Europa in multicolour Constructing Transnational Identities with Pan-European Broadcasting Services

European audiences collectively taking part in the consumption of Pan-European media, it has been one of the visions of European leaders since the dawn of the European Union. However, history shows that reaching consensus about transnational broadcasting is a difficult thing to achieve. Are shared newspapers, radio stations or TV channels simply too idealistic? Are cultural and linguistic barriers too difficult to overcome? In this essay we will look at transnational television in Europe in the context of globalization, through an analysis of developments of Pan-European broadcasting services in the past decades. We will conclude with the commercial and regulatory factors that enabled these developments and the challenges that arise in the makings of transnational broadcasting.

Until the 1980s, television broadcasting in Europe had a strong territorial and national basis. In many cases, such as France, there was a state monopoly on broadcasting. The combined processes of decentralisation and transnationalization have led to the emergence of publicly funded television channels reaching audiences across borders. Furthermore, due to deregulation and the growth of global media giants since the 1990s, European audiences are increasingly united in a collective media landscape.[1]

From the early 1980s, the European Commission and Parliament made a series of attempts to set up a pan-European multilingual television channel in order to provide the audience with non-national programs. The goal was to promote a European identity in audiences and consolidate popular support for European integration. However, all of those attempts, such as Eurikon and Europa TV, had little success and that is because of the resistance they encountered in some national governments or the preference of the audience for local and national programs. This shows the difficulties in promoting a cultural model different from their respective national context to mass audiences and the challenges in building a shared identity among Europeans.

The first experiment in pan-European television was created in 1982 with Eurikon. The initiative was set up by the European Broadcasting Union, with the participation of 15 European broadcasters. However only 5 of the participating broadcaster provided programs (Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and the U.K.). Eurikon was never meant to become a 'real' channel and its aim was to test the waters for a permanent pan-European television channel in the future.[2]

After three years the first public pan-European channel was finally born: Europa TV. Its purpose was to reach Europe not only geographically but also in its programming content, and “was carefully structured to avoid the dominance of any single national group” and a “non-national perspective was encouraged by all available means”.[2] The channel was financed by the European Commission, the Dutch government, the participating broadcast organizations and through advertising revenues. However, despite the excellent premises, the attempt failed. The main reason behind its lack of success was of financial nature. The intention to assign Europa TV a slightly higher funding than domestic public broadcasters was unrealistic and led to a decrease in quality and the resulting lack of appeal to its audience. Even its effort to attract potential advertisers by offering commercial slots free of charge led to nothing.

Most of these transnational channels aim at a particular population or ethnicity, such as the global and political channels BBC World, CNN International or Euronews.[3] Other channels aim at the global economy, like Bloomberg or CNBC-Europe. Significantly, most of the channels mentioned here are private: CNN is a branch of Time Warner; Bloomberg is the financial information multinational; CNBC merged with Dow Jones in 1995; BBC World is commercially funded, although linked to the national public television.[4] The opening up of global markets, enabled by institutional and technological changes that conquered the world in the 1990’s had a transformative impact on the communication and media sector.[5] Other examples of commercial success stories of an audience reaching across Europe, are MTV and Disney Channel. From the beginning of the 1990’s international channels started developing steadily and growing in number. Nowadays, about 15 are well known, either to their wide distribution or the nature of their content.

A special place is assigned to the publically funded channel Euronews, the first multilingual Pan-European news channel. At this moment it broadcasts in 13 languages. It was launched on the 1st of January in 1993 and was financed by a consortium of European public broadcasters and the EU. In recent years the funds allocated by the UE to the channel were constantly increased, and that shows. Next to the news broadcasted 24/7, viewers are also able to watch programs, such as Futuris or Innovation, that could be mistaken for normal news reports. In the case of Euronews we are looking at a commercial company, however masked by legitimizing commissions of the EU with the purpose of ensuring a long-term coverage of European affairs from a European perspective. In short, they are trying to compensate for the lack of interest that the press has shown towards EU affairs.

Therefore, we have a clear diversity in the various channels coming either from the public or private stature that are involved in the construction of a transnational media-sphere. Success varies widely. The big private companies have means (both financial and personal) that public institutions and broadcasters can only dream of. Obviously, this can affect the quality of the content that is offered to audiences. The most popular international channels attract a specialized audience, reaching only a small part of European households. Even Euronews, going strong and being the only pan-European channel at the moment, is influenced by the main shareholders, thus becoming a less impartial and subjective channel.

For this reason Euronews is often subject of controversies, and consensus about content is often lacking. A final example of this given by the Russian involvement in the Euronews. Russia’s state television company VGTRK is one of the major stakeholders of Euronews, with about 16 percent in shares. The Russian party MP requested a ban on broadcasting of Euronews on Russian territory, after claiming that reports on the developments in the Ukraine and Vladimir Putin were biased and were inciting hatred. Euronews had repeatedly shown a group of Ukrainian military personnel that used a portrait of Putin resembling Adolf Hitler as a target for shooting practice.[6] The Russian party challenged the approach of Euronews and defied the distinctly West-European media culture. Unilateral information flows in transnational context lead to protests by the involved parties. Media, like all other areas of European economy, are vulnerable to (economic and cultural) monopolies. Transnational media, if not contested, can have a homogenising effect and can even be an assault on local identity. This shows that a European identity, through the shared experience of the media, is continuously negotiated.

As we have shown, Pan-European television channels can be distinguished by their content and funding strategy, either being commercially or publically funded. This relates to a global media landscape, which has been transformed due to deregulation and privatization of broadcasting. The succes of commercial and public broadcasting varies widely. Nonetheless, both commercial and public services can help provide intercultural exchanges between transnational audiences and therefore lead to the emergence of a Pan-European public sphere. The contestation of Pan-European broadcasting services shows how a collective identity has to be negotiated between involved parties. Therefore, we conclude that Pan-European broadcasting can help take the necessary steps on the path to a more united European demos.

Tweet: Is Pan-European TV to fail, or is it possible to broadcast a singular #Europe in accordance with multiple perspectives?

Initials:

A.D.

E.T.

J.M.D.O.M.

M.v.d.V

M.v.R

Notes: 

[1] J.K. Chalaby (2002), 'Transnational Television in Europe. The Role of Pan-European Channels', European Journal of Communication, 17:2, p. 184.

[2] Theiler Tobias (1999) 'Viewers into Europeans? How the European Union Tried to Europeanize the Audiovisual Sector, and Why it Failed. Canadian Journal of Communication. 24(4)

[2] Theiler Tobias (2005) Political Symbolism and European Integration. Manchester University Press.

[3] Vissol Thierry, « International and Pan-European News Channels: An overview. », Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique 4/2005 (Tome XLIV) , p. 53

[4] Chalaby (2002), p. 185.

[5] Thussu, Daya Kishan (2012) ‘Cultural Practices and Media Production’, in: Isabella Rigoni, Eugenie Saitta (eds), Mediating Cultural Diversity in a Globalised Public Space, New York: Palgrave Connect Media, p. 119.

[6] 'Euronews faces ban on Russian broadcasting over alleged hate report’ (15-9-2014) https://www.rt.com/politics/187808-euronews-russia-hate-ban/ (retrieved 12-6-2015).

Literature:

- Chalaby, J.K. (2002), ‘Transnational Television in Europe. The Role of Pan-European Channels’, European Journal of Communication, 17:2, p. 183-203.

- Thussu, Daya Kishan (2012) ‘Cultural Practices and Media Production’, in: Isabella Rigoni, Eugenie Saitta (eds), Mediating Cultural Diversity in a Globalised Public Space, New York: Palgrave Connect Media.

- ‘Euronews faces ban on Russian broadcasting over alleged hate report’ (15-9-2014) https://www.rt.com/politics/187808-euronews-russia-hate-ban/ (retrieved 12-6-2015).

- ‘Do we need pan-European Media? - Debating Europe’ (28-8-2012) http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2012/08/28/do-we-need-pan-european-media/#.VmQik4QvK9Y (retrieved 12-6-2015).

- Vissol Thierry, « International and Pan-European News Channels: An overview. », Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique 4/2005 (Tome XLIV) , p. 53-71

- Theiler Tobias (2005) Political Symbolism and European Integration. Manchester University Press.

- Theiler Tobias (1999) 'Viewers into Europeans? How the European Union Tried to Europeanize the Audiovisual Sector, and Why it Failed. Canadian Journal of Communication. 24(4)

We present to you the opposite of television: YouTube!

YouTube and television both take on a similar task: they try to attract the largest audience possible. In order to make sure that they attract the largest audience, they need to offer either information, entertainment, or a mixture of both in the form of infotainment. However, the mechanisms of organising content varies between these two media. Television channels are designing/buying certain transnational show formats in order to appeal to local audiences; an example of this are the numerous global adaptations of the Masterchef format. On the other hand YouTube lets its users upload the available video content.[1] YouTube distinguishes their programming by the number of ‘likes’ and the amount of times it’s been watched in order to measure its popularity. This also leads to innovation in how they generate profit by ‘buying’ certain videos/programmes. YouTube organises payment via sale of advertisement space, they keep a deal of the money and use the rest as payment for the uploader of the video.[2] YouTube also makes money by letting viewers pay to watch certain videos. Television makes profit by selling advertisement space during ‘commercial breaks’ and lets the channel organise the programming and the time schedules. Moreover, they use the distribution of technology, i.e. developments in the technoscape (for example ‘voting’ by call/text), in order to generate additional profit.[3] Thus, there are notable differences in the mechanisms behind organising payment. What are the functions of cooking shows on the internet compared to cooking shows on TV in relation to globalization? In this essay we will address this question by comparing the YouTube (food)vlog Munchies and the television program Masterchef Australia.

A initial remark has to be made in order to state why these examples are chosen. Of course, a deal of various television and YouTube programmes or channels are about food; yet these programmes show comparable elements in respective food programmes on YouTube and television. Munchies could be seen as a representation of digitally available food programmes on YouTube and Masterchef Australia as a representation of televised food programmes. Of course there are other programmes available, television programmes similar to Munchies and YouTube videos similar to Masterchef. There are a number of reasons to choose these programme. Firstly because of their widespread acclaim and the fandom of these programmes, but also because of the elements they share with other shows on YouTube and television. In spite of the programming being informative and educational, the primary reason for creating or watching these videos is entertainment. Therefore, the focus in this essay will not be placed on informative and educational qualities; it will primarily look at the entertainment-value of the respective programmes/videos.

The format of Masterchef Australia became a huge hit, since it was the first cook-off on television.[4] Contestants are chosen on the basis of them being a good chef and the need to prove that they engaged in continuous self-improvement throughout the program. This means that the show revolves around the notion of competition.[5] These elements of competition and self-improvement are situated in a central storyline not dissimilar to scripted entertainment and reality television.[6] The combination of individual contestants and an overarching format-based storyline is commonplace in most (popular) television shows today. A certain dichotomy becomes visible between television show, which usually revolve around receiving a prize, gaining success or at least improvement in the end. According to the program everyone but the winner is unsuccessful, or it will cost the contestant the prize.[7] Only a few ‘failed’ contestants are able to gain something from the show, for instance they receive attention or manage to create a career. It should be noted, that this is only a small fragment of the entire number of contestants. The objective of winning and the winner-takes-all mentality is clear in entertainment programmes; educational/informative programmes have other interests on both the television as well as YouTube.

YouTube has other priorities, with the primary aim of offering a platform for artists and celebrities with (newfound) fame, either via vlogs, music, instructional videos.This becomes clear in the example of the webseries Munchies. Artists are uploading their own videos; by which they simultaneously give approval to the company to spread and make use of these products. Some of these videos go viral, when the immediate and online availability leads to content being watched all across the world. This is a notable difference compared to television; televisions companies need to make sure that interested (broadcasting) companies will buy formats first. Producers or companies develop a format and try to make the format a success in one country. When it becomes successful other (global) companies are interested and thus it is possible for the program to gain worldwide popularity. Therefore the aim of television companies is both to create successful formats, as well as making it a success on television when buying such a format. For YouTube the uploaders want to profit from the YouTube paying system; therefore they try to come up with clever formats to gain as much views as possible. Munchies has created a new type of ‘YouTube-format’, it is a cooking program but focuses on different cultures and food traditions across the world. Episodes in the webseries are hosted by local cooks, which introduces the audience with the crafts and knowledge behind cooking traditions of local lifestyles. The element of competition is absent in the program; it aims to show audiences what is available in the world. It steps away from the ritualized and repetitive labour of cooking.[8] At the same time it does not have any narrative suspense, but tries to elaborate on different food traditions in a global field. Although episodes are aimed to entertain, they at the same time incorporate educational knowledge in the episodes. One of the most popular videos is that of the diet of a strongman. The video explains the daily life and eating rituals of the strongman, high performance athletes with a diet over 20,000 calories. Yet, while videos made by Munchies may receive many views, it is not nearly as popular as Masterchef (Australia).

Although Masterchef and Munchies are both cooking programmes, there are numerable differences between the two shows. Masterchef tries to stimulate the gastro-world of culinary restaurants where criticism is praised; the competitive programme is thus placed within the culture of aspiration.[9] The culture of aspiration means that the contestants are trying to better themselves throughout the program and are able to eventually win the prize. It is the constant striving for becoming or being the best. Television programs such as Masterchef Australia create linguistic incongruity between the contestants as well, it is the ‘biggest challenge yet’ ‘the best dish so far’ etcetera.[10] A lot of superlatives are being used in their programming. The key word in the competition is ‘challenge’’; it is thus creating space between what the contestants have already done and what they still need to do in order to remain in the competition. Look for instance at the first minute of the summary of the episode. 

Whereas Munchies have a more laidback approach, it usually starts in media res. The layout of the different format is changed to fit into the profile of what the audience of the medium wants. People who are watching television want to be on the edge of their seat , whereas on YouTube it is easier to start a new video if you do not like it. It is also possible for television to easily switch, but since it is a competition, it is less compelling to do so. The viewer is interested in who is going to win, perhaps trying to make sure that his/her own judgement is correct. This means that although it might seem that YouTube and television might want the same thing, gain as many views as possible, they use different strategies. The video uploaders try to sell their story, keeping it interesting for them to remain watching. Whereas television tries to get the audience come into grip with the competition to be interested in who is going to win. Especially the skill competition, is the most popular reality format of the world. Meaning that there is a set of rules built around a premise that is produced locally. These set of rules are forming a liberal policy regime, meaning that there is a clear objective with a certain set of rules and that only the best can win.The format is a consideration of food culture as popular culture. Whereby the TV competition serves as spectacle and value, with the role of repetition and recombination. The strength of these programmes lies within the conversation with cultural forces and preoccupations, to make sure that it becomes a global success.

This means that both mediums are both dependent of liberal policy regimes.[11] Because of digitalization the choices are endless to watch; available content has amplificated because of the internet. After the liberalization of national policies, broadcasting companies know that higher audience share demands new and creative programming.[12] Thus, both are dependent of models of view rates. For both YouTube and television it is interesting that the companies or broadcasters only pay for the videos which receive a certain degree of success. For YouTube this success lies in the number of views and likes, for television on the success of the format (elsewhere). Television focuses on buying successful (global) formats. For both these mediums intellectual property rights are of great importance, since this means that the format which the show/video is presented to them either has to be following the same structure or is in an adaptable and repeatable format.[13] Although the methodologies in the mediums are varying, they still held the basic rule namely that the show which attracts the most viewers is the most successful. The television format which is perceived to be a success, since it a new formula or it combines certain other success formulas, will usually be aired. When it has become a success in one country, the format is adjusted to the culture of the audience. This means that the format is only slightly adjusted, the key components which made the television show an original success need to be available. There is to a certain extend a re-made version of the format, only adapted to the view of the audience. Yet the way they try to achieve this success does vary between YouTube and television, for instance if they aim to add informational pieces or make it about entertainment in general. An example of this would be the contrast between cooking programmes on YouTube and on television The selling and spreading of formats of programs in television is a multibillion dollar industry.[14] With the coming of YouTube the uploading of videos for online viewing has also become a billion dollar industry. Uploading a successful video leads to the rise in advertising sales for YouTube, thus more money. For television the billion dollars are between televisions channels, who are selling formats and advertisement space.

Thus there is difference visible between YouTube and television in the means of organising the content made for watching. Where television is trying to attract the audience by having a similar format in various countries, YouTube tries to attract the audience by having a global network. The mechanisms of the payment between television and YouTube vary yet at the same time use the same strategies and oppositions. Perhaps YouTube can be seen as a new type of television, which has gained freedom from the format industry. However, the differences noticeable are mechanisms behind the mediums but the content they show. Television is usually based on competition, whereas YouTube tries to upload unique viewing content.  Although exceptions can be made to various other cooking programs on YouTube and on televisions: there are certain elements visible on television programs and certain elements in YouTube which are difficult to find elsewhere. For instance the ‘winner takes it all’ mentality within the medium of television and the ‘globalized’ viewing experience for YouTube users. Another example would be the language used. A YouTube uploader mostly uses normal ‘everyday’ language, to connect to the ‘average’ audience. In television mostly the emphasis would be on ‘superlative’ words as well as words such as challenge, success, wanting in television. With this type of choice of language, a dichotomy is created. As television would announce YouTube: we present to you the opposite of television, YouTube!

Initials:

A.D.

E.T.

J.M.D.O.M.

M.v.d.V

M.v.R

Tweet: Differences between YouTube and Television are visible in strategies, (selling) mechanisms and content #Munchies #MasterchefAustralia

Bibliography

Andrew Beattie (2015), ‘How Youtube Makes Money’ via                                                     http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/053015/how-youtube-makes-money- videos.asp (accessed on 14-11-2015).

Chalaby, J.K. (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade   became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011.         

Meizel, K. (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.        

Oren, T. (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in:         Critical Studies in Television 8 (2).

---

[1] Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 294.

[2] Andrew Beattie (2015), ‘How Youtube Makes Money’ via http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/053015/how-youtube-makes-money-videos.asp (accessed on 14-11-2015).

[3] Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 206.

[4] Tasha Oren (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in: Critical Studies in Television 8 (2), pp. 28.

[5] Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 294.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 197.

[8] Tasha Oren (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in: Critical Studies in Television 8 (2), pp. 28.

[9] Ibid, pp. 31-32.

[10] Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 197.

[11] Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 304.

[12] Ibid, pp. 304.

[13] Ibid, pp. 305.

[14] Ibid, pp.294.

The Digital Archipelago

The World According to Tumblr Audiences

Do you live your life more offline or online? Let start with your smartphone: which social media apps do you own? There is a big chance you see Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest and/or Tumblr. How many hours a day do you spent using these apps? According to the British Newspaper “The Telegraph” the average person has five social media accounts and spends about 1 hour and 40 minutes browsing these networks per day.[1]

       Today’s youth can’t deny that these social media apps have become a big part of their life and identity. Whether you are at a concert, eating a delicious meal or just drinking a cup of coffee: the whole worlds needs to be informed. It is our own decision if we use the GPS system on our mobile device, what we post and share online, nonetheless our lives can be traced because of the information we continuously share. This is an example of what the researcher Shayla Thiel-Stern covers in her article ‘Beyond the Active Audience, Exploring New Media Audiences and the Limits of Cultural Production’. She states that ‘“The audience is more aware than ever that it has an audience”. Every picture and post on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram is made to gain likes, constructed to be re-shared and thus receive attention. [2] People make their own content, which is the perfect example of the rise of the active audience / the amateur; a website where this aspect is featured is Tumblr.

        This website was founded in 2007 and became one of the biggest blogsites of the world. On this site people can ‘anonymously’ create their own unique blog, in which they are in full control of how it will look like, they decide the layout but also the content. Users can create content themselves and reblog pictures/text post or audio fragments from other blogs. In this way the members of Tumblr are simultaneously an audience and a creator, and maybe even an audience of an audience.[3] After a few reblogs, the original maker does not play a part in the content anymore, hence the audience is now an audience of an audience.

Still the Tumblr users only reblogs posts that are part of the identity he/she wants to show to its audience. In modern days, the internet is barely a medium where someone can stay anonymous. It is an extension of the identity and, by using this notion, the internet has been individualized. Nonetheless the different social media platforms handle this notion differently. For example, on Instagram the user can only show its identity through photos, whereas Facebook and Twitter can also show posts consisting textual content. These platforms let the user only change the content, but not the HTML codes. Tumblr in contrast does let the users change the html codes. When someone's owns a blog on Tumblr, the user can go to the CMS system and change the HTML setting to its own preferences. This platform also differs from the other social media, because one can choose to stay anonymous. Or well much more than on Facebook or Twitter.

This anonymity gives people the chance to experiment with cultural content and the way in which it is presented to the audience. Paradoxically, Tumblr can give a better portrait of someone's identity than Twitter or Facebook are able to do. Not only because it gives the users the possibility to change every element on their blog to personal preferences, but also because it gives the users the chance to come in contact with anonymous foreign users. Because of this aspect they can learn from each other and combine their cultural background to shape their identity. This is striking for the modern internet era, where the user is not passive, but interferes in the world of the internet. Shayla Thiel-Stern called this Audience 2.0. The modern internet user has become more aware of their own role in this medium and of the audience. [4]

In this blog were are going to take a closer look on how the audience of Tumblr fits into the notion of Audience 2.0 and web 2.0, by looking at the media itself and the prosumers it attracts. The reason why we emphasize on Tumblr is because it has a very interesting structure, which can be seen in the “world map” below.

This map shows several isolated islands, only a few are connected by a bridge. The Islands are subdivided by specific interests; together they form a digital archipelago. The most famous island of Tumblr is the Fandom territory. In this community of Tumblr the audience is free to “fangirl/boy” (a human being who is obsessed with a fictional character or actor) about a “ship” (preferable romantic relationship between characters or real life persons) and at the same time are able to find a large audience for their fanfiction. Tumblr has several of these islands, like the ‘hipster island’, ‘porn island’ and ‘food island’. Moreover there is an island devoted to ‘pride’, where people from the LGBT community can find support. Tumblr functions as a platform where everyone can find their niche, but at the same time functions as a place where taboos and social problems can be discussed. Most of these social issues have an American origin, an example is the total black-out during the race riots at the beginning of 2015. During this black-out every Tumblr member of the black community posted a selfie. And even though in other countries this problem is not as dominant as in America, it makes people (re)think and at the same time it brings people together as one community. Even though the users have a different cultural background or are from different fandoms.

To take a closer look at the social media of Tumblr the chapters from the book ‘The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies’ are used, these chapters are ‘Nomadic Scholarship, Translocal Approach to Audience Studies’ (by Fabienne Darling-Wolf), ‘Beyond the Active Audience, Exploring New Media Audiences and the Limits of Cultural Production’ (by Shayla Thiel-Stern) and ‘From Audiences to Media Subjectivities, Mutants in the Interregnum’ (by Jack Bratich). In these chapters the authors discuss concepts like individuality, identity and translocalism, which can all be applied to the audience 2.0, i.e. the audience of Tumblr.

A lot of changes are visible since the beginning of the internet. As Thiel-Stern mentioned in her article, in the beginning the audience was passive. In 1993 the New York Times joked that you could be a dog without anyone noticing it. Nowadays there is a very small change you can get away with being a dog on the internet. [5]

When you are on Facebook, or other social media, people are able to trace you. People are able to find various information about you on google search; people can see what you do for a living (LinkedIn), where you favourite bar is located (Facebook), the view you have right now (Instagram) and what your opinion is about a particular subject (Twitter). Except if you have changed the privacy settings on these accounts. Thus a lot of information can be traced back in your online history. The internet has become an extension of the non-digital life: it can become as individualized as you want it to be. Even though you are part of the public, on the internet you can distinguish yourself online. On Tumblr you can distinguish yourself without showing the personal information.

     This notion of identity is getting more important, because the audience is increasing because of globalization. The world is getting smaller since the internet is expanding. In our day and age, we all have complex, transnational identities and by means of a counter reaction the need for makers of local identity spreads accordingly. The media landscape is globalizing, therefore people feel the need to emphasize their local identities within this global movement. At the same time they also emphasize their global self. [6] This also influences the way the audience uses Tumblr. Users can generate content from their own cultural backgrounds, to enable transcultural communication and identification.[7] Therefore Tumblr can help in denaturalizing normalized identities and even question patriarchal hegemonic structures and enable resistance because of its creative potential. Or as Bratich puts it, “Collective bodies have constituent power” (power from within, emancipatory power). [8] In the beginning the audience signified an expansion of participation while still cross-crossed by exclusions and hierarchies. User-participation that’s based in particularistic local backgrounds and interests, can challenge the formation of a unifiying global culture. However, this challenge is dissolved by the formation hybrid identity. [9] The Tumblr world is not a homogenous global culture, but identities from different cultural environments come together. According to Fabienne Darling-Wolf every culture you belong to is part of your identity. [10] Thereby local environments significantly shape the way you see others and experience the world. Developing a translocal perspective requires you to learn to identify and negotiate this local context cultural assumptions. So Tumblr is the ultimate platform for expressing the complex and translocal elements of our identities. It brings people together, by expressing who we are and how we differ from each other.

Is Tumblr as free as it claim to be? The user is able to create your own blog and content, and is in charge of which other blogs to follow. Jack Bratich states in his chapter, that self-possession is a fantasy. This notion can be applied to the users of Tumblr as well, because they are not as free as expected, but they enter “a space determined by codes, apparatuses, programs and pathways.” [11] Apart from the habitus/discourse which the audience of Tumblr is already part of, they are also restricted by the medium. In this case the Internet / Tumblr. It is impossible to trigger every sense, for instance the sense of smell could not be triggered. Tumblr only triggers sight and hearing, by which the user is restricted in its creation. He or she can’t add a smell to a picture or show how soft that puppy is. Moreover, Bratich also claims that every media subject is “raced, gendered and sexualized”. [12] Although Tumblr could be an exception on this notion, because the content is fully in hands of the user itself. So the race and gendered aspect should be in accordance depending on the race and gender of the user. If stereotypical examples are used: girls would post more romantic pictures on a pink background than boys who would make blogs about cars on a blue background.

Although the structure of Tumblr is based on isolated islands, maybe Tumblr is itself an isolated island in the social media world where only a few bridges can let you enter this world. Tumblr does not differ from other social media platforms since these platforms let you create your own content, but it does differentiate itself by unifying a community of strangers. It can be said that the audience is more than an active audience. Mostly because the audience of Tumblr consist out of Fans. According to Bratich, this group does not only create a community, they create a world. “Fandoms require an individual’s decoding power but is defined via the ensuing intersubjective and communicative practice.”[13] Which can be referred to as an interregnum. To this interregnum belongs the remixed media, prosumers, interactivity and identification and individuation,[14] which summarizes the core of Tumblr. The audience is a prosumer, they are interactive because they are able to create their own perfect blog to their own standards, which serves as a means for identification.

The web 2.0 and the audience 2.0 seem to have found each other in the medium Tumblr. Since the rise of the internet, the world is getting smaller and thus identities are getting hybridized. At the same time this medium is able to regain identity, for instance by using Social Media. With most social media, the user is bound to the restrictions of the medium. Users can only personalize the content and are also bound by the restrictions of the outside world. The users have become aware of the audience, because they personally know their audience. In this way Tumblr is different from Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, because it tries to differentiate itself by letting the user as free as possible, without the obligation of sharing personal information. Maybe because of this notion, there is no better way to show your identity than to do it anonymous.

Thesis: On Tumblr you can still be a dog. #anonymity #identity #web2.0

Initials:

A.D.

E.T.

J.M.D.O.M.

M.v.d.V

M.v.R

[1] Davidson, L. (2015) ‘Is your daily social media usage higher than average’, in: Media and Telecoms.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/116110959/Is-your-daily-social-media-usage-higher-than-average.html (13-11-2015)

[2] Thiel-Stern,S.(2013) ‘Beyond the Active Audience, Exploring New Media Audiences and the Limits of Cultural Productions”, in: Parameswaran, R. (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell.p.7.

[3] Idem:14.

[4] Idem:7.

[5] Idem:4.

[6] Darling-Wolf, F. (2013) ‘Nomadic Scholarship: Translocal Approaches to Audience Studies’, in: Parameswaran, R. (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation.Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell.p.2.

[7] Ibidem.

[8] Bratich, J.Z. (2013) ‘From Audiences to Media Subjectivities: Mutants in the Interregnum’, in: Parameswaran, R. (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell.p.8.

[9] Darling-Wolf,F. (2013) ‘Nomadic Scholarship: Translocal Approaches to Audience Studies’, in: Parameswaran, R. (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell. p.16.

[10] Idem:9.

[11] Bratich, J.Z. (2013) ‘From Audiences to Media Subjectivities: Mutants in the Interregnum’, in: Parameswaran, R. (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester:Whiley-Blackwell.p.15.

[12] Idem:16.

[13] Idem:18.

[14] Idem:20.