Cultural Outlaws

8/10/2019 Cultural Outlaws

1/21

http://tvn.sagepub.com/Television & NewMedia

http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1527476406299112

2007 8: 124Television New MediaVictor Costello and Barbara Moore

Television FandomCultural Outlaws : An Examination of Audience Activity and Online

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Television & New Media

Additional services and information for

http://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- May 1, 2007Version of Record>>

at National School of Political on March 7, 2012tvn.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124http://www.sagepublications.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124.refs.htmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/124http://tvn.sagepub.com/


2/21

Cultural OutlawsAn Examination of Audience Activityand Online Television Fandom

Victor CostelloElon University

Barbara Moore

University of Tennessee

A web-based survey was used to collect qualitative data about online fans use of theinternet for keeping up with a favorite television program and for interacting with otherfans. The textual responses from 757 participants were coded for patterns and themesrelated to theories of audience activity. The results reveal a continuum of activity fromlurkers to a thriving, interpretive community of outlaw fans involved in the consump-tion and production of favored cultural texts. In contrast to historical images of rabid tele-

vision fans, the researchers discovered a sophisticated audience, devoted to programsthat make them think and that inspire meaningful exchanges in online discussions. Internettechnologies have empowered these fans to more effectively organize en masse as resis-tors and shapers of commercial television narratives.

Keywords: active audience; fandom; audience studies; cultural production; internet uses

The Active Audience Perspective

One of the more persistent debates in mass communication researchcenters on the question, Is the audience active or passive (Morley 1989;Ailor 1988; McQuail 1997)? In other words, are viewers or listeners capa-ble of making their own meaning out of message content or are theymerely helpless victims of media producers?

Developed by the Frankfurt School, the original concept of passiveaudience rose from the view of the individual as irrational and easilyinfluenced (Wicks 2001, 15). The audience was perceived to be a collective

124

TELEVISION & NEW MEDIAVol. 8 No. 2, May 2007 124-143DOI: 10.1177/1527476406299112 2007 Sage Publications

http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


3/21

body, but the participants did not communicate with each other abouttheir media experience (McQuail 1997, 67). This paradigm was modified

in the 1950s and 1960s by researchers like Klapper, Lazarsfeld, and Katz,who argued for a model of limited effects. They said that the influence ofthe media was not consistent across the audience. Instead, the impact var-ied according to the individual and the situation. Interpersonal relationswere considered a powerful intervening factor. Uses and gratificationstheorists further developed the concept of an active audience, whosemembers were capable of making decisions about what to view based ontheir own needs and desires and capable of recognizing and reportingtheir experiences (Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch 1974).

Critical theorists who focus attention on how culture is produced andconsumed, especially the economic and social implications of the process,have also raised questions about the nature of the audience. Hall (1980)combined several theories in his examination of the questions, What mes-sages do audiences receive, and do they all share the same reading of thetext? He chose to ask the audience about its interpretation of the textrather than merely analyzing the content. He saw the consumer as havingthree possible interpretations of media messages: dominant (acceptingthe text as created by those in power), negotiated, and oppositional.

Audiences were perceived as being relatively more active, decoding thetext as a group, sharing certain frameworks of understanding and inter-pretation (Gray 1999, 27).

Morley (1980, 1989, 1993) suggested that audiences could interpretmaterial in more than three ways. But to him, these variations were notrandom; rather, they were the product of shared codes among economicclasses (Morley 1993, 5483). Perceptions of the programming were indi-vidualistic but reinforced by discussions within the family and the commu-nity. Again, the image was of a more active, though not totally unrestrained,

audience.Fiske (1987) went even further and postulated an audience that ishighly active, able to interpret messages in a wide variety of ways. But evenhe admitted that the viewers power was limited. Audience memberscould negotiate meanings and interpret messages, but they had no abilityto produce the material they wanted or to control content or scheduling(Ang 1995, 8).

In literature, advocates of reception theory (also called reader-oriented,audience studies, audience analysis, reception analysis, reader response,

audience reception) said that the audience should be considered asimportant as the text and the author and should be equally examined(Iser 1978; Holub 1984). Each is important to the analysis and under-standing of a literary work. But a consensus on the exact role of the audi-ence has not been reached. Some see meaning as being determined by the

Costello, Moore / Cultural Outlaws 125



4/21

audience: they see a dynamic relationship between the text and thereader, with social and cultural influences affecting the way messages are

decoded.When used by media scholars, this general approach shares these basicassumptions about the audience:

1. Emphasis should be on the viewer, the process of viewing, and theresponses of the audience rather than on content (Livingstone 1992, 287).

2. Meaning is determined to some extent by the audience. Text and readerare interdependent, mutually conceived, joint constructors of meaning(Livingstone 1993, 7). Of course, not all participants exhibit the same levelof activity.

3. To understand the process, the researcher needs to look at the context of theviewing experience in ordinary lives and in common settings (Webster andPhalen 1997, 123), using qualitative and ethnographic methods.

4. There is no consistency from individual to individual about how this inter-pretation is done, but social and cultural factors do have an influence. Theresult is what some have called an interpretive community (Suleiman 1980,11, 2025).

The members of such a community share common traits like similaruses of media, similar practices, shared meanings, and interaction about the

texts (Fish 1980; Liebes 1988; Lindlof 1988). For interpretive researchers,this construct is a way to understand the complexity and variability ofaudience responses to media messages. It also highlights the social char-acter of reception and, in so doing, represents an effort to place individ-ual readers or viewers within broader social and cultural contexts(Carragee 1990, 86). This sharing of the viewing experience heightens theenjoyment of the text by those in the community.

The Study of Fans

The most studied interpretive community consists of fans, viewerswho act outside the common expectations for a member of the audience.Fans can be considered a scandalous category because their activitiesgo beyond the norm. Fans appear to be frighteningly out of control,undisciplined and unrepentant, rogue readers (Jenkins 1988, 86). Theydo their own interpretation of the text, ignoring the opinions and desiresof producers, advertisers, network executives, and critics. And becausefans go beyond the accepted boundaries of viewing, they are sometimesridiculed. For example, consider the images of the Trekkie (Jenkins

1988, 86) and the soap fan (Baym 2000; Harrington and Bielby 1995, 94).The concept of fan has generally evaded an explicit, singular, and uni-

fied meaning. At its root, the word fan originates from the Latinfanaticus, by which we derive the word fanatic (Jenkins 1992, 12).

126 Television & New Media / May 2007



5/21

This association no doubt has helped to foster the very broad and generalstereotype of individuals whose behavior, at the very least, exceeds con-

ventional norms of audience behavior and at times can be described aspathological (Jenson 1992). In their study of fan engagement with thesoap opera narrative, Bielby, Harrington, and Bielby (1999) provide afairly succinct conceptual definition of fan: To view television is a rel-atively private behavior. To be a fan, however, is to participate in a rangeof activities that extend beyond the private act of viewing and reflects anenhanced emotional involvement with a television narrative (p. 35).

However, scholars generally define fans by what they do in con-junction with the consumption of media texts and related products of

popular culture (Harrington and Bielby 1995, 12). For example, Gwenllian-Jones (2002) operationalized the concept of fan by describing some of thebroader, and perhaps more mainstream, activities of those involved in fancommunities. Fans combine conspicuous, enthusiastic, consumption ofofficial texts and spin-offs with their own creative and interpretive prac-tices. Fans are viewers who do not merely watch films or television pro-grammes but also write fan fiction and cultural criticism, produce fan art,scratch videos, websites and so on, and who seek out other fans withwhom to share their enthusiasm. . . . Fans are distanced from ordinary

consumers because their modes of consumption are considered exces-sive (p. 172). While this description applies to fans in general, the currentstudy specifically examines the phenomenon of online fandom, wherefans represent a unique subset of the television-viewing audience withaccess to the internet and a motivation to seek out online resources relatedto the viewing of a favorite program. Online fans express their attachmentto television narratives by creating or visiting web sites associated with aprogram, and/or by interacting with other fans who share a common zestfor the same TV series.

To some researchers, fans who create fanzines and other works bor-rowing characters and settings from their favorite programs are moti-vated by hostility. These rebellious children and cultural scavengers(Jenkins 1988, 86) use the material created by the dominant class to expresstheir resistance and to overcome feelings of subordination and power-lessness (Tulloch and Jenkins 1995, 168, 197). But this interpretation ofthe fans rationale has not been examined thoroughly from the fansviewpoint.

When the concrete experience of viewing, rather than the abstract con-

cept, is studied, the difficulties in defining audience and its level ofactivity/passivity become clearer. What does an active viewer do? Chooseprograms? Accomplish goals through viewing? Pay attention to content?Analyze content? Avoid being easily influenced? Feel strong emotions? Itis hard to imagine a totally passive audience. Fiske sees audience as a




6/21

meaningless term. There is only the variety of cultural activities that takeplace in front of the screen (Fiske 1989, 5657).

The question of consistency is also a consideration (Ang 1991, 165). Aperson may change activity levels from show to show, day to day, or evenwithin the program. These fluctuations may result from the viewer, theprogram, or the situation of viewing, but the fluctuations are limited tosome extent by industry controls such as scheduling.

Method

This study examines the use of the internet by TV fans to understandwhat role it can play in creating and maintaining an active audience. Fora study of audience activity within online fan communities, the bestmethod may be hermeneutic, using a variety of research tools and criticalinsights. The goal becomes to discern the contours of patterns in theaudience data, broad categories of similarities and differences of percep-tion and practice in peoples everyday interaction with the media andtheir meanings (Schroeder 1999, 48).

There are obvious dangers in a technique that relies on members of theaudience to report their own experience in an unstructured style. Theresearchers cannot know if they are getting the complete truth from theirsources; nor can they be certain if their interpretation of the data is accu-rate. Results cannot be generalized and are not predictive. But this kindof technique allows the researcher to look at the rough edges, specialcases, and subtle peculiarities of real experience (Lull 1990, 30). A studyof the use of the internet by fans allows us to see how meanings andpleasures are created, negotiated, and dispersed throughout society(Fiske 1988, 248). It also gives some indication of how a new technologymay interact with a more traditional one in ways created by the audiencefor its own pleasure.

Studies of television fan communities have generally focused on fans ofparticular programs or program genres such as soap operas (Baym 1997,2000) and science fiction (Tulloch and Jenkins 1995). The current studyattempted to cast a wider net by targeting a much broader segment ofthe television fan population not restricted by a specific program or genre.Given that television fan sites, newsgroups, and other online portalsare generally associated with a specific program, a search of the internetwas conducted for newsgroups and fan pages connected with popular,first-run programs airing on commercial television during the fall of 1998.Selected programs consisted of prime-time television series (drama andcomedy programs) and daytime serials. News programs, game shows, talkshows, sports programs, and other nonepisodic television programs werenot included in the collection. Programs had to be on the air for at least one




7/21


year prior to the study to ensure adequate time for the development of anonline fan base. Atotal of eighty-six programs was selected, and a search of

the internet was made for newsgroups and unofficial fan sites associatedwith each program. This search identified sixty internet newsgroups and806 fan sites related to each of the eighty-six television programs.1

An online survey was posted to the internet from October 13 toNovember 7, 1998. Timing of the survey administration was planned tooccur shortly after the start of the fall television season. Online commu-nication activity was expected to be high at this time of year because ofseason premieres and the heightened efforts of broadcast and cable net-works to market new episodes for returning series.

Invitations to participate in the survey were e-mailed to each of the 806fan site owners and posted to each of the sixty program newsgroups. Afollow-up posting to each of the newsgroups was made four days beforethe end of the data collection in an effort to solicit participation from fanswho may have missed the initial message. In the invitation e-mail,authors of television fan sites were asked to post a link to the surveyinstrument on their home page. Forty-seven of the authors posted thelink, generating additional interest in survey participation. In addition,UltimateTV.com, a popular television infotainment site at the time,

hosted a link to the survey for approximately one week.The survey instrument2 was created for a largely quantitative andexploratory study of online fan activity as a part of the primary authorsdissertation research (Costello 1999). However, the following open-endedquestion was appended near the end of the survey instrument to allowrespondents to offer spontaneous qualitative insights about online fandomin a more flexible and less structured context. Do you have any thing youwould like to share with us about how you are using the Internet to stayconnected with your favorite television program, or about how this survey

was conducted? Although completion of the qualitative item was pre-sented as optional, nearly 25 percent of the sample population took thetime to share some often detailed and very interesting accounts of theironline activities and the nature of online fan communities.

Results

A total of 3,041 completed surveys were received during the twenty-sixdays of the survey administration. Of these, 757 participants (24.9 percent)chose to respond to the optional qualitative question. As is normal inmost studies of television fandom, the sample was predominantly femaleand very closely mirrored the gendered response rate of the total samplepopulation. In all, there were 506 female respondents (66.8 percent) and251 male respondents (33.2 percent). The textual data amounted to forty-nine pages of single-spaced text.



8/21

The authors analyzed the textual responses for patterns and themesrelated to audience-centered theories of television-viewing activity. The

data were coded according to how fans reported using the internet in con-nection with watching their favorite program(s). Audience activityranged from minimal involvement such as simple information acquisi-tion (spoilers and episode guides) to fully engaged viewers seeking inter-action with other fans and, at times, program cast members, writers, andproducers. The analysis focused on where the respondents fell on the con-tinuum of passive/active audiences and how activity was expressly man-ifested and perceived from the fans perspective. However, there wereother interesting observations about the survey participants that could be

discerned from the text.For example, how do fans portray themselves? While it may seem coun-terintuitive to those less familiar with the culture of fandom, these respondentswere adamant about distinguishing themselves from the stereotypicalcouch potato viewer with remote control in hand, consuming large quanti-ties of television pabulum in an unstructured and habitual fashion. Theonline fans in this study showed a preference for programs that they per-ceived as more intellectually stimulating than the average fare.

I am only a fan of one show, Homicide: Life on the Street. Its the only net-work show which does not insult our intelligence. It is thinking persons TV.

Ive cut down the number of hours spent watching TV in the last five yearsor so. I now only watch shows that I consider excellent (good writing, act-ing, etc.) or shows that make me laugh and forget my troubles. Watchingtoo much TV made me feel like I wasnt living, but just watching life.

The programs I mainly watch are educational in nature or content, and theshow I watch regularly, The Practice, is one that, though intended to enter-tain, is also very thought-provoking/controversial/educational. . . . I prefer

programs that enhance my knowledge.

My television viewing habits are very limited. I mostly watch on purposerather than by accident or default.

Instead of filling their time with mindless TV shows, and being tied to theever-inflexible structure of commercial television, they subscribed to alimited yet highly selective television diet. The internet was viewed as auseful, accommodating, and enjoyable medium, appreciated for its fluid-ity and ease in bringing people and information together.

I actually dont watch much television at all. I dont have a lot of time andenjoy using the Internet to relax and relieve stress. It fits into my schedulewhen I need it, I dont have to conform to it.




9/21

I only watch 2 hours of TV a week at the most, but I do like discussing thecharacters with online friends.

I may be overly sensitive, but not everyone who is obsessed with a particu-lar show is obsessed with Television. I only watch 3 shows and an occa-sional football game, but I really only visit sites related to those shows.

Although respondents were not asked to identify the titles of theirfavorite shows, they often volunteered this information, includingdescriptive analyses of program qualities perceived as important to thefan community. These fans expressed a resounding preference forprograms that make them think. Serialized dramas were mentioned more

often than any other type of program genre. Participants spoke consis-tently of a penchant for stories with plotline arcs, interesting charactersplayed by strong leads, and challenging themes. Such programs did notalways follow the usual formulas in storyline and setting.

La Femme Nikita is about the fine line between good and evil. There is verylittle that is pleasant, fun, or relaxing. There is plenty to think about beforeand afterward. It is a weekly morality play in a contemporary context.

The big thing here is continuity; I like shows that have it. That is: plots span-

ning multiple episodes, gradual character development, a relatively consis-tent universe, etc.

The authors make no claim that this audience is typical. In general, therespondents see themselves as markedly different from the averageviewer or casual fan.

Dedicated fans . . . think of watching TV like watching a movie or readinga novel. We sit down and actually watch a show rather than just being in a

room where the TV is on.My favorite programs challenge me intellectually. . . . Theyre more likely topresent you with puzzles and to allow the characters room to grow, as in anovel (The X Files, Babylon 5). This is the type of programming that encour-ages online participation beyond the more typical fandom (represented byho-hum comments such as I love the show or Wow or I hated thatepisode). Therere wide-ranging discussions of plot and character devel-opment similar to what I found in my college English Lit courses.

A collective defensiveness about fan image and self-portrayal revealeditself in underlying suspicions about the researchers motives and theperceived intentionality of the study. Respondents did not want to benegatively branded, nor did they want to play party to perpetuating anexaggerated fan stereotype.




10/21


Many of the questions appear to be passing a judgment on persons who usethe Internet to keep track of television shows, that they are stupid or loonyor eccentric. 99% of the fans I have met, both online and in person, are nor-mal, well-adjusted persons who lead fascinating, full lives. But that doesnot appear to be what this survey wants to hear.

Im sorry to say that this survey was a wee bit disturbing. It was more likeyou were trying to see if people used TV to replace things in their lives. Likeyou were looking for wackos. . . . Creepy!

. . . seemed a wee-bit obsessive about portraying respondents as lonely littlepeople with very few interests away from the monitor/TV set.

This concern by respondents about their image reinforces the view ofthe fan as an outsider, even an outlaw (Gwenllian-Jones 2002, 178). Bydefinition, their interest in a TV series was above the norm, sometimes farabove. As a result, they may have felt that they would be teased or criti-cized for their level of interest in a mere TV show, and their suspicionsmay have been justified to some degree.

It has been suggested that our relation to commercial culture is nei-ther monolithic or binaric but complex, fluid and contradictory(Gwenllian-Jones 2002, 179). Online fans creatively negotiate an ever-

changing and ubiquitous commercial culture by employing multiplestrategies of interactivity and informed involvement (Gwenllian-Jones2002, 179). This assertion received support in the current study whereaudience activity was expressed as a continuum with variable manifesta-tions of interactivity and involvement. At the lowest level of activity werethe seekers of information. The most common reason volunteered forusing the internet as an information appliance was to seek out episodeguides and program air times. TV Guide and the local newspaper mightprovide the listings, but the internet was considered more accurate,

dependable, and complete, and it was free and always available.

Having episode guides, news items, cast info available on demand is farbetter than relying on the local paper, which may choose not to print thatinformation.

A favorite site of mine is the Ultimate TV site . . . in which I can glancethrough entertainment news headlines. I have very set, Spartan TV viewinghabits, and Ultimate TV is usually the only way I might find out if some-thing different is on that I might like to watch.

Another attraction, particularly of newsgroups, was spoilers and otherinformation on future plot developments.

I belong to a mailing list where several show insiders occasionally postinformation about upcoming episodes or answer questions about how



11/21

episodes were filmed. I enjoy that most because its information youwouldnt readily find anywhere else.

We knew that Jadzia Dax on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was going to die . . .and that she was going to be replaced by a younger Dax . . . months beforeTV Guide accidentally gave the plotline away the week before it happened.We learn all kinds of things early . . . good and bad.

At the next level of audience activity were participants who usedonline newsgroups and fan sites as practical surrogates for fan magazinesand other sources of insider knowledge and gossip. Respondents enjoyedreading the news and gossip about their favorite shows and stars. Some

enjoyed the ease of downloading cast member photos. Others foundinformation about missed episodes, while newcomers to a series found acomplete history of past episodes. Also, for people who feared they hadfailed to understand an important point or missed the twist of a plotline,the internet could provide the answers. These aspects were especiallyimportant to international viewers who might find their favorite showcancelled in their homeland or shown on a delayed schedule.

It is very convenient to keep up with a show that you may have missed.

This particularly applies to soaps and shows shown in sequence.How else are you going to keep up with what is going on? The news on tele-vision and in the papers is pretty much paid advertisements for the show,and they arent objective. Even rumor is better information than a lot ofthose industry reporters are giving out.

I live in Europe and therefore I can get a lot more information from theInternet about the American shows I watch.

I live in the UK and my favorite program is broadcast first in theUS/Canada, and not in the UK until at least 9 months later, sometimesmore. I dont think Id look at net pages/the news group as much if it wasshown at the same time in the UK as it is in the US.

These information seekers can be easily seen as active viewers, espe-cially in contrast to the audience member who makes the decision onwhen to view, then after grazing with the remote control, chooses the leastobjectionable program. Online fans see the internet as a valuable resourcein their efforts to know more than the average audience member. And aswith any community, some people are givers and others are there to

simply take what they can. The internet requires no quid pro quo. Lurkersare the often stealth compatriots of online communities. They log on toview postings and other forms of online content but rarely, if ever, offercomments themselves.




12/21


13/21


This pattern sharply contrasts the image of the isolated member of theaudience watching programs without analyzing the themes or interpret-

ing the ideas or questioning the content. On the internet, there is literallya true interpretive community, where people discuss their delight anddisgust at plotlines, dialogue, and character developments. Of course,this community was not created by a shared class structure or other cul-tural similarities; instead, the participants have in common only an inter-est in a program, a desire to talk about it, and access to the internet. Theinformation and interaction helps them to think about a program differ-ently, and perhaps more critically, adding to their enjoyment of the actualviewing experience. For some, watching television while simultaneously

discussing it over the internet with online friends, or analyzing the programafterwards, also enhances the experience of viewing the program.

The Internet has helped change following a TV show from something pas-sive into something interactive. Discussing my favorite show online hasbecome part of the experience of watching it.

Being in a discussion group about a show, where the plot, characters, etc.are analyzed after each episode, is a lot like being in a book club where youread a book each week. You get a lot more out of the show after reading

other peoples reactions and opinions.I would watch the show when it first came on then when it came on thesecond time, I would log onto a chatroom and re-watch the episode whileothers in the chatroom were pointing things out others might have missedor not thought about.

The cancellation of a favorite program creates an emotional void andforced detachment from the program narrativesometimes in the middleof the season, without resolving critical narrative elements involving char-

acters and storylines. The attachment of fans to television programs,actors, and the characters they play grows with time and is particularlyacute in the case of a long-running series that has been followed for manyyears. Faithful fans have watched their favorite characters go throughlegal battles, physical problems, sexual alliances, and emotional angst.Withdrawing from that fictional world is made more bearable through themutual consolation of others mourning the death of a series, or more pos-itively, reviving the memory of a past program to keep it alive.

I am on a mailing list with about 150 other people who are fans of a showthat has long been cancelled. In fact most of the actors have passed away,but we keep the show alive through our mailing list.

The Internet allows you to . . . keep in touch with those old TV shows. Incyberspace they never die.



14/21


15/21


I write reviews of my favorite TV show (The X-Files) and post them on mywebpage. Ive had over 10,000 hits to my reviews page so far, and manypeople email me to continue discussions about points Ive raised.

Fan-created web sites have a strong following and play a major part inonline fandom.

When I first made my website for my favorite TV program, I found thatpeople really enjoyed it, and when I dont update it for awhile, people emailme and ask why, so now I feel kind of obligated to keep up with things.

At the highest end of activity are those who use the internet as an inter-active tool to participate in some sense with what they see as their

program. They get online with the hope that they will get feedback fromtheir favorite actor and are successful sometimes; they may eventuallyeven get a chance to meet the star.

I learned that our favorite actor, Kevin Sorbo of Hercules: The LegendaryJourneys was going to be in Minneapolis, so we planned our family vaca-tion to coincide with his appearance. We got to meet him, he held mydaughter on his lap several times and he has written to us.

I correspond by letter mail every week with two of my favorite actors on the

show, and I write to the producer every week. Because of the online connec-tion with friends, and my letter writing, Ive had the privilege of getting toknow my favorite actors, even though I live 2300 miles away from Hollywood.

Others are less interested in being a mere fan and more interested in hav-ing an influence over the program. They hope that producers and writerswill read their comments and respond. Occasionally, members of the cre-ative team, such as the producer of Babylon 5, joined them online for a dis-cussion. But even if their comments did not get an immediate response,

they felt their sites were being monitored, and they perceived changes inthe programs direction as a reaction to their criticism and suggestions.

While this kind of direct influence on a series was rare, fans whobelieved it was possible certainly did not see themselves as powerlessvictims of a Hollywood production machine. Rather, they see themselvesas an audience that at least occasionally can exert influence over the cre-ators of their programs, and therefore, to a limited extent, they are a partof the creative team.

I got involved with other fans on the Internet because we were all mutuallyangry that our favorite character had been killed off. We used the Internetto vent our anger and as a communication tool to protest to the producers.

The executive producer from DM [Diagnosis Murder] is on the list with us,receiving feedback and giving us information. . . . Having the opportunity



16/21


to influence the storyline a bit by our instant feedback is exciting. This is theclosest thing to interactive TV watching an adult can experience.

A big part of the online information and discussions about a televisionprogram that makes it interesting is when the people involved with creat-ing the television show are involved online, particularly the writers.

The ultimate power of internet fandom is in controlling the actual lifeand death of a series. For fans of a show, that power is usually in thehands of a network executive or, for a syndicated series, a productioncompany. Online fans believe they can prevent the cancellation of aprogram or even resurrect it after the decision has been made to end it. In

the world before the internet, dedicated fans had organized mail cam-paigns and known some success, but online fans can move more quickly,organize more people, and generally be more effective.

Usually, the effort to save a show was reported unsuccessful, but again,the fact that members of the audience see themselves as potentially pow-erful enough to influence executive decisions is a direct contradiction tothe image of the passive audience, a victim of network whims and greed.Even when efforts fail, fans can be made more knowledgeable about therealities of the television industry.

I am part of a group of people who have brought their favorite show backbecause we all talked to each other and banded together when the networkcancelled it. If we had not been talking together in the beginning we nevercould have rallied so quickly nor would we have been so successful with-out our net access to each other.

[Because of our campaign to bring back a show,] I have also learned greatlyabout the politics of television, that the advertisers, not the viewers, deter-mine the programming, and that our opinions and viewing preferences

mean little or nothing to the networks.[Asuccessful campaign to save a program] was one of the most gratifying thingsI have ever done, getting a network to recognize the fans and their feelings.

For the first time in history, there is a vehicle that makes it easy for thou-sands of fans all over the world to band together against the previousomnipotence of television executives. It was very exciting to be part of itand to see it work, proving that there is strength in unity.

Discussion

We asked the questions, What does an active viewer do? And whatrole, if any, does the internet play in creating and fostering active viewersor fans? Our assumption was that everyone who participated in an onlineactivity involving a television series was, in some sense, active; that is,they were going above and beyond the simple act of viewing television.



17/21

It has been suggested that audience activity occurs when fans movefrom the role of consumer to that of producer (McKee 2004, 169; Hills

2002, 29). The powerless become powerful when they mimic and extendthe craft traditionally reserved for producers of the original text. In thisstudy, cultural production was manifested in numerous ways. Onlinefans regularly meet to share, debrief, and in other ways interact with theprogram narrative. These consumers have positioned themselves as theultimate stake holders and surreptitious owners (Bielby, Harrington,and Bielby, 1999) of their favorite cultural objects, and as cultural out-laws, they are producing individual and collective interpretations of thetext uncompelled by the dominant modes of reception imposed on view-

ers by program creators. However, activity is not limited to the intangibleproducts of reshaping narrative interpretations. Online fans also manu-facture tangible assets such as web sites, communication forums andListservs, fanzines, advocacy campaigns, fan fictions, reviews, and more.

We know that audience activity is mediated by a complex host of char-acteristics associated with program narratives and patterns of consump-tion. Participants who are very involved in certain online activities relatedto a favorite program are willfully absent from, or disinterested in, otherfandom-related pursuits. This supports the general concept of audience

activity as a variable state as opposed to an absolute condition. To restate itaxiomatically, different members of the audience . . . display differingtypes and amounts of activity in different communication settings . . . at dif-ferent times in the communication sequence (Levy 1983, 114). While somefans are content to use the internet simply as a tool for acquiring informa-tion, others thrive more on the potential for socialization and interpersonalcommunication. In the same way, where certain programs tend naturally toimpel viewers to the internet for supplemental enjoyment of the programnarrative, others are less successful in cultivating online fan activity. This is

certainly an area that needs to be studied with more attention.The online fans in this study characterized themselves as carefullychoosing the few programs to which they were loyal. Series with storyarcs over several episodes, challenging themes, and interesting character-ization were preferred. Respondents were drawn to what they perceivedas intellectually stimulating content. This proclivity may be partiallyexplained by the typical profile of internet audiences: online fans, in par-ticular, are not disempowered radical outsiders butlike Net users ingenerala demographic that is predominantly white, middle-class, tech-

nology literate and educated (Gwenllian-Jones 2002, 178).Most researchers have assumed that an active audience would be amore powerful one (although how that power would be used is rarelydelineated). Online fans on the lower end of the activity continuum areostensibly indifferent about influencing the direction of a program or




18/21


19/21


Notes

1. The complete lists of programs and program newsgroups are located inAppendix A and Appendix D of the primary authors dissertation. The dissertationis available online (PDF format only) at http://idserver.utk.edu/?id=200300000001534.Given the vast number of fan sites and the impossibility of random selection, thenumber of chosen sites was limited to 806 after determining that each programwas sufficiently represented in the sample.

2. A printed version of the online survey instrument can be found in AppendixE of the primary authors dissertation (see link in note 1). The current study is lim-ited to an analysis of the textual responses to the single qualitative item that wasincluded near the end of the survey.

References

Ailor, Martin. 1988. Relocating the site of the audience. Critical Studies in MassCommunication 5 (3): 21733.

Ang, Ien. 1991. Desperately seeking the audience. New York: Routledge., ed. 1995. Living room wars: Rethinking media audience for a postmodern world.

New York: Routledge.Baym, Nancy. 1997. Interpreting soap operas and creating community: Inside an

electronic fan culture. In The culture of the internet, edited by S. Kiesler, 10320.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

. 2000. Tune in, log on: Soaps, fandom, and online community. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Bielby, Dennis, C. Lee Harrington, and William Bielby. 1999. Whose stories are they?Fans engagement with soap opera narratives in three sites of fan activity.Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 43 (1): 3551.

Carragee, Kevin. 1990. Interpretive media study and interpretive social science.Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 (2): 8196.

Costello, Victor J. 1999. Interactivity and the cyber-fan: An exploration of audience

involvement within the electronic fan culture of the internet. Ph.D. diss.,University of Tennessee, Knoxville. http://idserver.utk.edu/?id=20030000000153.

Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communi-ties. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fiske, John. 1987. Television culture. London: Methuen.. 1988. Critical response: Meaningful moments. Critical Studies in Mass

Communication 5 (3): 24650.. 1989. Moments of television: Neither the text nor the audience. In Remote

control: Television, audiences, and cultural power, edited by E. Seiter, H. Borchers,G. Kreutzner, and E. Warth, 5678. New York: Routledge.

Gwenllian-Jones, Sara. 2002. Phantom menace: Killer fans, consumer activism anddigital filmmakers. In Underground USA, edited by X. Mendik and L. Kaufman,16979. London: Wallflower Press.



20/21


Gray, Ann. 1999. Audience and reception research in retrospect: The trouble withaudiences. In Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda, edited by PerttiAlasuutari, 2237. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, Stuart. 1980. Encoding/decoding. In Culture, media, language: Working papersin cultural studies, edited by S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, A. Willis, and P. Willis,197279. London: Hutchinson.

Harrington, C. Lee, and Denise D. Bielby. 1995. Soap fans: Pursuing pleasure andmaking meaning in everyday life. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Hills, Matt. 2002. Fan cultures. London: Routledge.Holub, Robert C. 1984. Reception theory: A critical introduction. New York:

Routledge.Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The act of reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jenkins, Henry. 1988. Star Trek rerun, reread, rewritten: Fan writing as textualpoaching. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5 (2): 85107.Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory culture.

New York: Routledge.Jenson, Joli. 1992. Fandom as pathology. In The adoring audience: Fan culture and

popular media, edited by L. A. Lewis, 929. London: Routledge.Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. 1974. Utilization of mass com-

munication by the individual. In The uses of mass communications, edited by JayG. Blumler and Elihu Katz, 1932. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Levy, M. R. 1983. Conceptualizing and measuring aspects of audience activity.

Journalism Quarterly 60 (1): 10915.Liebes, Tamar. 1988. Cultural differences in the retelling of television fiction.

Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5 (4): 27792.Lindlof, Thomas R. 1988. Media audiences as interpretive communities. In

Communication yearbook, edited by J. Anderson, vol. 3, 81107. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Livingstone, Sonia. 1992. Audience reception: The role of the viewer in retellingromantic drama. InMass media and society, edited by J. Curran and M. Gurevitch,285306. New York: Edward Arnold.

. 1993. The rise and fall of audience research: An old story with a new end-

ing.Journal of Communication 43 (4): 512.Lull, James. 1990. Inside family viewing: Ethnographic research on televisions audi-

ences. New York: Routledge.McKee, Alan. 2004. How to tell the difference between production and consump-

tion: A case study in Doctor Who fandom. In Cult television, edited byS. Gwenllian-Jones and R. E. Pearson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McQuail, Dennis. 1997.Audience analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Morley, David. 1980. The nationwide audience. London: British Film Institute.. 1989. Changing paradigms in audience studies. In Remote control:

Television, audiences, and cultural power, edited by E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner,

and E. Warth, 1643. New York: Routledge.. 1993. Television audiences and cultural studies. London: Routledge.Schroeder, Kim Christian. 1999. The best of both worlds? Media audience research

between rival paradigms. In Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda,edited by Pertti Alasuutari, 3868. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



21/21

Suleiman, Susan. 1980. Introduction: Varieties of audience-oriented criticism. InThe reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation, edited by S. Suleimanand I. Crosman, 345. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tulloch, John, and Henry Jenkins. 1995. Science fiction audiences: Watching DoctorWho and Star Trek. New York: Routledge.

Webster, James G., and Patricia F. Phalen. 1997. The mass audience: Rediscovering thedominant model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wicks, Robert H. 2001. Understanding audiences: Learning to use media constructively.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Victor Costello (PhD, University of Tennessee, 1999) is an associate professor in theSchool of Communications at Elon University in North Carolina. His researchinterests are in new media and convergence.

Barbara Moore (PhD, Ohio University, 1979) is a professor in journalism and elec-tronic media at the University of Tennessee. She has written about the history ofbroadcast programming and is working on a text on the topic.


Cultural Outlaws

Documents

Transcript of Cultural Outlaws