Abstract
By the 1960s, most television content was prerecorded, yet media theorists still recognized ‘liveness’ as a key attribute of the medium because of its potential for instantaneous transmission and reception. For example, Zettl (1973) argued that the ‘most distinctive function’ of television is ‘the live transmission of events’ (p. 263). Heath and Skirrow (1977) also noted that ‘live’ programming is ‘taken automatically as the television norm, as the very definition of television’ (p. 53), and Ellis (1982) similarly argued that ‘TV appears to be live … even if it has been recorded on film’ (p. 58). Vianello (1985) also described this emphasis on ‘liveness’ as part of a business strategy that served to maintain network domination (p. 33). Television thus retained its association with ‘liveness’ long after the golden age of ‘live’ television.
Following the rise of cable television, which led to a further decline in ‘live’ programming, and the development of videocassette recorders, which introduced a temporal delay between transmission and reception, media theorists gradually began to deemphasize the significance of ‘liveness’. For example, Cubbit (1991) argued that video eliminates ‘the aura of irreplaceability’, so ‘TV can cease to be a slave to the metaphysics of presence’ (p. 36). Caldwell (1995) also warned that ‘as long as high theory continues to overestimate the centrality of liveness in television … it will also underestimate or ignore other modes of practice and production’ (p. 30). At the end of the twentieth century media theorists were thus beginning to reject the significance of ‘liveness’, and this trend continued in the early twenty-first century due to the rise of social media and social television. As Couldry (2003) pointed out, ‘current forms of media rituals (surrounding … the media’s special access to “reality,” “liveness,” and so on) should seem less necessary’ in a ‘less centralised media world’ (pp. 138–139).
Karin van Es’ new book, The Future of Live, attempts to refute Couldry’s claim by examining how the concept of ‘liveness’ remains necessary and relevant to discussions of online media platforms. While its meaning and uses are somewhat different for each platform, van Es argues that the concept of ‘liveness’ remains necessary because it explains how media technologies facilitate social experiences, interactions, and communities. And while online media platforms do not necessarily depend on instantaneous transmission and reception, the concept of ‘liveness’ remains relevant as a business strategy because the value of webcasting is still measured in terms of numbers of viewers.
Van Es begins by defining ‘liveness’ not as an inherent quality of media technologies but rather as ‘a construction, a product of the interaction among institutions, technologies, and users’ (p. 5). She also notes that ‘liveness’ can be a source of tension between producers and users, who often struggle over its meaning and significance. Her case studies then show how ‘liveness’ is incorporated into various platforms as well as the tensions to which this process gives rise. For example, she examines how the video-streaming platform Livestream was modeled on ‘live’ television but also gave users the opportunity to generate their own content. The ‘liveness’ of the platform was thus enhanced by the fact that users were able to broadcast their own programs in real time. However, this process gave rise to tensions when the platform shifted from user-generated content to event programming, which was promoted as superior to television because it allowed users to become more immersed in an event. Similar tensions arose in connection with the networked music performance platform eJamming, which allowed users to play music together in real time, but did not allow audiences to access the performances. These examples illustrate ‘the ongoing struggle between the voice of the individual and that of the industry’ (p. 63).
Some of van Es’ most interesting case studies address the significance of ‘liveness’ on social media. In her discussion of NBC’s The Voice (2011), for example, she examines how the producers used Twitter to enhance the experience of immersion by allowing viewers to communicate with performers and each other in real time. Facebook similarly used chat features and live feeds to enable direct interaction between users, which was intended to foster a sense of community. In both of these cases, however, the promise of ‘liveness’ gave rise to tensions when various control mechanisms were implemented in order to limit the power of users. On The Voice, for example, the network gradually sought to reduce user participation by adding more prerecorded content, which demonstrates the ‘need among producers to manage television so that it remains attractive for viewers according to their intentions, rather than allowing viewers to create potentially unwatchable television (or television that is too niche-oriented)’ (p. 121). Facebook’s emphasis on ‘liveness’ similarly gave rise to tensions ‘between the promise of direct access to others’ lives, and the feeling among those users … that their privacy is being invaded’ (p. 144). Van Es thus concludes that ‘liveness’ can take many different forms and serve many different functions, but it is always mediated and controlled by industries that seek to exploit the users’ desire for sociality.
While it might appear that the concept of ‘liveness’ is no longer relevant in the era of social media, The Future of Live clearly shows that it remains essential to any discussion of how technologies mediate social experiences. Van Es’ discussion of The Voice also shows that this concept is particularly important when considering the interaction between traditional broadcast media and social media, as ‘liveness’ remains the primary mode through which these platforms connect and interact with one another. Her book will thus be particularly useful for scholars interested in studying transformations in television under the influence of new media. The only potential weakness of the book is that some of the case studies already seem dated. For example, YouTube now offers its own livestreaming service, and it is not clear whether those users experience the same tensions that van Es describes with regard to Livestream. Snapchat also offers some of the same ‘live’ features as Facebook, and it is not clear whether it raises the same privacy concerns. However, this is not so much a flaw in the argument as a reminder of the inherent difficulty of studying a media landscape that is changing so rapidly.