Unveiling television’s apparatus on screen as a ‘para-interactive’ strategy

Abstract

Broadcast television faces new challenges in the rapidly changing media environment. This article proposes ‘para-interactivity’ as a concept that identifies the ways television addresses its audiences in the digital age. Para-interactivity is a term that brings together several salient elements in contemporary television texts as well as positing a contemporary context for established and familiar television strategies. It identifies elements embraced by television, which echo interactive communication processes and are characteristic of digital media and participatory culture, but when employed by and adapted to television, they do not usually construct communication that is actually interactive. This article focuses on one of these para-interactive strategies: unvelling television’s apparatus on screen. This strategy implies an inclusive viewing experience and a seemingly more equal and reciprocal relationship between television and its viewers. However, I argue that what is presented to the viewers is nothing but a ‘staged backstage’, while television industry surrounds itself in real and legal fences. Drawing on Israeli commercial television texts, this article contributes to the understanding of contemporary transformations in television as a medium and as a cultural industry.

Keywords

back stage behind the scenes commercial television interactivity para-interactivity prime time television

Introduction

In this article, I describe how television production apparatus has become more visible and transparent to viewers as the line between the front stage and back stage would seem to become increasingly blurred. Although this is not an entirely new phenomenon, in its contemporary context, I propose viewing it as a televisual strategy frequently employed by television producers. I argue that this strategy is inspired by the promise of a potential role exchange between participants in a process of mutual discourse (Williams et al., 1988) and by the assumptions of participatory culture of a changed relationship between consumers and producers of media, one that is often based on reciprocity and equality (Jenkins, 2006). Understanding the strategy within this theoretical framework, I introduce the concept of ‘para-interactivity’. I propose that this concept can help us theoretically and culturally conceptualize an array of strategies employed by television, while at the same time linking these strategies to the state of television both as a medium and as a cultural industry in the context of a changing media environment.

In my efforts to analyze changes in contemporary television, I am greatly indebted to two veteran researchers, Horton and Wohl (1956), who coined the term ‘para-social interaction’. Horton and Wohl deconstructed interpersonal, face-to-face interaction processes as implemented on television into their components – eye contact, light conversation, body language, greetings, and the simulation of dialogue with viewers – tracing these components and their translation into televisual language within television texts. Horton and Wohl claimed that para-social relations imitate interpersonal interactions, yet incompletely; as noted by Handelman (2003), some crucial quality is obviously missing. In a similar vein, I propose to disassemble the interactive communication process and to identify the televisual strategies aimed at simulating interactive communication.

In this article, first, I briefly review recent changes in the media environment, the popular concept of interactivity, and the ongoing discourse around the changing role of the audience in the digital era. Next, I lay out the conceptual tool proposed in this article: para-interactivity. While I define para-interactivity as having three different dimensions, in this article, I focus on one specific spatial strategy that aims to blur the line between front and back stage on television. I explore the manifestations of this strategy in contemporary texts, broadcast on Israeli television, and trace a ‘bi-directional route’ of discursive and visual elements. In the final part of the article, I explain the purpose of the strategy from the producers’ point of view, link it to wider cultural changes, and discuss some of its theoretical implications. I claim that the spatial para-interactive strategy is employed by television producers in order to construct a viewing experience of inclusivity in the production process and to simulate reciprocity between producers and viewers. Finally, I critically argue that even though television production apparatus has become more visible on screen, in most cases there is only a partial uncovering, producing nothing more than a ‘staged back stage’.

Theoretical framework

Changes in media environment: between production and consumption

In recent years, the media environment has been undergoing a series of fundamental changes. First, technological developments, such as video cameras and editing software, have become cheaper and simpler to operate, thus enabling more people – who were ‘formerly known as the audience’ (Rosen, 2006) – to become producers of media messages. Second, new media, such as webcams, smartphones, and digital platforms (YouTube, Instagram and other social media), have made not only the means of production accessible to many, but the means of distribution as well. This has further blurred the line between the traditional roles of producers and receivers of media messages. As a result, the boundaries between the traditional spheres of the production and consumption of media content have also become blurred (Andrejevic, 2004; Rice, 1999; Roig et al., 2009). Jenkins’ (2006) focus on technological convergence is complemented by his theorization of the cultural practices that flourish around new digital media, which he calls ‘participatory culture’. He perceives audience members not only as consumers of media, but also as participants in it. Bruns (2006) refers to technology’s potential to transform ordinary audience members into ‘producers’ and focuses on community collaboration. He claims that users are becoming producers, and vice versa, and that collaboration between participants is based on a principle of inclusivity. These changes in the media environment – participatory culture and the blurred lines between production and consumption, and interactivity, which will be discussed in greater detail in the following section – are the theoretical points of departure for my examination of the ways that television, a linear, top-down medium, addresses its audiences in a digital environment.

Interactivity

Interactivity is a central theme in both academic and popular discourses surrounding new media, and is considered to be one of their main characteristics (McQuail, 2010). However, despite its prevalence, the concept of interactivity lacks a clear-cut definition (Kiousis, 2002). Some writers focus on technological aspects, viewing interactivity as the degree to which the technology allows the user to participate in the design and modification of the mediated environment (Williams et al., 1988) or to shape the content of the mediated communication (Jensen and Toscan, 1999). In this article, I have chosen to focus on the definition of interactivity as a communication process and participants’ relations to one another (Kiousis, 2002). Along this vein, Jensen (2008) offers a comprehensive typology of interactivity in the context of the changing media environment. He includes both broadcast media and digital media users as content generators and charts their possible roles in the communication relationship between television and its audiences as participants in a communication process. And more specifically, the most relevant definition of interactivity relates to the possibility that participants can exchange roles in a process of mutual communication (Williams et al., 1988). Drawing on this definition, we might say that the ‘interactive promise’ refers to the opportunity to participate in message production within a context of mutuality and relative equality. Interactivity thus depends on the accessibility of the message production process to all participants; it is the promise of ‘dis–alienating the consumer from the means of production’ (Jarrett, 2008: 2). One might wonder if this promise is ever actually realized, even in a so-called interactive media environment. However, it is undeniable that technological developments have widened access to the means of media production. This access is closely related to cultural developments, such as those described by Jenkins’ notion of participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006).

When television meets the ‘interactive promise’

While digital media can potentially enable access to the means of production to many, television is still mainly a mass, top-down medium. Therefore, it is not surprising that the conceptualization of interactivity relates almost by definition to computer-mediated communication environments (Gilder, 1994). Nevertheless, throughout the years, numerous attempts have been made by linear media, television included, to invite audience participation (Griffen-Foley, 2004) or to develop so-called interactive television systems (Jensen and Toscan, 1999), which, it would seem, are perceived by television producers as attractive for their viewers (Einav, 2004).

Technological and cultural changes in the media environment, and especially the interactive affordances (Hutchby, 2001) of digital media, have renewed discussions about the perceived activity or interactivity of the television audience (Holmes, 2009). This time round, the question has not been whether viewers are active in the reception and interpretation of television texts in the spirit of Hall (1980) and reception studies; rather, it has revolved around the question of how interactive the communication process offered to viewers by television really is. Ross (2008), for instance, describes television viewers’ ‘tele-participation’ through digital platforms as a part of the contemporary viewing experience; these are DIY viewers, who expect to take part in televisual texts through various digital platforms (Hartley, 2011). Meanwhile, research into reality television discusses viewers’ involvement in voting for their favorite contestants, or in proposing themselves as potential participants in a show (see, for instance, Holmes, 2004, 2009; Murray and Oullette, 2008; Turner, 2010). The concept of para-interactivity, however, attempts to look further than voting and viewers’ participation; it should be seen as pertaining to a cluster of televisual strategies that can be employed not only in reality shows, but in various genres.

Para-interactivity

Faced with the challenges posed by a digital and interactive media environment, television producers employ discursive and televisual strategies aimed at simulating an interactive viewing experience in the context of a traditionally broadcast medium. In this article, I propose the term para-interactivity as a concept that can help us create a typology of contemporary as well as traditional strategies employed by television producers, and that can contextualize them in relation to a changing media environment.

Charting developments and changes in televisual texts is a delicate and complex task, as the old often meets the new in varying ways. Para-interactivity is a term that brings together several salient elements in contemporary television texts as well as positing a contemporary context for established and familiar television strategies. These strategies are ‘para-interactive’ in that the features or elements embraced by television echo interactive communication processes and are characteristic of digital media and participatory culture, but when employed by and adapted to television, they do not usually construct communication that is actually interactive.¹

All of these para-interactive strategies are inspired by different elements of interactive communication processes and are closely interrelated. One such strategy is the unveiling televisions’ apparatus on screen, which forms the center piece of this article.

Methods

This article is based on a qualitative analysis of prime time television texts aired on Israeli broadcast commercial television (Channels 2 and 10) during the years 2008–2011. All prime time weekday programs were recorded during 2008 and watched closely. In the following years (2009–2011), only the programs aired on the first week of every month were recorded and watched. In addition, ‘specials’, such as finale shows, were also included. The texts were analyzed in order to identify the various elements and strategies associated with the interactive communication process and their implementation on television. Based on the rationale that ‘television is no longer a stand-alone medium’ (Turner and Tay, 2009: 7), I included also supplementary video and textual content from other digital platforms.² The analysis was enriched by more than 40 journalistic articles published in print and online newspapers and trade sites. The textual analysis was further complemented by 12 interviews with television executives, producers and lower level industry employees. The interviews were conducted as semi-structured conversations, so as to bring to the surface some of the concerns and dilemmas of television professionals.³ Finally, two participatory observations were conducted at television industry trade conferences in 2008 and 2009.

Television apparatus unveiled: a spatial model

A thorough examination of the programs aired on Israeli broadcast commercial channels (Channel 2 and 10) during 2008–2011 showed that almost all major prime time programs were accompanied by ‘behind the scenes’ shows and promos that included back stage footage, multi-platform additional content, and news items that covered the production process. Moreover, some programs integrated traditionally back stage elements into the program text itself, such as auditions, editorial meetings, or newsroom images. In addition, television’s back stage and production were also the main theme of a number of fictional TV texts, including sitcoms such as 30 Rock and The Newsroom (Duffy et al., 2011), and Israeli television dramas such as Hakol Dvash (Reshet, 2007–2010) and Hassufim (Hot, 2008–2009), both of which depict television creation processes.

Spatial model: a symbolic bi-directional route

Unveiling television’s apparatus may be perceived as a symbolic spatial strategy, and, as such, it calls for a spatial model that offers a preliminary typology of its various manifestations. Looking closely at prime time television texts, para-texts, and multi-platform content, a symbolic bi-directional route can be identified: in one direction, television cameras move back and invite the viewers into the production space; in the opposite direction, elements that traditionally take place back stage, such as auditions, the ‘green room’, and activities in the newsroom, are brought forward to the front stage, where they become an integral part of the performance. When combined, these two symbolic lanes blur the traditional spatial line between the back and front stage. This gives symbolic spatial representation to the interactive promise by which media consumers can ‘trade places’ with media producers. Moreover, the bi-directionality reflects a promise of symmetry and reciprocity between viewers and producers that is commonly related to interactivity.

Moving back: cameras entering the production space

Behind the scenes programs and segments, in which cameras enter back stage spaces, are very common on Israeli commercial television. Behind the scenes programs usually accompany the opening episode of a season, showing parts of the production process and unveiling the production apparatus: the control room, cameras, editing rooms, the production team, and so on. Other examples include additional behind the scenes videos on the channel’s Internet site, promos that show the preparations for an upcoming show, and more.

The following promo was broadcast on prime time just before the opening episode of Big Brother:

[Images of monitors in the control room, cameras, busy TV workers etc …]

Narration:

The house has been built. In the control room, which was only completed this week, the production crew is testing the 35 cameras that cover every corner of the house. Dozens of production team members are going through final rehearsals, getting ready to work around the clock. (Big Brother promo, broadcast 1 September 2008, Channel 2)

In this promo, the cameras enter the back stage area and the viewers are invited to enter the production space. Curiously, in this segment, the front stage area, the Big Brother house itself, is nowhere to be seen. Similar to other supplementary content, promos are meaningful as para-texts since they shape the viewing experience of the programs that they accompany (Gray, 2010). This promo reports on the building of the set and the progress of the rehearsals, therefore involving the viewers in the production process and adding another perspective to their viewing experience.

An illustration of viewers being invited into a back stage space can be seen in a segment that was uploaded to the Israeli News Corporation (Channel 2) Internet site:⁴

[A rapid montage of shots showing the news room in action]

Narration:

We wanted to show you the behind the scenes of a newscast. Many viewers at home, watching the news at night don’t know how many people, news editors, reporters and producers, work on it during the day …

Here, digital platforms provide another path inviting the viewers back stage. Moreover, as we shall see in the following examples of the Israeli versions of Strictly Come Dancing and Pop Idol, producers take advantage of the synchronicity and immediacy of the online platforms that accompanied the television broadcasts in order to invite the viewers to watch a live feed from the rehearsal rooms of popular prime time programs.

During the 2010 season of Strictly Come Dancing, the producers invited viewers to use an online application that offered a peek into the rehearsal rooms in between the live weekly broadcasts. Viewers could see what appeared to be a live transmission of surveillance cameras installed in the rehearsal rooms. Since the transmission was continuous and unedited, there were times when all that viewers could see were the empty rooms. This, and the poor quality of the images, created the impression of unmediated entry into the back stage area.

In the Israeli version of Pop Idol (2010 season), producers used a similar strategy. In this instance, they set the rehearsals in the original studio of the Big Brother television program. Naturally, this studio is fully equipped with cameras and microphones, and thus it appeared as if viewers could follow the rehearsals, live, via the program’s Internet site whenever they chose. In both examples, viewers were invited to feel that they are continuously included in the production process, even between broadcasts.

Similarly, the use of a digital platform alongside a traditional live television broadcast can be illustrated by the invitation addressed to viewers at home to bring their laptops to the living room while watching the Israeli version of Pop Idol (2010 season). The host repeatedly invited the viewers to use a special online app to ‘… enter and see the contestants behind the scenes’ in between performances:

The host:

Listen up! We have another innovation for you. This season the contestants won’t rest during the commercial breaks. Come in and watch everything that’s happening behind the scenes!

[Commercial break]

In this short text, viewers were invited, during the broadcast, to be in two places at the same time – front stage and back stage – blurring the boundaries between the two.

Another example involves the drama series, Hatufim which was later adapted into the American series, Homeland. The producers created a video filmed on site that showed fragments of the production process and featured interviews with the creator of the series and the lead actors.⁵ In this video, the producers invited the viewers to ‘join’ them back stage and enter the production space. However, the ambivalence of this invitation transpires from the closing sentence of the video, when one of the lead actors looks straight into the camera and says, ‘… you don’t really want me to tell you what is going on here’ (Keshet, 2010). On the face of it, the actor is talking about not divulging the storyline, but the claim is ambiguous and could also be about unveiling the production process to the viewers. This point will be discussed further in the final part of the article in relation to the television industry’s tendency for confidentiality and concealment.

The examples discussed so far outline the route on which the cameras move back and invite the viewers to enter into the back stage area. Looking at the other direction of this bi-directional model, we can see back stage elements that are brought forward to the frontstage area, thereby becoming an integral part of the performance.

Moving forward: back stage elements placed on stage

In quite a few television texts, traditionally back stage elements are placed on stage as an integral part of the show. We are all familiar, for instance, with the glass wall behind newscasters, presenting us with a symbolic image of a busy newsroom. Indeed, in 2011, Israel’s Channel 10 was required by the regulator to relocate its news studio to the capital city, while the company’s editorial staff and newsroom remained 65 km away. In order to overcome this distance, back stage activity in the newsroom was filmed in its original location and then screened behind the newscaster in the new studio during the live broadcast (Klein Shagrir, 13 March 2012, private communication).

Taking it even further, the same channel’s Saturday night news magazine opened with a simulation of an editorial meeting performed in the studio in front of the cameras (during the 2011 season). Viewers were invited to join the reporters and the host of the magazine as they discussed the evening’s top stories. This so-called editorial meeting, which traditionally takes place back stage and some time before the live broadcast itself, was moved forward to become part of the show, both spatially and temporally.

Another familiar example of a back stage process integrated into many very popular formats is auditions. In television formats such as Pop Idol, Master Chef, The Voice, and others, auditions, which traditionally take place back stage, are brought forward and placed on the stage. Apparently, producers believe that auditions bring high ratings; thus, the 2009 season of the Israeli version of Pop Idol included 12 full audition shows, each 90 minutes long, all of which were broadcast during prime time. These episodes were long enough to show not only the contestants’ emotions and heartbreaking stories, but also focused on the judges’ workday. Viewers could watch the panel members becoming bored, frustrated, and enthusiastic, laughing hysterically, surviving an attack of the hiccups, and squabbling with one another. All of these can be categorized as ‘backstage regressive behaviors’ that are traditionally not revealed to the audience (Goffman, 1959).

Along similar lines, the Israeli version of Strictly Come Dancing integrated scenes and interviews from the ‘green room’ in the television performance. Traditionally, the green room is a back stage space in which performers can relax until they are required on stage. However, during these broadcasts, images of the performers lounging around and interviews conducted in the green room are brought forward and become an integral part of the show. Moreover, watching the performers’ off-stage behavior during breaks seems to be an attractive addition to the show, and such segments are repeatedly broadcast for the viewers to watch. It is important to note that this strategy is not entirely new, and that the producers of the Eurovision song contest, for instance, have been using it for the past few years.

These examples of back stage elements moving forward to become an integral part of the show demonstrate the second, opposite lane in the bi-directional route of the spatial model. This bi-directional motion blurs the symbolic line between the back and front stage while making the production apparatus more visible on screen. In the following section, I shall relate this spatial para-interactive strategy to the professional discourse of television producers, which focuses on viewers’ changing expectations in a shifting media environment.

Professional discourse: viewers’ changing expectations

Previous research has shown that producers strongly believe that their viewers expect to engage with media texts (Enli, 2009; Sundet and Ytreberg, 2009). However, the interviewees for this study expressed their conviction that viewers not only seek engagement with media texts, but also want to be included in the very production process itself.

In interview, a top executive at one of Israel’s commercial broadcast channels said,

The shows with high ratings are those which the viewer feels he is a part of, part of the celebration, part of the production, part of what is going on behind the scenes, part of producing television maybe … People are curious about how you make television, they are not naïve anymore. (K., 9 September 2009)

Another executive emphasized the expectations of young viewers: ‘Younger viewers want to take an active part. Unlike my generation or my parents, they don’t want to be passive or to be spoon fed by television …’ (D., 5 December 2008).

As the first quote shows, the interviewee is convinced of viewers’ desire to take part in the television text and its production, and by drawing them together he reflects the blurring boundaries between the front and back stage and between the producers and consumers of television. The second interviewee indirectly links viewers’ changing expectations with the shifting media environment, in particular by pointing to younger viewers, who are considered to be more digitally oriented.

In a press interview, the editors of a humoristic Israeli television talk show acknowledged that they had started to expose the show’s production apparatus in response to viewers’ desire to be part of the show:

You expose the show’s scaffolding … everything is out in the open … you don’t underrate the person sitting at home … On one of the shows we pulled the teleprompter out in front of the camera … The viewers can feel that they are not being cheated and that they can be part of what’s on television. (Izikovitz, 2010)

It seems that television viewers today are considered by television producers not only to be media savvy, but also as expecting to be involved in the production process. Accordingly, they make the television production apparatus visible on screen (Duffy et al., 2011). As the last quote suggests, we could view this as a strategy for producing a seemingly inclusive and reciprocal relationship with the viewers. This point will be discussed further below.

It is worth noting, however, that while media consumers in an interactive communication environment can potentially become producers and distributors of media content, often without leaving their homes, when it comes to television the medium’s affordances (Hutchby, 2001) make it highly unlikely. Producing and distributing television content is still expensive and complex, and demands professional expertise. As John Ellis (2004) puts it, ‘[t]hose who receive television have little or no possibility of becoming producers of television utterances’ (p. 276). However, in a context of profound technological and cultural change, television professionals believe that viewers’ expectations are changing. In view of these challenges, television producers employ a para-interactive strategy of increased visibility of the production apparatus. This strategy aims at blurring the line between the front stage and back stage, and between producers and viewers, and invites the viewer to feel as if he or she is part of the production.

Discussion

Before discussing this strategy from a contemporary point of view, we should note that ‘behind the scenes’ media texts are not a new phenomenon. Indeed, they have been around since Hollywood’s golden age in the 1930s and 1940s as well as from the early days of television broadcasts (Caldwell, 2008). A more recent manifestation of behind the scenes texts is the ‘special features’ added to DVDs. These video segments show the production process and feature on set interviews with actors and key production figures, and are meant to create a richer, multi-layered viewing experience (Brookey and Westerfelhaus, 2002). Nonetheless, in the past, behind the scenes media texts were often intended for movie buffs (Skopal, 2007) or enthusiastic fans. Recently, though, as I found on Israeli broadcast television, such back stage materials have become a salient element of prime time programming, not to say an integral part of the most popular television programs.

Is television going through a ‘spatial turn’?

Goffman (1959) argued that back stage spaces are usually out of reach and out of sight, and therefore inaccessible to ‘outside people’. Using Goffman as a point of departure, Meyrowitz (1985) focused on television’s power to blur spatial, social, and cultural boundaries. Meyrowitz’s book has been retrospectively seen as instigating the ‘spatial turn’ in media studies, or the call for a combination of media and spatial theories (Ericson and Riegert, 2010). This idea is worth revisiting at a time when television as a medium and a technology is undergoing a spatial turn of its own on various levels. Television texts today migrate from one screen to another and from platform to platform (Lotz, 2007), as media content is subject to a ‘space shift’ (Jensen, 2008), and no longer confined to a ‘box’ in the living room. Along similar lines, television has been recently discussed as being ‘relocated’ (Gripsrud, 2010: 3) and converged (Caldwell, 2004a). Taking a different point of view, my discussion regarding spatiality mainly focuses on the spatial arrangements of broadcasting television’s inner spaces and their visibility to the viewers. Following Scannell’s (1996) observations regarding the production space and the television studio as actual places, I suggest that, through television, viewers gain access to several places at once. This spatial point of view is relevant to the arguments presented below, in which I build on the notion of back stage being a distinct place where viewers can be denied, or to which they can be given symbolic access.

First, it seems that television has adopted a spatial strategy whereby producers emphasize spatial properties of the production apparatus and invite viewers to symbolically step inside the production space. Second, revisiting Meyrowitz’s argument about television’s power to blur spatial and social lines, I propose that, this time, television is blurring its own internal spatial lines – especially the lines between the front stage and back stage, and between producers and viewers – as it offers the viewers mediated access to places usually inaccessible to them. In other words, television permits its audience to enter into television’s own private place: the production area.

Is television changing its own spatial self-perceptions because of changes in the wider media environment? Television is frequently portrayed as a ‘window to the world’ (White, 2006), whereas digital, computerized media are often thought of as an ‘environment’, or even as a world of their own (Manovich, 2001). While the window metaphor implies a viewer or on-looker, the digital world metaphors have spatial connotations and imply the potential for entry into or immersion in mediated virtual spaces (Ryan, 1994). I suggest that by employing this para-interactive strategy, television presents its own production apparatus as a mediated space and invites viewers to enter and immerse themselves in that space and in the production process more generally. We might say that television is not only a window to the world, but has also started to offer its viewers symbolic entrance into its own private world.

The ‘spatial turn’ meets the ‘demotic turn’: using a para-interactive spatial strategy for constructing inclusivity and reciprocity

Television’s internal spatial turn as a medium and technology sees it emphasizing the spatial characteristics of its production apparatus. In addition, producers believe that contemporary television viewers expect not only to be seen on the screen, a cultural development theorized by Turner (2010) as the demotic turn, but also expect to feel as if they are taking part in the production of the televisual text as well.

I propose that the spatial para-interactive strategy described in this article is employed by television producers in order to construct a viewing experience of inclusivity in the production process, and to simulate reciprocity between producers and viewers.

The para-interactive strategy of making the television apparatus visible, thus inviting television viewers into the production process, albeit in a mediated symbolic manner, has the potential for inclusion in and involvement with the production team. As MacCannell (1973) argued, people permitted entry into back stage areas of groups, cultures, and social institutions (in the Goffmanian sense) are, in effect, invited to become one with the group and to feel included in it. Along these lines, being permitted entry into television’s back stage – the production space – similarly implies inclusivity, as viewers are invited to feel included in the production team. Furthermore, drawing on Goffman (1974), we might say that by making the television apparatus visible, and by revealing the back stage process to viewers, television producers construct the impression that producers’ and viewers’ ‘information states’ are overlapping: viewers are brought closer to the position of ‘participant’ rather than that of ‘on-looker’, thus cultivating their sense of inclusivity and involvement, and implying the potential role exchange associated with interactivity (Williams et al., 1988).

In addition, as mentioned in earlier parts of this article, the rhetoric of television invites viewers not only to play the role of fans and media consumers, but also allows them a degree of access into television texts as participants in many shows, as ‘narrative co-editors’, when it allows them to determine the storyline through voting, and even as assistant writers through programs’ websites (Andrejevic, 2006; Johnson, 2007; Ross, 2008). Moreover, many television texts are based on television cameras entering the lives of their viewers. Television producers expect ‘ordinary people’ (Turner, 2010) to allow them access to their homes, their kitchens, their families, and to their social and romantic lives as well – in other words, to their own ‘back stage’ (Evans, 2005).

Could it be that an appearance of reciprocity is constructed in order to persuade the viewers of a seemingly more equal relationship between them and the producers? One of the basic tendencies of human behavior that comes into play in persuasion processes is reciprocity, meaning that people have to ‘give what they want to receive’ (Cialdini, 2001). Drawing on this notion, I propose that while ordinary people share their back stage with television producers (and the viewing public), television producers share the back stage of their professional world as well, thus creating an experience of reciprocity. An impression of reciprocity is created, that once again may imply a more equal relationship between producers and viewers.

To summarize, unveiling television apparatus on screen is a para-interactive strategy used by television as a simulation of a changed relationship with its audience. The simulated relationship is one of reciprocity, and includes the viewers in the production process that is associated with the ‘interactive promise’ of digital media.

Is it really back stage?

Paradoxically, as television’s back stage becomes more visible on screen, the television industry becomes concealed behind real and legal fences of confidentiality. Television performers and employees are required to sign confidentiality agreements and even members of the public coming to auditions and visitors behind the scenes have to sign nondisclosure agreements before being allowed into the production area. Concealment and confidentiality in the television industry is fueled by fierce commercial competition and by restrictions enforced by global television formats. The contemporary television industry thus not only produces illusions, but also invests a great deal of resources in constructing the illusion of reality, an illusion that often requires the concealment of production processes.

As always, scandals sprout up around these walls of confidentiality. In 2010, an anonymous Israeli blogger posted embarrassing details from behind the scenes of popular prime time programs. An entertainment journalist covering the incident wrote, ‘It’s a source of information and details that all fall under the category of what the people in the television industry don’t want you to know’ (Turovitz, 2010). This incident caused the television industry a lot of anxiety, and certain employees were even forced to take polygraph tests. It eventually emerged that the blogger had obtained his information by hacking computers belonging to the production company, and he was arrested (Greenzweig, 2011). This incident and other occasional media reports exposing the behind the scenes of behind the scenes raise nagging questions about the nature of the back stage that is revealed to us on television.

‘Staged back stage’

MacCannell (1973) wrote about tourists’ search for authentic experiences in a new place or culture. He described their desire to visit ‘back stage’ areas as an important part of their touristic experience. However, one of his main arguments was that tourists are often guided to places that are actually designed and staged as back stage. Similarly, I argue that inviting viewers to enter television’s back stage is only a para-interactive strategy and, in fact, similarly to tourists, viewers are led through nothing more than a ‘staged back stage’. It is a staged experience that is intended to construct an illusion of inclusion and reciprocity tailored for the viewers at home. In effect, it is a part of the performance, carefully constructed according to production interests. As the apparatus of television becomes seemingly visible on screen, the actual back stage is protected behind fences.

Conclusion

Even though it is not a part of the corpus, I shall conclude with an example from an American television awards broadcast for three reasons: first, it figuratively demonstrates my main arguments in this article regarding the unveiling of the production apparatus; second, pointing to the use of the strategy in a television awards ceremony makes my claims more generalizable in relation to television; and third, it opens the possibility of further exploring these arguments in an international context.

At the live broadcast of the Emmy Awards ceremony in 2009, the host guided the cameras around the different areas of the huge stage and paused in front of a large glass wall. Surprisingly, behind the glass, the viewers could see the control room: the director, the whole production team, and an impressive set of monitors. The host exclaimed that usually the control room is located behind the scenes; however, that night, it was set on stage for everyone to see. It might not be surprising that the Emmy Awards ceremony’s theme that night was the challenges posed to television by new media, concerns that were expressed humorously in the opening song. Traditionally, television’s control room is considered the holy sanctum of the production apparatus. It is sealed with heavy doors and soundproofed, especially during live broadcasts. The control room is spatially separated from the studio and is usually kept out of the viewers’ sight. This example embodies the spatial para-interactive strategy discussed in this article: for this live broadcast, the control room was placed on stage (one could say that it was literally ‘staged’) behind a glass wall. By inviting the viewers to ‘supervise the production team’s work’, as the host said, the visibility and accessibility of the production process are emphasized. However, as I have already argued, in this broadcast, as in previous examples, all that the viewers were actually granted was a partial and fleeting glimpse of the production apparatus.

Spatial divisions and borders, whether physical or symbolic, construct social, cultural, and organizational hierarchies and power relations (Caldwell, 2004b; Couldry, 2001). Although television employs this spatial para-interactive strategy of unveiling its production apparatus, permission to go behind the scenes is limited, and viewers are not actually given access to the means of production (Jarrett, 2008). Producers create a simulated ‘back stage’ visibility – on stage – while securing concealment and secrecy behind the scenes. This strategy does not change viewers’ traditional role as on-lookers (Goffman, 1974) and preserves established power relations.

In an age of challenges and uncertainty, it is imperative to examine developments in broadcast television. Since this study is based on Israeli prime time television texts, further research should look into a greater variety of texts as well as an international point of view.

This article proposes para-interactivity as a conceptual tool for describing and analyzing the relationship between television and its audiences. Strategies of para-interactivity are not necessarily new, and the concept itself is rooted in television research history (and especially Horton and Wohl’s (1956) work on para-social relations). However, the idea of para-interactivity seeks to engage with theories of new media, and particularly the broad theme of interactivity. This theoretical and conceptual combination is thus also indicative of the state of television both as an industry and as a medium, as it finds itself caught between two technological and cultural worlds.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Andrejevic

(2004) Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. New York; Toronto, ON, Canada; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.

Andrejevic

(2006) The discipline of watching: detection, risk, and lateral surveillance. Critical Studies in Media Communication 23(5): 391–407.

Brookey

Westerfelhaus

(2002) Hiding homoeroticism in plain view: the fight club DVD as digital closet. Critical Studies in Media Communication 19(1): 21–43.

Bruns

(2006) Towards produsage: Futures for user-led content production. In Sudweeks

Hrachovec

Ess

(eds) Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication. Murdoch: Murdoch University, pp. 275–284.

Caldwell

(2004a) Convergence television: aggregating form and repurposing content in the culture of conglomeration. In: Spigel

Olsson

(eds) Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 41–74.

Caldwell

(2004b) Industrial geography lessons, socio-professional rituals and the borderlands of production cultures. In: Couldry

McCarthy

(eds) MediaSpace: Place, Scale, and Culture in a Media Age. New York; London: Routledge, pp. 163–189.

Caldwell

(2008) Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Cialdini

(2001) Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review 79(9): 72–81.

Couldry

(2001) The Place of Media Power: Pilgrims and Witnesses of the Media Age. London: Routledge.

10.

Duffy

LissMariño

Sender

(2011) Reflexivity in television depictions of media industries: peeking behind the gilt curtain. Communication, Culture & Critique 4(3): 296–313.

11.

Einav

(2004) I want my iTV, content, demand and social implications of interactive television. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

12.

Ellis

(2004) Television production. In: Allen

Hill

(eds) The Television Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 275–292.

13.

Enli

(2009) Mass communication tapping into participatory culture: exploring strictly come dancing and Britain’s got talent. European Journal of Communication 24(4): 481–493.

14.

Ericson

Riegert

(eds) (2010) Media Houses: Architecture, Media, and the Production of Centrality. New York: Peter Lang.

15.

Evans

(2005) Reality programming: evolutionary models of film and television viewership. In: Anderson

Anderson

(eds) Moving Image Theory: Ecological Considerations. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 200–214.

16.

Gilder

(1994) Life after Television. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

17.

Goffman

(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

18.

Goffman

(1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.

19.

Gray

(2010) Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts. New York: NYU Press.

20.

Greenzweig

(2011) Hackers to survivor’s production computers indicted. Walla, 11 May. Available at: http://b.walla.co.il/?w=/3050/1822404 (in Hebrew) (accessed 21 July 2010).

21.

Griffen-Foley

(2004) From tit-bits to big brother: a century of audience participation in the media. Media, Culture & Society 26(4): 533–548.

22.

Gripsrud

(2010) Television in the digital public sphere. In: Gripsrud

(ed.) Relocating Television, Television in the Digital Context. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–25.

23.

Hall

(1980) Encoding/decoding. In: Hall

Hobson

Lowe

al.

(eds) Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–1979. London: Hutchinson, pp. 122–138.

24.

Handelman

(2003) Towards the virtual encounter: Horton’s and Wohl’s ‘mass communication and para-social interaction’. In: Katz

Durham

Liebes

. (eds) Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are There Any? Should There be? How about These? Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity Press, pp. 137–152.

25.

Hartley

(2011) The Uses of Digital Literacy. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

26.

Holmes

(2004) But this time you choose! Approaching the ‘Interactive’ audience in reality TV. International Journal of Cultural Studies 7(2): 213–231.

27.

Holmes

(2009) ‘This outlet for criticism could ginger up the whole climate in which television is watched’: (re)viewing points of view – audience, access and participation. Critical Studies in Television: Scholarly Studies in Small Screen Fictions 4(1): 4–25.

28.

Horton

Wohl

(1956) Mass communication and parasocial interaction: observation on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 19(3): 215–229.

29.

Hutchby

(2001) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2): 441–456.

30.

Izikovitz

(2010) Lyala Bekef: Not afraid to look stupid. Achbar Haeer, 12 February. Available at: http://www.mouse.co.il/CM.articles_item,1025,209,45579,.aspx (in Hebrew) (accessed 15 November 2012).

31.

Jarrett

(2008) Interactivity is evil! A critical investigation of web 2.0. First Monday 13(3) (accessed 27 November 2010).

32.

Jenkins

(2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York; London: New York University Press.

33.

Jensen

(2008) The concept of interactivity – revisited: four new typologies for a new media landscape. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on designing interactive user experiences for TV and video, Silicon Valley, CA, 22–24 October, pp. 129–132. New York: ACM.

34.

Jensen

Toscan

(eds) (1999) Interactive Television: TV of the Future or the Future of TV? Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.

35.

Johnson

(2007) Inviting audiences in: the spatial reorganization of production and consumption in ‘TVIII’. New Review of Film and Television Studies 5(1): 61–80.

36.

Kiousis

(2002) Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society 4(3): 355–383.

37.

Lotz

(2007) The Television will be Revolutionized. New York; London: NYU Press.

38.

MacCannell

(1973) Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. The American Journal of Sociology 79(3): 589–603.

39.

McQuail

(2010) Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. London: Sage.

40.

Manovich

(2001) The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

41.

Meyrowitz

(1985) No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.

42.

Murray

Oullette

(eds) (2008) Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York: NYU Press.

43.

Ortner

(2010) Access: reflections on studying up in Hollywood. Ethnography 11(2): 211–233.

44.

Rice

(1999) Artifacts and paradoxes in new media. New Media & Society 1(1): 24–32.

45.

Roig

San Cornelio

ArdËvol

. (2009) Videogame as media practice: an exploration of the intersections between play and audiovisual culture. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 15(1): 89–103.

46.

Rosen

(2006) The people formerly known as the audience. Pressthink, 27 June. Available at: http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html (accessed 15 November 2012).

47.

Ross

(2008) Beyond the Box: Television and the Internet. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

48.

Ryan

(1994) Immersion vs. interactivity: virtual reality and literary theory. Substance 28(2): 110–137.

49.

Scannell

(1996) Radio, Television and Modern Life: A Phenomenological Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

50.

Skopal

(2007) ‘The adventure continues on DVD’: franchise movies as home video. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 13(2): 185–198.

51.

Sundet

Ytreberg

(2009) Working notions of active audiences: further research on the active participant in convergent media industries. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 15(4): 383–390.

52.

Turner

(2010) Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. London: Sage.

53.

Turner

Tay

(2009) Television Studies after Television: Understanding Television in the Post-Broadcast Era. New York: Routledge.

54.

Turovich

(2010) They are afraid. Pnay Plus, 8 July, p. 15 (in Hebrew).

55.

White

(2006) Television and internet differences by design: rendering liveness, presence, and lived space. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 12(3): 341–355.

56.

Williams

Rice

Rogers

(1988) Research Methods and the New Media. New York: Free Press.