FVI 450 Master Reading List

Master Reading List

1

1

FVI 450 Television & New Media Master Reading List As you will quickly notice, we cannot possibly read or cover everything here in a single semester. Rather, this document will serve as the menu of potential weekly topics and readings from which we will choose our list of actual topics and assigned readings for the semester. The list is also intended to serve as a resource as you conduct your own research for your case study and final paper assignments. I will likely add to it as the semester goes on to improve it as a resource. Overviews There’ve been a number of anthologies, books, and articles in which scholars have attempted to give a broad overview of the expansive topic of television-and-new-media. We’ll select a couple such introductions to the field to read. They will give you a good idea of some of the ideas and issues we will be encountering throughout the semester. Bennett, J. (2011). Introduction: Television as digital media. J. Bennett & N.

Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 1–29). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Gillan, J. (2011). Introduction: It’s network TV. In Television and new media: Must-

click TV (pp. 1–25). New York: Routledge. Gillan, J. (2011). Conclusion. In Television and new media: Must-click TV (pp. 221–

245). New York: Routledge. Gripsrud, J. (2010). Preface. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in

the digital context (pp. xv–xxi). New York: Routledge. Holt, J. & Sanson, K. (2014). Introduction: Mapping connections. In J. Holt & K.

Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.

Keilbach, J. & Stauff, M. (2013). When old media never stopped being new:

Television’s history as an ongoing experiment. M. de Valck & J. Teurlings (Eds.), After the break: Television theory today (pp. 79–98). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Master Reading List

2

2

Lotz, A. D. (2007). The television will be revolutionized. New York: NYU Press.

Lotz, A. D. (2007). Introduction. In The television will be revolutionized (pp. 1–26). New York: NYU Press.

Lotz, A. D. (2007). Understanding television at the beginning of the post-

network era. In The television will be revolutionized (pp. 27–48). New York: NYU Press.

Lotz, A. D. (2007). Conclusion: Still watching television. In The television will

be revolutionized (pp. 241–256). New York: NYU Press. Mann, D. (2014). Introduction: When television and new media work worlds

collide. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 1–31). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Mittell, J. (2014). Three evasions of the future of television. Flow, 19(8). Simon, R., & Rose, B. (2010). Mixed-Up Confusion: Coming to Terms with the

Television Experience in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 38(2), 52–53.

Snickars, P. & Vonderau, P. (2009). Introduction. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau

(Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 9–21). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden. Tryon, C. (2013). Introduction: On-demand culture; Digital distribution and the

future of cinema. In On-demand culture: Digital delivery and the future of movies (pp. 1–17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Tryon, C. (2013). Conclusion: Digital futures. In On-demand culture: Digital

delivery and the future of movies (pp. 173–180). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Turner, G. & Tay, J. (2009). Introduction. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television

studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 1–6). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

3

3

Restriction and Resistance Digital technologies in many ways offer audiences and users unprecedented control over their viewing, as well as freedom to use content in new ways (e.g., creating homemade montages, remixes, etc.). At the same time, Hollywood and other commercial content providers have put a considerable amount of effort into maintaining control over audiences’ access to content, introducing technologies and legislation aimed at restricting how, when, and where users watch in ways that preserve their business. Some such restrictions have arguably been overly broad and users have often resisted these attempts at governing their behavior in ways that have, among other things, put television at the center of contemporary debates about piracy, copyright reform and the value of content. This unit examines the balance of restriction and resistance experienced by industry and users as much of our television viewing has “gone digital.” Burroughs, B. & Rugg, A. (2014). Extending the broadcast: Streaming culture and

the problems of digital geographies. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58(3), 365–380.

Gillespie, T. (2007). Raising the broadcast flag. Wired shut: Copyright and the

shape of digital culture (pp. 193–222). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Klein, B., Lee, D., Philip, F., Moss, G., & Edwards, L. (2013). Framing the consumer:

Copyright regulation and the public. Convergence, 19(1), 9–24. Koulikov, M. (2010). Fighting the fan sub war: Conflicts between media rights

holders and unauthorized creator/distributor networks. Transformative Works & Cultures, 5.

Lobato, R. (2012). The grey Internet. In Shadow economies of cinema: Mapping

informal distribution (pp. 95–110). London: British Film Institute. Lobato, R. (2012). The six faces of piracy. In Shadow economies of cinema:

Mapping informal distribution (pp. 69–94). London: British Film Institute. Lobato, R. & Tang, L. (2014). The cyberlocker gold rush: Tracking the rise of file-

hosting sites as media distribution platforms. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(5), 423–435.

McKelvey, F. (2014). We like copies, just don’t let the others fool you: The

paradox of The Pirate Bay. Television and New Media, Advance Online Publication.

Master Reading List

4

4

Newman, M. Z. (2011). Free TV: File-sharing and the value of television. Television & New Media 13(6), 463-479.

Tryon, C. (2013). Restricting and resistant mobilities: Negotiating digital delivery.

In On-demand culture: Digital delivery and the future of movies (pp. 1–17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Tryon, C. & Dawson, M. (2014). Streaming U: College students and connected

viewing. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 217–233). New York: Routledge.

Vonderau, P. (2014). Beyond piracy: Understanding digital markets. In J. Holt & K.

Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 99–123). New York: Routledge.

Television and Everyday Life From its early introduction as a home appliance, television has been part of our everyday family and social lives, becoming part of innumerable exchanges, from discussions in the school yard and break room to living-room arguments over who gets to work the remote. This unit examines how digital media have changed some of the contours of our lived experience of television. Balsamo, A. (2012). I phone, I learn. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), Moving

data: The iPhone and the future of media (pp. 251–264). New York: Columbia University Press.

Cha, J. & Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (2012). Relative advantages of online video

platforms and television according to content, technology, and cost-related attributes. First Monday, 17(10).

Jones, E. (2009). Network television streaming technologies and the shifting

television social sphere (pp. 1–20). Presented at the MiT6, Cambridge, MA. Parks, L. (2004). Flexible microcasting: Gender, generation, and television-

Internet convergence. L. Spigel & J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 133–156). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Steirer, G. (2014). The personal media collection in an era of connected viewing.

In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 79–96). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

5

5

Strover, S. & Moner, W. (2014). The contours of on-demand viewing. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 234–253). New York: Routledge.

Wahlberg, M. (2009). YouTube commemoration: Private grief and communal

consolation. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 218–235). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

The Second Screen The “second screen” rapidly became an industry buzzword in the first half of the decade, referring to the phone, laptop, or tablet that many of us find ourselves fiddling with at the same time we watch the television set. Just what we do with that second screen—following the social media discussion about a program, looking up music or phrases we heard on the TV, tinkering with games or websites designed as companions to a show, or simply browsing Instagram and other unrelated media—has become both a part of our TV experience, as well as a matter of huge interest to people in industry. This unit examines the emergence of the second screen as an important aspect of our discussions of television. Gantz, W. & Lewis, N. (2014). Sports on traditional and newer digital media: Is

there really a fight for fans? Television & New Media, 15(8), 760–768. Hassoun, D. (2014). Tracing attentions: Toward an analysis of simultaneous media

use. Television & New Media, 15(4), 271–288. Hunting, K. (2014). Disney Jr. appisodes and the “merged screen” experience.

Spectator, 34(2). Lee, H. J. & Andrejevic, M. (2014). Second-screen theory: From the democratic

surround to the digital enclosure. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 40–61). New York: Routledge.

Mann, D. (2014). The labor behind the Lost ARG: WGA’s tentative foothold in the

digital age. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 118–139). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

McNutt, M. (2010–2013). Showrunners on Twitter (parts 1–6). Antenna. Tryon, C. (2013). The Twitter effect: Social media and digital delivery. In On-

demand culture: Digital delivery and the future of movies (pp. 1–17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Master Reading List

6

6

Tussey, E. (2014). Connected viewing on the second screen: The limitations of

the living room. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 202–216). New York: Routledge.

Wohn, T. Y. & Na, E. (2011). Tweeting about TV: Sharing television viewing

experiences via social media message streams. First Monday, 16(3). Personalization and Mobility The predominant stereotype of how we watch TV used to be of a family or group of friends sitting around the set viewing the same program together. But more recently, as Chuck Tryon has noted, a different image has taken center stage. Watch almost any cable or cellular company commercial and you’re likely to see images of a family cozied up in the living room, all of them watching their own programs on their own devices. Or, alternatively, we see individuals taking their programs with them on the go via their phones and tablets, watching by themselves on the subway even as they’re surrounded by other people. Moreover, newer services for viewing TV, like Netflix make much of the fact that they personalize selections for each member of the family, while letting us view them anywhere. It’s certainly important to remember that these scenarios are in part a marketing ploy—ideals of family life and consumption being pushed by companies that want to sell us more stuff. But even bearing that in mind, it’s still undoubtedly the case that a good deal of our TV viewing now takes place in personalized and/or mobile contexts. This unit examines these trends. Boddy, W. (2011). “Is it TV yet?” The dislocated screens of television in a mobile

digital culture. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 76–103). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bolin, G. (2012). Personal media in the digital economy. In P. Snickars & P.

Vonderau (Eds.), Moving data: The iPhone and the future of media (pp. 91–103). New York: Columbia University Press.

Dawson, M. (2012). Defining mobile television: The social construction and

deconstruction of new and old media. Popular Communication, 10(4), 253–268.

Gillan, J. (2011). Placeshifting, schedule-shifting, and the long-arc serial on ABC.

In Television and new media: Must-click TV (pp. 135–179). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

7

7

Gillan, J. (2011). Timeshifting, circumvention, and flow on FOX. In Television and

new media: Must-click TV (pp. 76–134). New York: Routledge. Kant, T. (2014). Giving the “viewser” a voice? Situating the individual in relation

to personalization, narrowcasting, and public service broadcasting. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58(3), 381–399.

Perren, A. & Petruska, K. (2012). Big Hollywood, small screens. In P. Snickars & P.

Vonderau (Eds.), Moving data: The iPhone and the future of media (pp. 104–123). New York: Columbia University Press.

Tryon, C. (2012). Pushing the (red) envelope: Portable video, platform mobility,

and pay-per-view culture. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), Moving data: The iPhone and the future of media (pp. 124–139). New York: Columbia University Press.

Tryon, C. (2013). Coming soon to a computer near you: Digital delivery and

ubiquitous entertainment. In On-demand culture: Digital delivery and the future of movies (pp. 1–17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Tryon, C. (2013). “Make any room your TV room”: Digital delivery and media

mobility. In On-demand culture: Digital delivery and the future of movies (pp. 1–17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Democracy and the Public Sphere Critics and scholars of both traditional television and newer forms of participatory media like YouTube are often interested with the various ways in which these media intersect with political participation and the democratic process. This unit explores some of these questions. Bondebjerg, I. (2010). A new space for democracy? Online media, factual

genres and the transformation of traditional mass media. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 113–124). New York: Routledge.

Golding, P. (2010). The cost of citizenship in the digital age: On being informed

and the commodification of the public sphere. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 207–223). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

8

8

Gripsrud, J. (2010). Television in the digital public sphere. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 3–26). New York: Routledge.

Hediger, V. (2009). YouTube and the aesthetics of political accountability. In P.

Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 252–265). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Miller T. (2009). Approach with caution and proceed with care: Campaigning for

the US presidency ‘after’ TV. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 75–82). New York: Routledge.

Murdock, G. (2010). Networking the commons: Convergence culture and the

public interest. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 224–237). New York: Routledge.

Prior, M. 2007. Introduction. In Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice

increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Strangelove, M. (2010). The YouTube wars: Politics, religion, and armed conflict.

In Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people (pp. 137–157). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Master Reading List

9

9

Measuring, Constructing, and Surveilling Audiences One of the things to change dramatically with the rise of digital and online television distribution has been the manner in which audiences are measured, as well as the sorts of information that content providers and advertisers keep on them. Chris Anderson and other industry commentators have suggested that in a digital world, where every view and every viewer is counted and where audiences can tune in from anywhere, niche programming will become marketable for the first time, providing a renaissance of content for traditionally underserved audiences. But skeptics like Joe Turow have been quick to point out that more audience data has often simply meant the more craven pursuit by content providers of the most valuable audiences and demographics. And many critics have become concerned about the amount of data being collected about users. Lastly, even in the midst of all these trends, many of the largest television companies have entrenched business models based on traditional ratings and have been resistant to alternative ways of measuring and valuing audiences. This unit will examine some of these trends in the way that audiences are conceived of and measured within the media industries. Gillan, J. (2011). Fan tracking, targeting, and interaction from the web to the WB.

In Television and new media: Must-click TV (pp. 26–75). New York: Routledge. Gray, J. (2014). How can we tell the future. Flow, 19(8). Lotz, A. D. (2007). Recounting the audience: Integrating new measurement

techniques and technologies. In The television will be revolutionized (pp. 193–214). New York: NYU Press.

McGuigan, L. (2015). Direct marketing and the productive capacity of

commercial television: T-commerce, advanced advertising, and the audience product. Television & New Media, 16(2), 196–214.

Napoli, P. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation

of media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.

Napoli, P. (2011). Introduction. In Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences (pp. 1–24). New York: Columbia University Press.

Napoli, P. (2011). Contextualizing audience evolution. In Audience

evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences (pp. 25–53). New York: Columbia University Press.

Master Reading List

10

10

Napoli, P. (2011). The transformation of media consumption. In Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences (pp. 54–87). New York: Columbia University Press.

Napoli, P. (2011). The transformation of audience information systems. In

Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences (pp. 88–116). New York: Columbia University Press.

Napoli, P. (2011). Contesting audiences. In Audience evolution: New

technologies and the transformation of media audiences (pp. 117–148). New York: Columbia University Press.

Napoli, P. (2011). The implications of audience evolution. In Audience

evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences (pp. 149–173). New York: Columbia University Press.

Strangelove, M. (2010). The post-television audience. In Watching YouTube:

Extraordinary videos by ordinary people (pp. 158–180). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Turow, J. & Draper, N. (2014). Industry conceptions of audience in the digital

space. Cultural Studies, 28(4), 643–656. Vanderhoef, J. & Petruska, K. (2014). TV that watches you: Data collection and

the connected living room. Spectator, 34(2).

Master Reading List

11

11

Materiality: Technologies and Infrastructures of Television Our experience of television has long been shaped by its “materiality”—the physical advantages and limitations of the technical medium. In the “old” days, this meant that what you could watch was dictated by which stations had broadcast towers physically near enough to provide you with a signal. Whether you had color or black and white TV, or later HD TV, depended on what sort of set you owned, as well as on what sort of signal you were receiving. And the materiality of media also affect what we can do with them. If you grew up in the 1990s, you’ll remember that your VCR had a record button for capturing live television, but your DVD player didn’t. Now, with digital cable and the Internet, the materiality of television includes not just our physical gadgetry, but also what the software installed on it variously allows us to do or prohibits us from doing. Both in the “old” days of television and in the contemporary era, many debates are had about whether the technologies we use shape our motivations, behavior, and the contours of our lives, or whether our motivations, behavior, and lifestyles are the driving force behind how technologies are designed and deployed. This unit looks at television—or, rather the constellation of things we now think of as television—as material technologies and examines these questions concerning how they might impact our lives, as well as what we do with and to them. Boyer, S. (2011). Controlling the living room: Television viewing on game

consoles. Flow, 14(3). Braun, J. A. (2013). Going over the top: Online television distribution as socio-

technical system. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(3), 432–458. Braun, J. A. (2014). Transparent intermediaries: Building the infrastructures of

connected viewing. In J. Holt & K. Sanson, Connected viewing: Selling, streaming, & sharing media in the digital age (pp. 124–143). New York: Routledge.

Chamberlain, D. (2010). Television Interfaces. Journal of Popular Film and

Television, 38(2), 84–88. Dixon, W. W. (2011). How long will it last, and do you really own it? Flow, 14(7). Faltesek, D. (2011). TV Everywhere? The old spatial politics of new media.

Communication, Culture & Critique, 4(4), 401–418. Lotz, A. D. (2007). Television outside the box: The technological revolution of

television. In The television will be revolutionized (pp. 49–80). New York: NYU Press.

Master Reading List

12

12

Newman, M. Z. (2013). When television marries computer. Flow, 19(2). Parks, L. (2012). Satellites, oil, and footprints. In L. Parks & J. Schwock, Down to

earth: Satellite technologies, industries, and cultures (pp. 122–140). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Parks, L. (2012). Technostruggles and the Satellite Dish: A Populist Approach to

Infrastructure. In G. Bolin, Cultural Technologies: The Shaping of Culture in Media and Society (pp. 64–84). New York: Routledge.

Scheible, J. (2014). Video after video stores. Canadian Journal of Film Studies,

23(1). Strover, S. (2014). Television and the data salt mines. Flow, 19. Uricchio, W. (2004). Television’s next generation: Technology/interface

culture/flow L. Spigel & J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 163–182). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

van Dijk, J. (2013). YouTube beyond technology and cultural form. M. de Valck

& J. Teurlings (Eds.), After the break: Television theory today (pp. 147–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Changing Business Models Along with many other “legacy” media like print journalism, book publishing, and film, television is an industry whose business model(s) are evolving under a great deal of pressure right now. This unit looks at some of the trends in how the business of TV is changing. Caldwell, J. T. (2014). Post-network reflexivity: Viral marketing and labor

management. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 140–160). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Gillan, J. (2011). Branding, synergy, and product integration on NBC. In Television

and new media: Must-click TV (pp. 180–220). New York: Routledge. Holt, J. (2010). It’s not film, it’s TV: Rethinking industrial identity. Jump Cut, 52. Kompare, D. (2006). Publishing flow: DVD box sets and the reconception of

television. Television & New Media, 7(4), 335–360.

Master Reading List

13

13

Kompare, D. (2010). Reruns 2.0: Revising repetition for multiplatform television

distribution. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 38(2), 79–83. Logan, K. (2011). Hulu.com or NBC? Streaming Video versus Traditional TV: A

Study of an Industry in its infancy. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 276. Lotz, A. D. (2007). Advertising in the network era: The new economics of


Lotz, A. D. (2014). The persistence of television. Flow, 19(7). MacDonald, K. P. (2013). Digital dreams in a material world: The rise of Netflix

and its impact on changing distribution and exhibition patterns. Jump Cut, 55.

Nelson, E. (2014). Windows into the digital world: Distributor strategies and

consumer choice in an era of connected viewing. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 62–78). New York: Routledge.

Newcomb, H. (2014). The more things change… Flow, 19(7). Perren, A. (2010). Business as unusual: Conglomerate-sized challenges for film

and television in the digital arena. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 38(2), 72–78.

Piñon, J. (2014). Webnovelas: Branding interactivity in Hispanic TV. Popular

Communication, 12(3), 123–138. Schatz, T. (2014). HBO and Netflix — Getting back to the future. Flow, 19(8). Steemers, J. (2014). Selling television: Addressing transformations in the

international distribution of television content. Media Industries, 1(1), 44–49. Steirer, G. (2015). Clouded visions: UltraViolet and the future of digital distribution.

Television & New Media, 16(2), 180–195.

Master Reading List

14

14

New Media and Fandom As the Internet has become ubiquitous and fans of different bits of pop culture have been able to more easily find one another and fashion communities, a new respect and even reverence for “fan cultures” has developed among academics, industry executives, and the public at large. This unit looks at the rise of online fan cultures, the questions surrounding them, and how they are making their mark on industry. Andrejevic, M. (2008). Watching television without pity: The productivity of online

fans. Television & New Media, 9(1), 24–46. Chin, B. (2014). Sherlockology and Galactica.tv: Fan sites as gifts or exploited

labor? Transformative Works and Cultures, 15. Chin, B., Jones, B., McNutt, M., & Pebler, L. (2014). Veronica Mars Kickstarter and

crowd funding. Transformative Works and Cultures, 15. Christian, A. J. (2011). Fandom as industrial response: Producing identity in an

independent web series. Transformative Works and Cultures, 8. Faltesek, D. (2010). Betty’s back? Remembering the relevance of the rerun in the

age of social media. Flow, 12(8). Helens-Hart, R. (2014). Promoting fan labor and "all things Web": A case study of

Tosh.0. Transformative Works and Cultures, 15. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide.

New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Introduction: "Worship at the altar of convergence”: A new paradigm for understanding media change. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (pp. 1–24). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Spoiling Survivor: The anatomy of a knowledge

community. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (pp. 25–58). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Buying into American Idol: How we are being sold on

reality TV. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (pp. 59–92). New York: New York University Press.

Master Reading List

15

15

Jenkins, H. (2006). Conclusion: Democratizing television? The politics of participation. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (pp. 240–260). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2014). The reign of the “mothership”: Transmedia’s past, present, and

possible futures. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 244–268). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and

meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Introduction: Why media spreads. In Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 1–46). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Where Web 2.0 went wrong. In

Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 47–84). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Reappraising the residual. In


Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). The value of media engagement.

In Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 113–152). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). What constitutes meaningful

participation? In Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 153–194). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Designing for spreadability. In


Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Courting supporters for

independent media. In Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 229–258). New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Thinking transnationally. In


Master Reading List

16

16

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Conclusion. In Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 291–305). New York: New York University Press.

Marwick, A., Gray, M. L., & Ananny, M. (2014). “Dolphins are just gay sharks”:

Glee and the queer case of transmedia as text and object. Television & New Media 15(7), 627–647.

Pearson, R. (2010). Fandom in the digital era. Popular Communication, 8(1), 84–

95. Russo J. L. (2014). Labor of love: Charting The L Word. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV:

Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 98–117). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Savage, C. (2014). Chuck versus the ratings: Savvy fans and "save our show"

campaigns. Transformative Works and Cultures, 15. Stanfill, M. & Condis, M. (2014). Fandom and/as labor. Transformative Works and

Cultures, 15. Stork, M. (2014). The cultural economics of performance space: Negotiating fan,

labor, and marketing practice in Glee’s transmedia geography Transformative Works and Cultures, 15.

Turk, T. (2014). Fan work: Labor, worth, and participation in fandom's gift

economy. Transformative Works and Cultures, 15. Emerging Platforms When younger folks watch “television” they’re just as likely, if not more so, to turn on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO GO, Crackle, YouTube, or their ilk. This unit will take a look at some of these new intermediaries, what makes them tick, and the impact they are having on the television ecosystem. Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). Screen distribution and the new King Kongs of

the online world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). Introduction. In Screen distribution and the new King Kongs of the online world (pp. 1–12). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Master Reading List

17

17

Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). Online distribution: A backbone history. In Screen distribution and the new King Kongs of the online world (pp. 13–31). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). Online distribution globally. In Screen

distribution and the new King Kongs of the online world (pp. 32–52). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). Lessons from history, the future of

television? In Screen distribution and the new King Kongs of the online world (pp. 53–65). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). The players, part one: YouTube/Google.

In Screen distribution and the new King Kongs of the online world (pp. 66–78). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). The players, part two: Rivals in online

distribution. In Screen distribution and the new King Kongs of the online world (pp. 79–93). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunningham, S. & Silver, J. (2013). Does it matter? The content question

and conclusions. In Screen distribution and the new King Kongs of the online world (pp. 94–105). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jenkins, H. (2007, May 28). Nine propositions towards a cultural theory of

YouTube. Aca-Fan: The official weblog of Henry Jenkins. Jenner, M. (2014). Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVIII and binge-watching. New Media &

Society, OnlineFirst. Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of “platforms.” New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–

364. Holt, J. (2012). Platforms, pipelines, and politics. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau

(Eds.), Moving data: The iPhone and the future of media (pp. 140–154). New York: Columbia University Press.

Lotz, A. D. (2007). Revolutionizing distribution: Breaking open the network

bottleneck. In The television will be revolutionized (pp. 119–151). New York: NYU Press.

Wu, T. (2013). Netflix's war on mass culture. New Republic.

Master Reading List

18

18

“User-Generated Content” The phrase “user-generated content” (UGC) is in quotes here because it’s something of a contested term. More than a few critics feel that the word “users” puts video creators on par with folks creating spreadsheets in Excel, and doesn’t do justice to the creative and original contributions individuals make on platforms like YouTube and Vimeo. At the same time, there’s an argument that companies that rely on unpaid users to create the content that makes their platforms popular are being exploitative. These criticisms are important to consider. But at other times, UGC is celebrated for the manner in which “ordinary” citizens are given a voice and access to an audience via online platforms from YouTube to CNN’s iReport. This unit will examine the good, the bad, and the complicated aspects of “user-generated content.” Allan, S. (2013). Witnessing crises in a digital era. In Citizen witnessing: Revisioning

journalism in times of crisis (pp. 92–119). Malden, MA: Polity. Andrejevic, M. (2009). Exploiting YouTube: Contradictions of user-generated

labor. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 406–423). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Bridge, J. & Sjøvaag, H. (2010). Amateur images in the professional news stream.

In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 101–112). New York: Routledge.

Burgess, J. E. (2011). User-created content and everyday cultural practice:

Lessons from YouTube. In J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 311-331). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Burgess J. & Green, J. (2009). The entrepreneurial vlogger: Participatory culture

beyond the professional-amateur divide. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 89–107). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Brooker, W. (2014). Going pro: Gendered responses to the incorporation of fan

labor as user-generated content. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 72–97). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Caldwell, J. T. (2011). Worker blowback: User-generated, worker-generated, and

producer-generated content within collapsing production workflows. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 283–310). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Master Reading List

19

19

Fish, A. (2013). Participatory television: Convergence, crowdsourcing, and

neoliberalism. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(3), 372–395. Pantic, D. (2010). Anybody can Be TV: How P2P home video will challenge the

network news. In J. Dean, J. W. Anderson, & G. Lovink (Eds.), Reformatting politics: Information technology and global civil society (pp. 55–65). New York: Routledge.

Müller, E. (2009). Where quality matters: Discourses on the art of making a

YouTube video. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 126–139). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Pérez-González, L. (2012). Co-creational subtitling in the digital media:

Transformative and authorial practices. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(1), 3–21.

Postigo, H. (2014). The socio-technical architecture of digital labor: Converting

play into YouTube money. New Media & Society, OnlineFirst. Wardle, C. & Williams, A. (2010). Beyond user-generated content: A production

study examining the ways in which UGC is used at the BBC. Media Culture & Society, 32(5), 781–799.

Producing Online Video While YouTube and other online video hubs are often associated with “amateur” artists, a broad variety of highly professional and well-funded industry players now create content primarily for distribution online. They include independent studios, “multi-channel networks” like Maker Studios and Revision3, which operate hugely successful YouTube channels and are backed by the likes of Disney and Discovery Communications, standalone video hubs like Crackle owned by major industry players like Sony, and producers of original programming commissioned by platforms like Netflix and Amazon. This unit will look at the ins and outs of, as well as the questions surrounding professionally produced online video. Acham, C. (2012). Blacks in the future: Braving the frontier of web series In B. E.

Smith-Shomade (Ed.), Watching while black : Centering the television of black audiences (pp. 63–74). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Christian, A. J. (2011). The problem of YouTube. Flow, 13(8).

Master Reading List

20

20

Christian, A. J. (2012). Beyond big video: The instability of independent networks in a new media market. Continuum, 26(1), 73–87.

Christian, A. J. (2012). The web as television reimagined? Online networks and

the pursuit of legacy media. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36(4), 340–356.

Mann, D. (2014). Welcome to the unregulated wild, wild, digital West. Media

Industries, 1(2), 30–35. Leaver, T. (2013). Joss Whedon, Dr. Horrible, and the future of web media.

Popular Communication, 11(2), 160–173. Marx, N. (2011). “The missing link moment”: Web comedy in new media

industries. Velvet Light Trap, 68(Fall), 14–23. Peirce, L. M. (2011). Remediation theory: Analyzing what made Quarterlife

successful as an online series and not a television series. Television & New Media, 12(4), 314–325.

International Contexts This course is largely U.S.-centric, however we can learn a lot by comparing American cases to what’s happening in other countries around the world. This unit examines television and new media in international contexts. Athique, A. M. (2009). From monopoly to polyphony: India in the era of

television. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 159–167). New York: Routledge.

Bennet, J. (2008). Interfacing the nation: Remediating public service

broadcasting in the digital television age. Convergence, 14(3), 277–294. Evans, E. & McDonald, P. (2014). Online distribution of film and television in the

UK: Behavior, taste, and value. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 158–180). New York: Routledge.

Kim, C. (2014). Labor and the limits of seduction in Korea’s creative economy.

Television & New Media, 15(4), 562–576.

Master Reading List

21

21

Kumar, S. (2012). Digitizing India: The transformation from analog to digital cable television. Flow, 16(1).

Larrondo, A. (2014). News production in the “post-broadcasting” era: BBC

Scotland’s move towards convergence. Media Culture & Society, 36(7), Advance Online Publication.

Lin, T. T. C. (2012). Market competitiveness of mobile TV industry in China.

Telecommunications Policy, 36(10), 943–954. Lin, T. T. C. (2013). Convergence and regulation of multi-screen television: The

Singapore experience. Telecommunications Policy, 37(8), 673–685. Meese, J., Wilken, R., Nansen, B., & Arnold, M. (2015). Entering the graveyard

shift: Disassembling the Australian TiVo. Television & New Media, 16(2), 165–179.

Sakr, N. (2009). Fragmentation or consolidation? Factors in the Oprah-ization of

social talk on multi-channel Arab TV. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 168–177). New York: Routledge.

Tay, J. (2009). Television in Chinese geo-linguistic markets: deregulation,

reregulation and market forces in the post-broadcast era. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 105–114). New York: Routledge.

Taylor, G. (2013). Shut off: The Canadian digital television transition. Montreal:

McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Taylor, G. (2013). Introduction: Please adjust your set. In Shut off: The Canadian digital television transition (pp. 3–22). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Taylor, G. (2013). Detours along the way. In Shut off: The Canadian digital

television transition (pp. 23–42). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Taylor, G. (2013). Early policy development in Canada and the United

States. In Shut off: The Canadian digital television transition (pp. 43–58). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Master Reading List

22

22

Taylor, G. (2013). The global transition. In Shut off: The Canadian digital television transition (pp. 59–77). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Taylor, G. (2013). Broadcasting distribution undertakings. In Shut off: The

Canadian digital television transition (pp. 78–109). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Taylor, G. (2013). Over-the-air broadcasting. In Shut off: The Canadian

digital television transition (pp. 110–140). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Taylor, G. (2013). Other voices. In Shut off: The Canadian digital television

transition (pp. 141–149). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Taylor, G. (2013). Conclusion: Paying dividends. In Shut off: The Canadian

digital television transition (pp. 150–160). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Thussu, D. K. (2010). The ‘Bollywoodization’ of Indian TV news. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.),

Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 88–100). New York: Routledge.

Tse, Yu-Kei (2014). Television’s changing role in social togetherness in the

personalized online consumption of foreign TV. New Media & Society, OnlineFirst.

van Dijck, J. & Poell, T. (2015). Making public television social? Public service

broadcasting and the challenges of social media. Television & New Media, 16(2), 180–195.

Volcic, Z. (2009). Television in the Balkans: the rise of commercial nationalism. In

G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 115–124). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

23

23

Television Across Borders This unit examines how television flows between countries. In theory, when a video provider in one country puts a show online, the Internet makes it possible for audiences in any other country to tune in. In practice, some providers restrict (authorized) access to their programs to the country in which it airs, making deals with foreign distributors to show the programs in other countries weeks or months later—if at all. But even when television providers and online distributors engage in “geo-fencing,” creating virtual walls that prevent people in foreign countries from streaming their shows, more often than not the marketing and social media buzz surrounding a show will still reach beyond the borders of the country where it’s showing. This has created international followings for many programs, and also contributes a great deal to unauthorized access to programs (i.e., piracy) when American fans of Sherlock or Australian fans of Breaking Bad can’t bear to wait months to see the resolution to a cliffhanger episode or risk encountering spoilers online from folks lucky enough to be watching the program when it first airs. On the production side, TV “formats”—i.e., the basic recipes for programs like The Voice or Big Brother—are also increasingly licensed across borders, contributing to an international television culture. Becker, C. (2014). Access is elementary: Crossing television’s distribution borders.

Flow, 19. Chalaby, J. K. (2011). The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV

format trade became a global industry. European Journal of Communication, 26(4), 293–309.

Clarke, M. J. (2014). Outsourcing The Office. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring

over an interactive future (pp. 176–196). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Kokas, A. (2014). American media and China’s blended public sphere. In J. Holt

& K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 144–158). New York: Routledge.

Martínez, K. Z. (2014). Translating telenovelas in a neo-network era: Finding an

online home for MyNetwork soaps. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 223–243). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Moran, A. (2009). Reasserting the national? Programme formats, international

television and domestic culture. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies

Master Reading List

24

24

after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 149–158). New York: Routledge.

Sinclair, J. (2009). Latin America’s impact on world television markets. In G. Turner

& J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 141–148). New York: Routledge.

Turner, G. (2011). Media, community, and zones of consumption. Flow, 15(3). Algorithms From automated Netflix recommendations about what individual users should watch to programs that comb through audience analytics to tell producers what to make, computer algorithms are playing an increasing role in our television culture. This unit examines a few of the questions surrounding them. Havens, T. (2014) Media programming in an era of big data. Media Industries,

1(2), 5–9. Napoli, P. (2014) On automation in media industries: Integrating algorithmic

media production into media industries scholarship. Media Industries, 1(1), 33–38.

Creating Television in a New Media World This unit examines how “traditional” television productions are adapting to a world filled digital media. Bivens, R. (2014). The technology-autonomy-constraint model. In Digital currents:

How technology and the public are shaping TV news (pp. 76–91). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Brook, V. (2014). Convergent ethnicity and the neo-platoon show: Recombining

difference in the post-network era. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 197–222). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Caldwell, J. T. (2003). Second-shift media aesthetics: Programming, interactivity

and flow. In A. Everett & J. T. Caldwell (Eds.), New media: Theories and practices of digitextuality (pp. 127–144). New York: Routledge.

Deuze, M. (2007). Film and television production. In Media Work (pp. 171–200).

Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Master Reading List

25

25

Edmond, M. (2014). Here we go again: Music videos after YouTube. Television &

New Media 15(4), 305–320. Goggin, G. (2012). Broadcasting media and the social turn. In New technologies

& the media (pp. 65–94). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gray, J. (2014). In the game: The creative and textual constraints of licensed

video games. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 53–71). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hayward, M. (2013). Convergence thinking, information theory and labour in

‘end of television’ studies. M. de Valck & J. Teurlings (Eds.), After the break: Television theory today (pp. 117–130). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Hemmingway, E. (2005). PDP, the news production network and the

transformation of news. Convergence, 11(3), 8–27. Johnson, D. (2014). Authorship up for grabs: Decentralized labor, licensing, and

the management of collaborative creativity. In D. Mann (Ed.), Wired TV: Laboring over an interactive future (pp. 32–52). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Lotz, A. D. (2007). Making television: Changes in the practices of creating


Lotz, A. D. (2007). Television storytelling possibilities at the beginning of the post-

network era: Five cases. In The television will be revolutionized (pp. 215–240). New York: NYU Press.

Palmer, L. (2012). “iReporting” an uprising: CNN and citizen journalism in network

culture. Television & New Media 14(5), 367–385. Perren, A. (2014). The future of television is…comics? Flow, 19(8). Piñon, J. (2013). New hierarchies of TV broadcasting distribution: The case of

Hispanic networks. Flow, 18(3). Wiggins, B. A. (2014). The culture industry, new media, and the shift from creation

to curation; Or, enlightenment as a kick in the nuts. Television & New Media 15(5), 395–412.

Master Reading List

26

26

Regulating Television and New Media The business practices of, and relationships between, the television and new media industries have evolved tumultuously in recent years and lawmakers have often been hard pressed to keep up. This unit examines regulatory problems surrounding TV and new media. Bar, F. & Taplin, J. (2007). Cable’s digital future. In S. Banet-Weiser, C. Chris, & A.

Freitas (Eds.), Cable visions: Television beyond broadcasting (pp. 66–84). New York: New York University Press.

Holt, J. (2014). Regulating connected viewing: Media pipelines and cloud policy.

In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing: Selling, streaming & sharing media in the digital era (pp. 19–39). New York: Routledge.

Petruska, K. (2014). The digital television transition, consumer power and the limits

of cultural citizenship. Creative Industries Journal, 7(1), 19–32. Wu, T. (2010). Introduction. In The master switch: The rise and fall of information

empires (pp. 3–14). New York: Knopf. Wu, T. (2010). The separations principle. In The master switch: The rise and fall of

information empires (pp. 299–319). New York: Knopf. Unsorted Here are articles and book chapters that I’ve catalogued, but have yet to sort and slot into the various unit topics above. As the semester progresses I will add some of these to the other units as options for readings. Either way, they may serve you well when you go to research your case study or final paper. Uricchio, W. (2009). The future of a medium once known as television. In P.

Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 24–39). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Stiegler, W. (2009). The carnival of the new screen: From hegemony to isonomy.

In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 40–59). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Master Reading List

27

27

Grusin, R. (2009). YouTube at the end of new media. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 60–67). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Lange, P. G. (2009). Videos of affinity on YouTube. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau

(Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 70–88). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Vonderau, P. (2009). Writers becoming users: YouTube hype and the writer’s

strike. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 108–125). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Sørenssen, B. (2009). Breaking the age barrier in the Internet age: The story of

Geriatric1927. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 140–151). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Broeren, J. (2009). Digital attractions: Reloading early cinema in online video

collections. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 154–165). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Elsaesser, T. (2009). Tales of epiphany and entropy: Around the worlds in eighty

clicks. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 166–186). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Peters, K. & Seier, A. (2009). Home dance: Mediacy and aesthetics of the self on

YouTube. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 187–203). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Christensen, C. (2009). “Hey man, nice shot”: Setting the Iraq war to music on

YouTube. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 204–217). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Stauff, M. (2009). Sports on YouTube. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The

YouTube reader (pp. 236–251). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Master Reading List

28

28

Prelinger, R. (2009). The appearance of archives. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 268–274). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Kessler, F. & Schäfer, M. T. (2009). Navigating YouTube: Constituting a hybrid

information management system. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 275–291). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Snickars, P. (2009). The archival cloud. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The

YouTube reader (pp. 292–313). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden. Lundemo, T. (2009). In the kingdom of shadows: Cinematic movement and its

digital ghost. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 314–329). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Schröter, J. (2009). On the logic of the digital archive. In P. Snickars & P.

Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 330–346). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Iversen, G. (2009). An ocean of sound and image: YouTube in the context of

supermodernity. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 347–357). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Farchy, J. (2009). Economics of sharing platforms: What’s wrong with cultural

industries? In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 360–371). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Wasko, J. & Erickson, M. (2009). The political economy of YouTube. In P. Snickars

& P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 372–386). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

McDonald, P. (2009). Digital discords in the online media economy: Advertising

versus content versus copyright. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 387–405). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Master Reading List

29

29

Miller, T. (2009). Cybertarians of the world unite: You have nothing to lose but your tubes! In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 424–440). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Gornyk, A. (2009). From YouTube to RuTube, or, how I learned to stop worrying

and love all tubes. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 441–455). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

Fossati, G. (2009). YouTube as a mirror maze. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.),

The YouTube reader (pp. 458–465). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden. Murphy, S. C. (2011). Introduction: How television invents new media. How

television invented new media (pp. 1–40). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Murphy, S. C. (2011). “This is intelligent television:” The emerging technologies of

video games, computers, and the medium of television. How television invented new media (pp. 41–58). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Murphy, S. C. (2011). Is this convergence? Postnetwork television, new media,

and emerging middletexts. How television invented new media (pp. 59–78). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Murphy, S. C. (2011). From tube to a “series of tubes”: Telvision in and as new

media. How television invented new media (pp. 79–102). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Murphy, S. C. (2011). ALT-CTRL: The freedom of remotes and controls. How

television invented new media (pp. 103–123). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Murphy, S. C. (2011). Conclusion: Television is not new media. How television

invented new media (pp. 124–140). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Master Reading List

30

30

Murphy, S. C. (2011). Epilogue: On the matter of invention. How television invented new media (pp. 141–146). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Gripsrud, J. (2004). Broadcast television: The chances of its survival in the digital

age. L. Spigel & J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 210–223). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Everett, A. (2004). Double click: The million woman march on television and the

Internet. L. Spigel & J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 224–241). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Caldwell, J. (2004). Convergence television: Aggregating form and repurposing

content in the culture of conglomeration. L. Spigel & J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 41–74). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Sconce, J. (2004). What if? Charting television’s new textual boundaries. L. Spigel

& J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 93–112). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Boddy, W. (2004). Interactive television and advertising form in contemporary

U.S. television. L. Spigel & J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 113–132). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ovalle, P. P. (2004). Pocho.com: Reimagining television on the Internet. L. Spigel

& J. Olsson (Eds.), Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition (pp. 324–341). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Turner, G. (2011). Convergence and divergence: The international experience of

digital television. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 31–51). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Thomas, J. (2011). When digital was new: The advanced television technologies

of the 1970s and the control of content. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 52–75). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Master Reading List

31

31

Pearson, R. (2011). Cult television as digital television’s cutting edge. J. Bennett &

N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 105–131). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Strange, N. (2011). Multiplatforming public service: The BBC’s “Bundled Project.”

J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 132–157). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Steemers, J. (2011). Little kids’ TV: Downloading, sampling, and multiplatforming

the preschool TV experiences of the digital era. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 158–178). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Lury, K. (2011). The “basis for mutual contempt”: The loss of the contingent in

digital television. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 181–203). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Dawson, M. (2011). Television’s aesthetic of efficiency: Convergence television

and the digital short. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 230–254). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Chamberlain, D. (2011). Scripted spaces: Television interfaces and the non-

places of asynchronous entertainment. J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 255–282). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Jacobs, J. (2011). Television, interrupted: Pollution or aesthetic? J. Bennett & N.

Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. 255–281). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bennett, J. (2011). Architectures of participation: Fame, television, and Web 2.0.

J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Television as digital media (pp. ). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Curtin, M. (2009). Matrix media. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after

TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 9–19). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

32

32

Hartley, J. (2009). Less popular but more democratic? Corrie, Clarkson and the

dancing Cru. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 20–30). New York: Routledge.

Andrejevic, M. (2009). The twenty-first-century telescreen. In G. Turner & J. Tay

(Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 31–40). New York: Routledge.

Marshall, P. D. (2009). Screens: Television’s dispersed ‘broadcast’. In G. Turner &

J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 41–50). New York: Routledge.

Turner, G. (2009). Television and the nation: Does this matter any more? In G.

Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 54–64). New York: Routledge.

Tinic, S. (2009). Between the public and the private: Television drama and global

partnerships in the neo-network era. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 65–74). New York: Routledge.

Cunningham, S. (2009). Reinventing television: The work of the ‘innovation’ unit.

In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 83–92). New York: Routledge.

Sun, W. & Zhao, Y. (2009). Television culture with ‘Chinese characteristics’: The

politics of compassion and education. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 96–104). New York: Routledge.

Donald, S. H. Y. K. (2009). Anachronism, apologetics and Robin Hood: televisual

nationhood after TV. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 125–136). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

33

33

Fung, A. Y. H. (2009). Globalizing televised culture: The case of China. In G.

Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after TV: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 178–188). New York: Routledge.

Uricchio, W. (2010). TV as time machine: Television’s changing heterochronic

regimes and the production of history. Television in the digital public sphere. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 27–40). New York: Routledge.

Corner, J. (2010). ‘Critical social optics’ and the transformations of audio-visual

culture. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 41–54). New York: Routledge.

Browne, N. (2010). MSN, interface. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television:

Television in the digital context (pp. 55–60). New York: Routledge. Brunsdon, C. (2010). Bingeing on box-sets: The national and the digital in

television crime drama. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 63–75). New York: Routledge.

Lavik, E. (2010). Forward to the past: The strange case of The Wire. In J. Gripsrud

(Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 76–87). New York: Routledge.

Christensen, C. L. (2010). Lifestyle as factual entertainment. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.),

Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 125–138). New York: Routledge.

Gentikow, B. (2010). Television use in new media environments. In J. Gripsrud


Larsen, P. (2010). The grey area. A rough guide: television fans, internet forums,

and the cultural public sphere. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 156–168). New York: Routledge.

Master Reading List

34

34

Jerslev, A. (2010). X Factor viewers: Debate on an internet forum. In J. Gripsrud


Ellis, J. (2010). The digitally enhanced audience: New attitudes to factual

footage. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 183–193). New York: Routledge.

Gitlin, T. (2010). Digital media, television and the discourse of smears. In J.

Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 194–204). New York: Routledge.

Spigel, L. (2010). Smart homes: Digital lifestyles practiced and imagined. In J.

Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 238–256). New York: Routledge.

Morley, D. (2010). Television as a means of transport: Digital teletechnologies

and transmodal systems. In J. Gripsrud (Ed.), Relocating television: Television in the digital context (pp. 257–270). New York: Routledge.

Burgess, J. & Green, J. (2009). How YouTube matters. In J. Burgess & J. Green

(Eds.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (pp. 1–14). Malden, MA: Polity.

Burgess, J. & Green, J. (2009). YouTube and the mainstream media. In J. Burgess

& J. Green (Eds.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (pp. 15–37). Malden, MA: Polity.

Burgess, J. & Green, J. (2009). YouTube’s popular culture. In J. Burgess & J. Green


Burgess, J. & Green, J. (2009). YouTube’s social network. In J. Burgess & J. Green


Master Reading List

35

35

Burgess, J. & Green, J. (2009). YouTube’s cultural politics. In J. Burgess & J. Green


Burgess, J. & Green, J. (2009). YouTube’s uncertain futures. In J. Burgess & J.

Green (Eds.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (pp. 100–108). Malden, MA: Polity.

Jenkins, H. (2009). What happened before YouTube. In J. Burgess & J. Green


Hartley, J. (2009). Uses of YouTube — Digital literacy and the growth of

knowledge. In J. Burgess & J. Green (Eds.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (pp. 126–143). Malden, MA: Polity.

Strangelove, M. (2010). Introduction. In Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos

by ordinary people (pp. 3–21). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Strangelove, M. (2010). Home movies in a global village. In Watching YouTube:

Extraordinary videos by ordinary people (pp. 22–40 ). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Strangelove, M. (2010). The home and family on YouTube. In Watching YouTube:


Strangelove, M. (2010). Video diaries: The real you in YouTube. In Watching

YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people (pp. 64–83). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Strangelove, M. (2010). Women of the ‘Tube. In Watching YouTube:


Master Reading List

36

36

Strangelove, M. (2010). The YouTube community. In Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people (pp. 103–136). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Strangelove, M. (2010). Conclusion. In Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos

by ordinary people (pp. 181–194). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Documents

FVI 450 Master Reading List