Obviously, these readings follow the topic of the week, the audience; as such, they focus on ratings, uses and gratifications, and reception.
To me, an interesting facet of this set of readings is how the Richard Butsch reading acts as a bridge between the other two.
It does this in three ways:
- By discussing the gendered-viewing of media
- By discussing the transformation of media technologies into home furniture
- By discussing how the audience becomes a commodity to be “sold” to advertisers
The first point, the gendered-viewing of media, really angered me as I was reading the two readings that dealt significantly in the topic; that is, the Butsch reading on radio and Lynn Spigel’s reading on television. I think anything that shows the objectification or promotes the submission of women right now in the political climate we are currently in is like rubbing salt on an open wound. In the Trump-Era, it’s hard to hear about the objectification and completely neglecting or overlooking women as valid people. But, I digress.
The Butsch reading talks about radio and how men became threatened when radio became user-friendly for everyone. They felt as if their masculinity took a hit when radio magazines began “talking to” or catering to a female audience and when radio sets were being sold in complete sets instead of by individual parts that needed to be put together. Radio magazines that were welcoming to women, by running articles to the female audience, soon began objectifying women — switching from considering women as audience members to bait for the male audience members/readership. I find it astonishing that men could have been so insecure and sensitive that opening radio to everyone could have been perceived as threatening.
The Spigel reading likewise talks about the gendered-viewing of television; however, never suggesting it as being a threat to manhood or masculinity. She talks about how televisions were “sold” to women; by appealing to their affinity to nature and as a piece of home decor.
With that said, both the Butsch and Spigel readings discuss radio and television sets in terms of how they became parts of home decor. This part was particularly fascinating to me. Butsch talks about how after the novelty of radio wore off, women wanted a more aesthetically pleasing radio, that is, one complete set that didn’t feature wires going off in multiple directions. While, Spigel talks about how once television sets were a benefit to a home, eventually they became something people wanted to render invisible, so much so they they didn’t even want them near windows.
An additional interesting aspect of the Spigel reading is the discussion of television in terms of architectural moments. First she talks about the television’s purpose in suburbia; that is, bringing the world into the suburban home. Later, she talks about the modernist movement, which sought “the erasure between public and private space” (8). After WWII, Spigel says people wanted to “merge” the private and public spheres by having open floor plans which featured “large picture windows,” “glass walls,” or “continuous dining areas” (9). In this vein, during this time, televisions were “placed in rooms with panoramic window views, or else installed next to globes and colorful maps” (9). Later, she talks about how people wanted to hide them, keeping them away from windows or hiding them behind large venetian blinds.
The third theme that bridges the readings is that the audience becomes a commodity to be “sold” to advertisers, bridging the Butsch reading with Stavitsky reading.
The Stavitsky reading is all about the social scientific research regarding audience ratings. The article, overall, paints a very gloomy picture around the field of audience research by discussing how it is driven by economic interests. He talks about how the majority of this research was done for economic reasons (what shows to put on the air, at what times, what should get funded, etc.) or social reasons which leads to political interests, such as the research about educational television.
The Butsch reading discusses how audience research was important to know how to sell things to those listening to the available programming. These marketing tactics applied to radio sets themselves as well as products from program advertisers.
The last thing that stood out to me worth mentioning was in Spigel’s chapter; when she talks about the direct objectification of women. I found the women’s tension with television as the object of male gaze problematic because it suggests that women are no more than an object to be looked at, in real life, not just in the cinema as Laura Mulvey suggested. The most upsetting aspect was the discussion about women changing the television channels and how tuning knobs needed to be moved to the top instead of the bottom of the set because it was unattractive to watch her change channels otherwise, as if wives were private Vanna Whites who needed to conduct these simple tasks with unnatural grace and beauty. The entire section described women not as people but as objects; as the chapter was written by a woman, I find her non-critical view/discussion of this unacceptable.