| |
«Television in the 1940s:
what content for the new medium? »
Gilles Delavaud
Université Paris 8 - CEMTI, France
Having begun at the end of the 1930s, reflections on and speculations
about the possible or desirable content of the new television intensified
during the second half of the 1940s in conjunction with the progressive
return of regular broadcasts, after the war, in several European
countries as well as the United States.
In order to analyze the discourse of the different observers and
agents involved (media professionals, industrialists, critics), three
sorts of questions need to be differentiated and articulated:
- those which concern the identity of the suppliers of content:
Will the new medium rely for this on the film industry or on that
of radio? Or will the television networks produce their own programs
themselves?
- those which concern the nature of the content: Will
the new medium favor live broadcasting or, on the contrary, the
broadcasting of pre-recorded content? Will it borrow its content
more from live shows or from radio or movies?
- those which concern the form of the content: How to
consider the appropriateness of the content (in terms of format
or apparatus) to both the constraints and the possibilities of
the new medium, and also to the intended audience? What are the
criteria for judging, on the level of production and on that of
broadcasting and reception, whether a content has found an appropriate
form?
Our investigation will focus on these last two points: on the one
hand, we will compare the proposals and arguments that fed public
debate in the different countries under consideration (France, Great
Britain, the United States); on the other hand, we will compare the
public discourses (values promoted, missions announced, fears and
hopes expressed) with the different experiments and the first programs
actually produced and broadcast.
« The television content regulation by the CSA pictograms:
The role of public actors in the activity of the ICIC »
Jean-Matthieu Méon
Université Robert Schuman - GSPE-PRISME, Strasbourg, France
The transformations undergone by the French audiovisual sector during
the Seventies became much more pronounced at the end of the Eighties: the
privatizations of TV channels have continued the process which began
with the end of the ORTF (a national agency charged with providing
public radio and television),
what meant the – partly – withdrawal of the State and
the liberalization of the sector. The audiovisual sector established
itself as a culture industry which enjoys its autonomy and the recognition
of its freedom. An independent authority such as the Conseil Supérieur
de l’Audiovisuel embodies these transformations and the regulationist
vision that characterizes them.
That paper intends to think about the actual role of the public
actors played then in the audiovisual sector, relying on the analysis
of a system of content regulation – the television pictograms – and
about the logics of its implementation. These pictograms,
which have existed under several forms since 1996, are a direct
product of the evoked transformations. Their existence results
from debates which accompanied the privatizations and from their
consequences on the programme contents (question of more violence
and more sex). It especially represented for the CSA one of the
first and main tools of the realization of its doctrine of audiovisual
regulation.
The pictogram system rests on the claim to a sharing of responsibilities. The
programme classification according to the different categories of
pictograms is carried out internally by each TV channel, as the public
authority (the CSA services) intervenes only a posteriori to
validate or to criticize the selected classification. This sharing
is called by the CSA officials "concerted control" or "co-regulation". However,
the functioning of the system, approached in my empirical work, lets
see a constrained sharing : this functioning is characterized
indeed by the internalization by the TV channels of the control principles,
which are integrated not only to the programming but also, previously,
to the programme production.
In the configuration of control created by the CSA and the different
TV channels, the regulation authority has consequently a dominating
position. It is the result of two logics which are linked.
Of course, it is question of a statutory predominance,
which allows the CSA to insist on its requirements in terms of
content about possibilities of sanctions for the channels. However,
the respect by the channels of the principles advocated by the
CSA is also to be understood as a strategy of these companies
in the more general (and especially economic) games of
negotiation that join them to the CSA: the good implementation
of the pictograms constitutes also in that sense a proof of goodwill
which makes more easier for the channels negotiations with the
public authority in fields different from audiovisual regulation.
We can see consequently that, as the pictogram system includes a
part of actual self-regulation and of negotiation, it creates a real
public constraint on the activity of TV channels. Beyond the
specificity of its field (programme control in the perspective of
youth protection), the pictograms allow to understand the relations,
both flexible and constrained, that link the audiovisual industry
and the public authorities, as well as to give an account
of the role played by the public actors in this sector of the culture,
information and communication industries.
To tackle this theme and these questions, I rely on an empirical
work which combines analyses of documents (press, institutional publications)
with field work (observation in the CSA, interviews with people in
charge of control within the CSA and TV channels).
« The eternal absent
everyone is talking of : a story of the Televiewer’s place
in French TV advertising regulation (1968-2005) »
Sylvain Parasie
ENS Cachan, France
Cultural industries usually make a transmitter (a writer, a movie
director, etc.), a diffuser (an editor, a newspaper or a broadcasting
company) and a receiver (a reader, a televiewer or a listener) meet
together. Their activities are submitted to legal obligations which
consist in rights and duties. In their will to control these industries,
public authorities, both national and European, are usually compelled
to arbitrate between these rights. Given the deep changes European
cultural industries have experienced since the beginning of the eighties – the “withdrawal” of
the State, the enormous increase of cultural offer –, to what
extent those changes did affect the role devoted to the receivers?
In this paper, I shall ask this question by taking an example in
French contemporary history. More precisely, I analyse the case of
advertizing on French television since commercials started to appear
on TV in October 1968. Up to what point can we say that the changes
in the way commercials are controlled signify a greater role played
by televiewers in this control? Since 1968 to 1987, the control of
TV advertizing was made by a specific organization owned by the French
state, the “Régie française de publicité”,
which censured TV commercials. Between 1987 and 1992, the control
was placed under the authority of new organizations (the so-called “independent
state authorities”, such as the “Conseil supérieur
de l’audiovisuel”) whose task is to control commercials
along with Courts and professional organizations which promote “advertizing
ethics”. Each of these organizations has specific means to
represent televiewers. From this research, it appears that controllers
conceived, until the eighties, the audience of TV advertising rather
in paternalistic terms than in terms of televiewers “rights”.
This situation deeply changes in the eighties, when the advertising
market and the legal environment of broadcasting are both transformed.
Then, the claim from advertisers and firms for the “freedom
of commercial speech” changes the debates by connecting the
rights of televiewers to the rights of advertisers. Last, since the
beginning of the nineties, some controversies appeared concerning
the acknowledgement and the extension of the televiewers’ rights.
« Reality TV and legal
classification of TV broadcasts »
Cécile-Marie Simoni
Université de Corse, France >>> Download the communication (French)
Reality TV forms today a phenomenon, which has revolutionized the
broadcasting set up in France and in the world, but it must be considered
as a change for the culture, information and mass media’s industries.
Reality TV has changed the cultural offer broadcasted by the television,
which has involved a “decompartmentalization” of existing
televisual genre. In fact, it has modified the view according to
every program, which could belong to a predetermined genre, as games,
variety shows, documentaries or even fictions, since reality TV took
some characteristics from many of them in order to make a new genre,
that we can call “hybrid”.
This point had something of an impact regarding the juridical sphere:
a litigation concerning the legal definition as an audiovisual work
of a reality TV show, showed firstly the vagueness about the concept
of audiovisual work, and secondly, the opportunity to specify this
concept.
- About the vagueness regarding the audiovisual work’s concept,
they are the result of a double definition of the reality TV show
considered as an audiovisual work, definition given by two different
official organs: CNC (Centre National de la cinématographie) on
the one hand, and CSA (Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel)
on the other hand. The definition given by the CNC has been established
in order to provide for eventualities concerning productions which
could have the advantage of a development grant given by the French
organ called COSIP(Compte de Soutien des Industries de Programmes).
In another way, the definition given by CSA was given in order to
consider if the present work could be allowed as audiovisual work
and as part of audiovisual works quotas imposed on TV channels for
producing and broadcasting.
Furthermore, we have to take notice of this much debated definition:
two complaints have been lodged, the first one against the CNC decision,
the second one against the CSA decision.. The French Council of State
confirmed the CSA position and the Administrative Court of Paris
annulled the CNC decision.
- About the opportunity to clarify the definition of the audiovisual
work, it appears that‘s the result of a sudden awareness regarding
the necessity of such an evolution. In fact, many different definitions
are coexisting, when they are following opposed and independent logics
(copyright of the literary and artistic property, rights of audiovisual
media).
As far back as 2001 and after the CNC decision, in order to solve
the problems due to the vagueness and deficiencies of the definition
regarding the audiovisual works, a massive consultation to ask the
advices has been opened. In March 2002, an official report
has been drawn up on the question. The conclusion goes to prove that
it will be necessary to start another cycle of consultation on every
side. Some hypothesises have been suggested in order to do a step
forward in the definition of an audiovisual work., but the solutions
found by the concerned actors showed a situation without any surprise
and were not well adapted to the reality TV. Since October 2005,
CSA announced that it will start a succession of audits concerning
the audiovisual actors (creators, producers, television channel …etc.).
These audits will be followed by a report which one will be given
to the Minister of Culture and Communication, in order to
reform and to state the audiovisual definition precisely.
On the other side of the juridical debate regarding the definition
of the audiovisual work, which is going on for four years, we have
to analyse reality TV as a real change from the economic point of
view and also from the sociological point of view.
« The Textual Body of Canadian
Television »
Rebecca Sullivan
University of Calgary - Faculty of Communication and Culture, Canada
This paper is intended as a challenge to the dominant framework
for television studies in Canada, which tends to examine the political
economic aspects of regulation based on technologically deterministic
assumptions about the function and uses of television in serving
official state goals. Within this body of research, cultural questions
of the content, audience and social discourses of television are
not explored as fully as are those about networks, policy, technology
and the role of the state. Maurice Charland (2005) has characterized
this tendency as “technological nationalism,” in which
the infrastructure itself is the locus for nationalist rhetoric.
By contrast, I argue along with Jeffrey Sconce that television should
not be viewed as a technological “problem” to be fixed
but as a “textual body” to be engaged (2004, 94). Understanding
television as a textual body means exploring how it mediates symbolic
relations of power. Perhaps more than any other mass medium, television
has been at the centre of nationalist discourses in Canada, albeit
in conflicted and sometimes outright contradictory ways. It is one
of the most highly regulated media, with strict ownership and content
rules, yet Canadian television programming is rarely watched by its
own home audiences. In order to get at the heart of this issue, a
critical cultural approach to television is required. This means
examining the “text” of television in the social and
historical context of its status in Canada as both a profit-generating
private enterprise and a public covenant between state and citizen.
It further requires examining extratextual discourses about television
from invested stakeholders such as cultural producers, lobbyists,
and audiences.
To this end, I will begin my investigation with a look at the most
recent report on Canadian broadcasting, “Our Cultural Sovereignty” (2003),
which continues a long tradition of calling for protectionist measures
that privilege a homogenous view of Canadian national identity. In
order to reveal the ideological assumptions embedded in this dominant
view of television, I will first provide a brief historical overview
of political and economic arguments in favour of this position and
then launch a challenge through some key cases in which multicultural
audiences were denied access to certain television channels in the
name of national unity. My conclusions will draw upon new challenges
facing national television projects in the wake of globalization
and the ever-accelerating mobility of texts and their audiences.
At stake is the role of television in the construction of the public
sphere, symbolic territories, and relations between audiences and
cultural gatekeepers.
|