[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

That’s it folks.

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #3 part 4 - The End

One of the ways in which I obtain news about the world is through Facebook. Now, before a litany of eyerolling persists – let me explain. What I mean when I say that I attain a large portion of daily information through Facebook is that I follow a YouTuber named Philip DeFranco through his public Facebook page who posts videos about current events that are often being circulated through mainstream news sources. The thing about his videos is that they are well researched in the sense that they incorporate a large variety of information about the specific topic he is discussing – and then he goes on to ask the publics opinion on the matter. I like the fact that he tries to produce as unbiased a statement as possible while also informing his public that the best way to make an informed decision on whatever news topic it is, is to look at it from multiple sources – like, read how it is presented in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and as many news sources as possible. This is the only way to get the most accurate representation of the truth as is possible – something he appears to present in his videos.

Without YouTube, I would not have access to a news source like DeFranco. Sullivan (2013) writes, “Perhaps the single most important online tool for empowering audiences in the 21st century has been the video-sharing website YouTube” (p. 220). Although, as with any media type, there are problems involved, the emergence of YouTube as a credible video-creating site as well as a source of income for YouTubers, has opened the world up to a wide-variety of media makers that might not have otherwise existed. This might have been true as it pertains to DeFranco. Moreover, Mayer “warns of the danger that arises when journalists distance themselves from their audiences in the pursuit of objectivity and fairness in news reporting” (as cited in Wasike, 2013, p. 12). Wasike is writing with regards to Social media editors, rather than YouTubers, but I feel there is a degree of truth to this here too. With DeFranco’s utterance that his viewers leave their comments below his videos, closes this gap between himself and the viewing public. Objectivity is an impossibility; but, by addressing audience members personally, journalists can get to the root of inconsistencies as it pertains to the public’s lack of informed knowledge. This is a truth that particularly attains to YouTube, with more easily accessibility to the public’s opinion. For this, and his devotion to fair reporting, I am grateful to DeFranco.

Works Cited:

DeFranco, P. (Creator). (2006). The Philip DeFranco Show [YouTube Series]. USA: YouTube.

Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Online, interactive audiences in a digital media world. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 213-238.

Wasike, B. (2013). Framing news in 140 Characters: How social media editors frame the news and interact with audiences via Twitter. Global Media Journal - Canadian Edition, 6(1), 5-23.

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #3 part 3

As an aside, I would like to turn for a moment to one of my more momentary obsessions as a fan and speak about the television-series-turned-movie, Veronica Mars (2004-2007; Thomas, 2014). This is a show I came to just as the original television series was dwindling down; right before the third season’s swift cancellation. Despite my late entry to the series, its cancellation – particularly on a cliffhanger – felt crushing to my nearly fifteen-year-old mind. I was a big-time LoVe fan (the Logan Echolls/Veronica Mars shipper name) and could not fathom not knowing whether or not the pair would end up together. While I did not take to fanfiction writing to suss out my own conclusion to this series, I did set up an account on the fan-oriented website Fanpop – wherein my username became ‘VMars4ever’, the same account name I picked when I created my Sidereel account. I used this website to fill the void I had after losing the series’ – something that always seems particularly poignant when a series is cancelled, especially on a cliffhanger. Moreover, one of the main reasons I chose to watch the show Moonlight (2007-2008) was due to the role Jason Dohring, who played Logan Echolls in Veronica Mars, had in it. The same can be said for the films Fanboys (Newman, 2009), When in Rome (Johnson, 2010), and You Again (Fickman, 2010), and the recent series The Good Place (2016-), in relation to Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars herself); as well as my excitement for the series iZombie (2015-), helmed by Rob Thomas (the creator of Veronica Mars).

Although my obsession with this series had lessoned over the years – unlike my fanaticism with regards to Harry Potter or Buffy the Vampire Slayer – I was still incredibly excited when the Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign was announced. This campaign, which Paul Booth writes about in his article on crowdfunding, meant I could get some kind of closure as it related to the series. Booth (2015) discusses how scholars have interpreted fan involvement as, “fans in the case of the Veronica Mars Kickstarter are well aware of their role in the financing of a film, and are not exploited at all” (p. 151). This is in opposition to the belief that others “have argued that participatory online culture is exploitative of fan money, time and work” (Booth, 2015, p. 151). I am inclined to agree with the first statement of Booth I have included here. Despite my disappointment with the end result – the film did not include any of the original locations of the television series and it included I did not have an interest in (the character who was murdered, a recast for the film) – I do feel proud of my participation in this crowdfunding endeavour. Not only that, but the forty or so dollars I pledged permitted me a Veronica Mars t-shirt and stickers, a digital download of the film, and a DVD copy of the film itself. In my opinion, I spent less for all of these items than I would have, had I bought each individually. Furthermore, there are rumours circulating that a miniseries continuation might eventually come to pass, so I cannot see how I – and my limited funds – have been taken advantage of. It is not much different than if I go to the Universal Harry Potter themed park.

Works Cited:

Booth, P. (2015). Crowdfunding: A spimatic application of digital fandom. New Media and Society, 17(2), 149-166.

Fickman, A. (Director), & Jelline, M. (Writer). (2010). You Again [Motion Picture]. USA: Touchstone Pictures.

Johnson, M.S. (Director), Diamond, D., & Weissman, D. (Writers). (2010) When in Rome [Motion Picture]. USA: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.

Koslow, R., & Munson, T. (Creators). (2007). Moonlight [Television Series]. USA: Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS).

Newman, K. (Director), Cline, E., Goldberg, A.F., & Pulick, D. (Writers). (2009). Fanboys [Motion Picture]. Canada: Alliance.

Ruggiero, D., & Thomas, R. (Creators). (2015). iZombie [Television Series]. USA: The CW Television Network (The CW).

Schur, M. (Creator). (2016). The Good Place [Television Series]. USA: National Broadcasting Company (NBC).

Thomas, R. (Creator). (2004). Veronica Mars [Television Series]. USA: United Paramount Network (UPN), & The CW Television Network (The CW).

Thomas, R. (Director/Writer), & Ruggiero, D. (Writer). (2014). Veronica Mars [Motion Picture]. USA: Warner Bros.

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #3 part 2

Let me bring the discussion back around to one of my favourite topics – Harry Potter. This book and movie franchise has been an obsession of mine since the early 2000s, when my sister and I received the first four books as a Christmas gift from our aunt. I was only eight at the time we first received them, so my mother was the one to read them to us before bed each night. We finished the four books before the following November, when Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (Columbus, 2001) came out. After the release of the first movie was when my obsession really began to grow – I took it in turn to re-read each book myself over the course of the next year, as I anticipated the second film based on its book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Columbus, 2002). Over the next two years, my fixation grew; it was roughly around the time of the third film’s release – Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Cuarón, 2004) – that I began the approximately two-year long pursuit of filling in the information as I had it; beginning as a means of filling in the information left to me until the fifth book was published in 2003.

What I am speaking of here, of course, is fan fiction. Sullivan (2013) defines this as, “original stories written by fans about their favourite media texts” (p. 204). This is exactly what I did when I was twelve years old. A friend of mine and I each began a series that inserted our friend group at the time into the world of Harry Potter; together we would discuss each of our stories as we published them on the now-rebooted website Quizilla. It became our way of coping with both our obsessions with the source material, as well as the waiting game we had to play as the books were being published. Booth our series’, to some degree, are what Bacon-Smith refers to as “Mary Sue” stories:

In which a very young heroine, often in her teens and possessing genius, intelligence, great beauty, and a charmingly impish personality, joins the heroes … She generally resolves the conflict of the story, saves the lives of the protagonists who have grown to love her, but dies heroically in the process. (As cited in Sullivan, 2013, p. 204)

Although we did not entirely fall under this pretense, or what we understand “Mary Sue” stories to be at the time (stories revolving around a perfect lead character with little or no faults, much like the Twilight series), this is the most appropriate of the two categories Sullivan defines, as we did insert ourselves into the story and focused mainly on the character that resembled each of us. Despite this, my own story amassed a following of some four or five hundred people at one point as I would publish each chapter. However, as a procrastinator when it comes to my own personal writing, and given that the website went through several overhauls, I did not get past chapter twenty-five – which was set around Halloween – before giving up on this specific series. Alongside this, I also discontinued my two other Harry Potter fan fiction series’ I had begun - one set in Canada, the other which had blended Harry Potter with another of my favourite universes – Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003) and its spin-off series Angel (1999-2004).

Part of my obsession with Harry Potter, as well as the other obsessions I have had over the years, stems from the experience I have with the material I am ingesting. The French scholar Michel de Certeau referred to a term called poaching in relation to this, which Sullivan (2013) defines as, “Readers temporarily inhabit the intellectual space of whatever text they are encountering, making that space their own for that brief moment” (p. 203). This is something I wholeheartedly endorse; much to what my creative writing course has delineated this term, once a writer publishes a text, they have lost control of the text and it is given over to the readers to interpret. The reading of a text is limited by whatever is included in the original source, but that can be developed into a wide array of analyses. Every time I enter a text, be it a book, film, or television series, I create my own space within that text – similar to a previous discussion on the concept of transportation. At the age of twelve, part of my obsession with Harry Potter came from my girlhood crush on Daniel Radcliffe, the actor that played the movie version of Harry Potter. Since then, the world this series has amassed, and the fan culture it has developed, has continued my fanatical obsession with it.

Works Cited:

Colombus, C. (Director), & Kloves, S. (Writer). (2001). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone [Motion Picture]. USA: Warner Bros.

Colombus, C. (Director), & Kloves, S. (Writer). (2002). Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Motion Picture]. USA: Warner Bros.

Cuarón, A. (Director), & Kloves, S. (Writer). (2004). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [Motion Picture]. USA: Warner Bros.

Greenwalt, D., & Whedon, J. (Creators). (1999). Angel [Television Series]. USA: The WB Television Network (The WB).

Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Media fandom and audience subculturs. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 189-212.

Whedon, J. (Creator). (1997). Buffy the Vampire Slayer [Television Series]. USA: The WB Television Network (The WB), & United Paramount Network (UPN).

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #3 part 1 - The Beginning

Despite being a film student, I spend more of my time – particularly as an audience member – in front of the TV watching television programs. I am a self-professed TV addict, presently watching seventeen different series’ that are currently airing – thirteen of which are dramas. Excluding commercials, I usually spend more than eleven hours each week watching television – and that includes only the shows that air new episodes each week. More often than not I am watching, at least, two more series’ continuously throughout the week, either for the second or more time – like I do each morning watching the earlier seasons of Modern Family (2009-) whilst eating breakfast, or Teen Wolf (2011-2017) as I eat dinner at night – or in a binge-watching capacity of series I have not seen before – at this moment, I am trying to finish the final season of Orphan Black (2013-2017). Furthermore, the amount I currently am invested in watching is actually lower than where I am regularly when I am not in the midst of the University term, thus allotting me more time without the workload I have to consider. In any case, I spend a good deal of time in front of a television enjoying the variety permitted to me through Netflix, my personal (and excessive) DVD/Blu-Ray collection, as well as downloaded content from network television.

Some of the relevancy of what I am getting at here is not as unusual as some might think. Sullivan (2013) states, “Television continues to be the most important and widely used media technology in the domestic context” (p. 171). While I cannot say for certain how my own internet use compares to that of my television use quite as neatly, I can infer that television holds a level of importance in my life. It can also be said that – regularly – television is a technology I use more in the home than internet – my internet use, at least apart from using it to access television, usually occurs outside the domestic context. Moreover, aside from social networking, more of my internet use relates to my use of television – if I am not mistaken, likely more than three-quarters of my tweets on Twitter concern one television show or another, as well as films. I also spend a fair amount of time between the Internet Movie Database website and TVLine – a website solely dedicated to television.

In any case, Sullivan (2013) is accurate in his statement that, “the introduction of new media technologies has not fundamentally altered the amount of television use in the home” (p. 171). Despite my inability to say that the internet has not definitively altered my television use, given that it has been around since before my birth – albeit, I did not have access to hi-speed internet until I was twelve – thus making it intricately woven throughout my life; the introduction of social media I can speak to. Facebook is a social networking site that did not become widely spread until I was in high school; I have had my account for over ten years now and in that time, I have continued to watch television, except for in the very beginning when I created an account and I was adapting to this new media. Furthermore, with the superior accessibility that the internet continues to allow, my television use has – in point of fact – increased. No longer must I rely on my entry to a series strictly through the more traditional television-cable/satellite duo. Now I can download a series I want to watch at the tips of my fingers, or I can watch through my Netflix account. Television has become more readily available, in fact, rather than less used – as might be feared.

Part of this also must do with the increasing affordability of laptops with the technology getting older and more available through mass-marketing. As well, my ability to buy things now that I am an adult with a job that affords me these luxuries is another factor. The traditional concept of what a television audience looks like continues to grow with this evolution of interconnection between the traditional sense of TV and the internet. In the concluding chapter of Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Powers, Sullivan (2013) writes, “The rise of transmedia reinforces an important truth about our contemporary popular culture: that the boundaries between media texts are becoming more fluid” (p. 241). While the experiences shared between television and internet that I delineate here are not necessarily considered transmedia, they are a demonstration of the need to shift what we consider boundaries – or, how we define things. Anyways, all that is really determined by my personal television and internet habits are that both are an intricate part of my life. And, maybe, network television should stop relying on traditional television exhibition with commercials being the way they fund TV.

Works Cited:

Davis, J. (Creator). (2011). Teen Wolf [Television Series]. USA: Music Television (MTV).

Fawcett, J., & Manson, G. (Creators). (2013). Orphan Black [Television Series]. Canada: BBC America.

Levitan, S., & Lloyd, C. (Creators). (2009). Modern Family [Television Series]. USA: American Broadcasting Company (ABC).

Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Reception contexts and media rituals. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 161-185.

Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Conclusion: Audience agency in new contexts. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 239-249.

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #2 part 3 - The End

In recent weeks, my roommates and I have been going through the Harry Potter films in chronological order. This began due to two factors: one, I had begun reading the book series for the umpteenth time after it had dawned on me that I had never read them from start to finish without any large gaps of time. The pretext behind this is that when I originally read most of the books they had not all been published, so I decided to read them over again and subsequently watch each film as I completed each book this time around. (As an aside, I have since fallen behind on the reading of the books before I watch the films.) The second reason we started watching the films – at least at the pace we have been going – is because my one roommate has never seen the last two films, thus we have sat through all but the final film thus far.

One other factor I should include is that my one roommate and I have both read the books while the third, the one that had not seen the final two films, has not. That means that the two of us that have read the book series the films are based on come at the text in diverse ways; which coincides with the idea of an interpretive community. In Sullivan’s (2013) interpretation of Stanley Fish’s concept of the interpretive community, he states: “that different groups of readers or audiences will develop interpretations that coincide with their interests and experiences with a text or collection of texts” (p. 155). So, given that my one roommate an I have a dual relationship with Harry Potter as both a book and film series, we experience it in a unique way dissimilar to that of my other roommate. He would understand the films as a text of their own without a complete interpretation of the series that the books would provide.

Aside from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Yates, 2010), which my male roommate had never seen before this last weekend, my other – female – roommate and I continuously discussed the faults of each film as compared to its source material book. This was particularly typical of the first three films as, in each case, I had completed reading the book before viewing the film; which allowed me to recall more of the finer details. However, even when I had not finished reading a book before observing its film counterpart, I still remembered enough of the source material to be able to point out some jarring flaws.

Furthering this idea that diverging audience members experience text in varying ways, Sullivan (2013) calls texts polysemic; this means texts are “capable of being interpreted in distinctly different ways by different viewers because audiences approach texts with a plethora of experiences and cultural knowledge of signs” (p. 142). In essence, the two of us that have read the Harry Potter books have more knowledge of what should happen within the films, thus we desire more meaning from the text than the casual viewer of just the film series. It is interesting to compare these two perspectives because, on one hand, those that have read the books understand the films possibly in a more impactful way, whereas those that have not read the books are not stuck in the mindset of needing to see certain events occur and criticizing minutia. They only have the text of the film set in front of them, allowing them to appreciate the films as they are. This is my own experience when dealing with the Percy Jackson films; the books of which my female roommate has read leading her to not enjoy the films. So, I am sympathetic to those that have not read the Harry Potter books, although I do believe of any complex book-to-film adaptation, this series is quite superior.

Works Cited:

Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Interpreting and decoding mass media texts. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 133-160.

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #2 part 2

Over the course of the last month, I have taken to falling asleep with the television on. Each night, when I have turned the light off, I turn the television in my room back on and switch my Blu-Ray on to the Netflix app. I have not done this in hopes of watching a show to put me to sleep – I have never been able to easily fall asleep to any kind of programming, whether it be television or film, unless I have made the conscious decision to sleep. Rather, this has become a pattern of behaviour as a sort of background noise wherein I leave it playing at a near total loss of volume in order to provide an easier ushering for me into sleep. Part of this has to do with having an overactive mind which forces an insomniac response to sleep. To counteract this lack of ease into slumber, I leave Netflix running with Friends (1994-2004) on in the background, given that it is one series I do not really need to pay attention to after having watched it numerous times, and sleep with a mask to cover my eyes from the brightness. While my Blu-Ray does not have a timer to shut itself off, my TV does – although Netflix will continue to run until it has gone through three episodes and asks whether its user is still watching, which I do not respond to.

Part of this is what Sullivan (2013) refers to when he writes, “If you think about how you watch television, there are probably times when you are sitting rapt with attention (…) and other times when the television serves merely as background while you focus on other tasks” (p. 85). The latter part of this statement is what my end-of-the-night viewing habits refer to. I am not watching Friends as an attentive viewer; I simply leave this program running in the background to allow myself an easier lead into sleep after several weeks of finding it difficult to manage this on my own. I am not sitting there, as Sullivan puts it, “rapt with attention” because I do not need to be. Not only is this due to many years of watching the series so often that I no longer have to pay mind to it to gain some use out of it, but it is also a sitcom; which tends to have a more inconsequential story structure, unlike something like – say – Game of Thrones (2011-) that requires focus to get what is useful out of it. Rather, having Friends on in the background provides a wholly different use than what some might require of their audience experience.

Despite Netflix’s lack of affiliation with Nielson, there is some data that can be transcribed from this particular viewing habit which can illuminate one of the problems allowing too much credence in Nielson ratings has. Sullivan (2013) states, “Media executives and advertisers have typically equated audience size with quality or viewer satisfaction” (p. 85). In a way, this means that the executives and advertisers believe that however many people are viewing a program, it must mean that it is either a well-made program or it gratifies the audience member in some manner. From my own experiences with Friends, this is not necessarily true. While I have, in the past, viewed Friends because it is an enjoyable sitcom that I believe to be well-made; my actions here do not represent that particular audience habit. This action is a much more passive endeavour wherein, if I had been watching the series as it aired on television, I would not be intaking the program the way an advertiser might like me to. Since I am not actually paying any close attention, the ads – or commercials – would not be fulfilling their purpose as an incentive for the program getting to air. This would be particularly disconcerting for a series that is ongoing; thus, it would rely on the money it receives for the ads presented during its airtime.

Buzzard (2015) explores this further in her article on audience ratings when she discusses ratings being based around audience size, “Audience size, known as exposure, literally serves as the currency for determining the cost paid by advertisers for network and spot advertising” (p. 512). This is part of the problem there is in relying as heavily as we do on Nielson ratings – it cannot give advertisers a complete grasp of how well the audience is perceiving the commercials that are being produced. Audience size does not equate comprehension or attentive behaviour, nor is it necessarily accurate enough to have as much control over the television medium as it presently has. Without going too far off of a tangent regarding how problematic Nielson ratings can be, it is important to note that there are not necessarily any more reliable ways of creating a currency for television.

Circling back around specifically to Netflix, I find it difficult to try to perceive how they get by with as much original content as they do on the limited funds of a monthly paid service. It does seem simpler, as a streaming service, to discover an accurate depiction of just how many viewers watch a particular series or film, but – again – how can they know for sure just how many users are paying attention? Perhaps this does not matter as much to them, given that it is a paid for service, but it is certainly something to think about.

Works Cited

Buzzard, K. (2015). The rise of market information regimes and the historical development of audience ratings. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 35(3), 511-517.

  Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Media ratings and target marketing. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 77-104.

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #2 part 1 - The Beginning

One habit of mine with regards to my experiences as an audience member is that every time I finish viewing a media piece – be it a film or television series – I endeavour to learn as much trivia about it as possible through the website IMDb (or Internet Movie Database). I have been a member of this website for over ten years and, only just recently, the website administrators decided to discontinue the forum section included on the site where one could go to talk to other likeminded individuals. This level of interactivity is one of the aspects Sundar and Limperos (2013) discuss in relation to their concept of the MAIN Model, which “identifies four classes of technological affordances in digital media—modality, agency, interactivity, and navigability” (p.512). In relation to this third category I am referring to, wherein “we expect our media to be equipped with the ability to provide an open forum for user feedback and participation” (Sundar & Limperos, 2013, p. 515), IMDb has lost this level to a degree. While the website still does allow a certain amount of feedback and participation – through contribution to the website, as well as polls – forums are no longer included so that a deeper plane of participatory need can be met, which leads to a sense of dissatisfaction – at least on my part.

At one point in my tenure as a member of IMDb, I would spend hours on the forums discussing, arguing against, and learning about other peoples’ perspectives of the film, television series, or cast or crew related to the media piece. It became an active participation with the product I felt so involved in; which, before the likes of Twitter, active participation was not as readily available to a viewer like me. To some degree, this meets a level of what Sullivan (2013) calls social needs, or “needs related to ‘strengthening contact with family, friends, and the world’” (p. 114). My previous participation in the IMDb forums permitted this reinforced connection with the world, allowing me to create a deeper link with the content I was ingesting. As an audience member without this wider array of social feedback, I am deprived of the strong attachment to the material formerly experienced. It becomes something that is missing; a void left behind that cannot properly be filled in the way it was before. Instead, it is more of a fleeting experience. Certainly, I could readily find some other website to meet this overlooked need; it is only that the familiarity of a website I have been immersed in for so long cannot properly be replaced. Comfortability and reliability have thus been lost here.

When Sullivan (2013) discusses Rosengren’s use of Abraham Maslow’s theories with regards to needs, he comes to this conclusion with relation to the uses and gratifications model and its connection to media, “The fulfillment of some needs as a precondition for the satisfaction of other needs became a central tenet of the uses and gratifications paradigm” (p. 115). So, taking a uses and gratifications approach to my experience as an audience member participating on the website IMDb, my need is no longer being fulfilled; thus, in a way, I am stuck. To a degree, this becomes a bit of a psychological viewpoint in that, when a need is not met, we as human beings cannot move on. Due to the fact I cannot reach the level of interactivity in relation to the media I ingest, perhaps I am no longer seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the material through the differing perspectives of the people I converse with; which is undoubtedly a loss for me. I am stuck within a smaller worldview of the media piece.

Works Cited

Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Uses and gratifications. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 107-131.

Sundar, S., & Limperos, A. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504-25.

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

[insert-clever-blog-name-here]

Blog #1 part 6 - The End

Just to wrap up, my understanding of the world around me is constantly shaped in some way by the media I consume. More often than not, this is the television I watch on a weekly basis; this is the audience lens through which my life becomes filtered. In this way, I am a consistent audience member because I watch at least television practically every day. Being an audience member has steadily developed my life for media has been around in some format since before I was born. I have always been a viewer in some way, and I will continue to be apart of an audience as I continue throughout my life. For this week, this has been my commentary on the experiences I have in relation to the media I consume as an audience member.

  Works Cited

Brebner, M., Cameron, T., & Vanstone, E. (Creators). (2010). Rookie Blue [Television Series]. Toronto, ON: CanWest Global Television Network.

  Brown, W. (2015). Examining four processes of audience involvement with media personae: Transportation, parasocial interaction, identification, and worship. Communication Theory, 25, 259-283.

  DiMartino, M. D., & Konietzko, B. (Creators). (2005). Avatar: The Last Airbender [Television Series]. USA: Nickelodeon Network.

  Espenson, J. (Writer), & Grabiak, M. (Director). (2003). Storyteller [Television series episode]. In J. Whedon (Creator), Buffy the Vampire Slayer. USA: United Paramount Network.

  Hanson, H. (Creator). (2005). Bones [Television Series]. Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox.

  Skidmore, A., Friedman, L. (Writers), & Shroff, B. (Director). (2017). The Gift of the Maggie [Television series episode]. In D. Star (Creator), Younger. New York City, NY: TV Land.

  Star, D., Zicklin, E. (Writers), & Dartland Zicklin, D. (Writer/Director). (2016). Get Real [Television series episode]. In D. Star (Creator), Younger. New York City, NY: TV Land.

  Sullivan, J. L. (2013). Effects of media messages. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, 25-52.

  Taylor, C. (Writer), & Andrew, T. (Director). (2014). Riddled [Television series episode]. In J. Davis (Creator), Teen Wolf. USA: Music Television.