It has been a joy reading the blogs of other TV Cultures students and receiving feedback from some of them on my own posts.
Here are my contributions to the comment sections of other blogs:
“First things first – this is a great post. It’s written in an engaging and informed manner with text supplemented by well-chosen images.
I relate to your frustration regarding limited access to online transmedia content, including webisodes, because we live in Australia – television tyranny of the highest order. As you say, that’s where our friends at YouTube come in.
Thankfully, in recent years there has been a noticeable reduction in the cultural “lag period” that has plagued Australia for so long. The time gap between the release of new episode of a program in the USA and its availability Down Under is going down. I credit this to the popularisation of the “dirty download”, but Australian networks have at least started to feign interest in addressing the issue.
I’m interested that you included The Nurses and 24’s The Rookie in the same sentence, questioning the value of both series. Your assessment of The Nurses is bang on, but I think The Rookie is well made in comparison. It’s shot well and I’m a sucker for parallel storylines. Let’s agree to disagree on that one!”
2. Clip Fume & Wander (Sarah Jackson): “Television; a dead medium? Old White Man says no”
“Sarah, thank you for alerting me to the existence of these hilarious Community Twitter accounts. I would be very interested to know who administrates them – the show’s writers or diehard fans?
It genuinely excites me when TV shows expand their storyworlds, be it through webisodes, books or board games. Like many people, I’m a Twitter fiend. There, I said it. Community’s innovative use of Twitter to promote active fandom is illustrative of where I think TV is headed in the short term – online, but not at the expense of “standard” broadcasting.
As you mention, the Twitter accounts certainly double as (pause for dramatic tension) promotional material. There is such a negative stigma attached to this function of developing a show’s online presence. But is it such a bad thing? If it means more Community, shoot more of it my way!”
“Paul, you have done everyone a service by articulating what many of us have been thinking for years. Namely, that “reality TV” is a wildly inadequate term for programs like Big Brother and The Farmer Wants a Wife.
Your analysis and subsequent “de-bunking” of definitions from two respected sources (dictionary.com and the Cambridge online dictionary) is a clever device. It’s illustrative of just how indefinable this type of television programming is. If these two English language institutions can’t get it completely right, then who can?
I quite like the online English dictionary’s inclusion of “…which are intended to represent everyday life” to its definition. By doing so, the definition captures the essence of a greater number of reality TV shows.
But you are right; the phrase “everyday life” does let the definition down. I think it could be improved by the elimination of any descriptor of the life reality TV claims to depict. Just “life”? Is that crazy? I don’t think so.”
“Z-Money, you are right to proclaim your newfound love of HBO!
You will surely get the hang of Mad Men’s narrative style and storytelling techniques with a few more episodes to your name.
I struggle to do anything other than dwell on Mad Men’s evocative portrayal of the happening 1960s. What a setting! I’ll never get sick of looking at the impeccable (now “vintage”) suits worn by male characters or the secretary chic of women in the Sterling Cooper office, particularly Joan.
This is one of the reasons why I love your inclusion of so many pictures in this post!
Words cannot describe the delight I take in the show’s visual style, undoubtedly its hallmark. The amount of effort that is put in to make Mad Men an authentic (and wonderfully romantic) representation of 1960s American life is awe-inspiring. That alone is enough to earn it the label: “Quality TV”.”