, (50): 1-2

Schlosser, J. (1997) ‘Fox sees ‘Stargate’”. Broadcasting & Cable, 127, (34): 26

Scodari, C. (2003) “Resistance Re-Examined: Gender, Fan Practices, and Science Fiction Television”. Popular Communication, 1, (2): 111-130

Tedesco, R. (1997) “Showtime opens Stargate SG-1 online”. Broadcasting & Cable, 127, (32): 53


Thursday, 6 September 2012

Why can't Celebrity and Culture just get along?

The concept of 'Online Celebrity' or 'Celebrity centric society' is argued constantly as a negative driver within current day youth. I think the issues is valuable and I can understand the concerns and risks but overall I find it hilarious that the same people or groups that espouse these concepts are generally either celebrities or rely on celebrities. Every morning show does hours on how celebrities are destroying youth and then have a entire segment about what crazy thing so-and-so has done. It's plainly hypocritical! I think culture, family and friends is far more impactful, powerful and important than celebrities online or otherwise but I have met people that mirror their life around the Kardashians or the Hiltons which I find incredibly sad. However I think a fraction of the celebrity concept should be utilised, maintained and is incredibly positive. The effect someone like Matthew Cowdry, a paralympian who has 11 Gold Medals and is Australia's most awarded paralympian, should be supported. I don't mind celebrity sports people or film celebrities or politicians or world leaders but shouldn't we only care if they actually give something to society or propel us to excel! A celebrity shouldn't be followed because they have money or connections or do something each week but because they prove that humanity is wonderful, brilliant and awe inspiring. Usain Bolt is the fastest man alive isn't that just fascinating, Nelson Mandela unified South Africa, Barack Obama is a black president in the USA, Colin Firth portrayed the lisped King better than anyone. We should be proud of accomplishments that drive society forward! People of science that expand our understanding or individuals that can our culture for the better.

Films have shown how great people who are rarely recognised changed us all for the better!

The 'Blind Side' shows how supporting someone no matter race or culture makes yourself and everyone around you a better person.

'Walk the Line' portrays how a great musician struggled and became a better person.

'Pursuit of Happyness" exemplifies the struggle of one man to support his family 

'Moneyball' shows how two men can change a sport and prove money doesn't produce the best sport person.
'We were Soldiers' shows the struggles of soldiers and their families.

'Thirteen Days' show how two presidents can put differences aside to save the world.

And finally 'The Godfather' is just so awesome! And everyone should watch it!

The creation of Omni-Culture is all media's fault!!!


For this post I am going to deviate from my use of Films to discuss modern media issues and how they affect cultures and society. Earlier I discussed how Australian culture is a mixture of every immigrant, every indigenous person and every person who colonised the nation. I'm a Caucasian Australia with Italian, Irish and French heritage who has been to over 30 nations globally and enjoy every type of cuisine. I love Australia from the average 'Bogan' to the every Politician. I believe Australia is a country anyone can share their culture, ideological beliefs and opinions with little hatred. But I despise the focus commercial television; radio and newspapers have on portraying any immigrant, refugee or Non-White Australian as a Job-stealing Criminal who is going to destroy the fabric of society. Shows like ACA or Today Tonight and people like Andrew Bolt utilise fear mongering to portray a far concern but describe it as fact. Currently I believe our media (Excluding the ABC and SBS) focuses more on ratings and manipulation than facts or informed opinions. 

Now my major fear, apart from this continuing is the fact that immigrants, refugees and people in other countries are going to perceive us different, this has occurred in India already after a string of attacks on Indian students. Although almost every person in Australia has immigrated from somewhere else they have started to be tricked, deceived and manipulated by commercial media leading to the possible loss of customs, beliefs and attitudes prevalent in their family and culture in favour of these distasteful antics (Bryan and Thompson:2002) Furthermore the fear of difference and loss of culture by self-entitled 'White Australians' has led to this pushback that occurs when citizens think they are under attack but failing to see that we have no really defined culture (Birch et al:2001). Personally I see Australian culture as simply everything. As a nation we have grown from roots in almost 200 countries and become currently the most stable country in the world. We should be proud of Australia and the vast demographics we have. 

Birch, D, Schirato, T & Srivastava, S 2001, Asia: cultural politics in the global age, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Bryant, J., & Thompson, S. (2002). Fundamentals of Media Effects, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.



Does Public Sphere = Social Network?


Habermas's Public Sphere deals with the concept of sharing and communicating ideas and information in a critical manner to create an opinion. Although Habermas's concept is rather limiting with it generally relating to a physical location and focusing on the higher strata’s of society (Habermas:1989). The most obvious example of the Public Sphere in relation to Globalisation is Facebook and other social media sites. However, as evident by my blogs focus I believe film and video have their place.

YouTube, a massive video sharing website, is the crossroads between film and social media. People can upload videos of things they like or post blogs to espouse their beliefs. Although these are just newer forms of communication they are sometimes more limited then direct physical contact. In particular, Facebook generally depends on ‘Friending’ the person before they are able to communicate ideological concepts. Whereas YouTube and Film can communicate a direct message to the viewer with out a restriction except the choice to view.

Films can inform, educate and create an emotional connection to a person or event. For example the Facebook focused ‘Social Network’ portrayed a semi-factual history of its creation but allowed user to see the reality of the commonly used media site.

Films can show historical events that are major turning points throughout cultural history.

                           ‘Milk’ portrays the gay rights movement in the USA

‘Invictus’ shows the 1994 Rugby World Cup that literally united South Africa after years of civil unrest

Habermas, J. (1989) The structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Australian Culture! Queen of the Desert, Animal Kingdom or The Sapphires?

The concept of "Australian Culture" as being uniformed and concise is exactly the opposite of how I perceive Australia and myself. However this hasn't stopped others and films from portraying us as having the traditional British values of a 'White Australia' with small components of other European heritage culminating in this, what I see as, horrendous image (Stanner:1953). The nation of Australia is constructed on our indigenous population, British colonisation and massive influxes of refugees and immigrants from everywhere from China to Sudan and Greece to Vietnam.

I believe Australia is a nation built on Globalisation and the best example of it. According to Sun (2002) the movement of people can result in people reconnecting with their birthplace through cultural communities culminating in massive mixture in cultures. Australia has some of the worlds best wine made from people of German, Italian and French heritage, Melbourne has the largest Greek population in a city outside of Athens (No other city in Greece has as many Greek people) and our food is a amazing bizarre boiling pot of every cuisine from Vietnamese, Chinese, Egyptian, Indian and European that you are never lost for choice.

However Australian’s sometimes don’t portray ourselves that way. The history of film making in Australia is rather sad in the respect that we can make brilliant films but generally focusing on a ‘white Australian’. Some films have pushed the envelope however! While most films about the aboriginal population focus on the ‘Stolen Generation’, films like ‘The Sapphires’ explore individualism while dealing with race issues and exemplifying the mixed culture of Australia. 

Other great examples are: 

                                          ‘Pricilla Queen of the Desert’ 

                                                  ‘Harvey Krumpet’

                                                         ‘Wog Boy’



Stanner, WEH. (1953), ‘The Australian way of life’ in Aughterson, WV. (ed.), Taking stock: aspects of mid-century life in Australia, FW Cheshire, Melbourne, Vic.

Sun, W 2002, ‘Leaving China: media, migration and transnational imagination’, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. Lanham, pg. 113-136.