Transforming Liveness: Coverage of the World Cup in the Multi-Platform Era

Transforming Liveness: Coverage of the

World Cup in the Multi-Platform Era

Student: Daniël Fransman

Email: Dani_F@live.nl

Student ID: 6060196

Supervisor: Sebastian Scholz

Second Reader: Anne Kustritz

Master Thesis

Television and Cross Media Culture

University of Amsterdam

Abstract

Television’s history is a history of change and forced the medium in to a process

of constant transformation. In times where television and digital media are

converging, new methods of watching television emerge. Television’s transition

from the network era to the post-network era influenced its main characteristics.

Liveness, defined as one of its most important characteristics needs to be taken in

to reconsideration at the moment digital technologies are threatening to separate

liveness from television. As a respond to online possibilities, television networks

create innovative alternatives by extending content on facilitated platforms. These

platforms are adapting to the increased need of individual online participation.

During the 2014 Football World Cup in Brazil, the Dutch public broadcaster NOS

launched two platforms in order to create an extended experience for the television

viewers. This experience is highly influenced by the role of liveness. At the

moment traditional coverage of the match Spain-Netherlands is complemented by

the online experience, a new notion of liveness emerges: a shared liveness.

Keywords

Liveness, Multi-platform Television, Transformation, Mediasport, Media Events

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

I

NTRODUCTION

... 4

P

ART

I:

T

HEORETICAL

F

RAMEWORK

:

C

HAPTER

1-3... 6

1

T

RANSFORMATION INTO

C

ONTEMPORARY

T

ELEVISION

... 6

1.1 Transformation and Experimentation ... 7

1.2 Early Television, Network Era, Multi-Channel Transition ... 9

1.3 Convergence in Post-Network/Digital Era ... 11

1.4 Liveness and Contemporary Television ... 14

2

D

EBATE

A

ROUND

L

IVENESS

:

T

ELEVISION

S

PECIFICITY VS

N

EW

M

EDIA

’

S

E

XPANSES

... 16

2.1 What is liveness? ... 16

2.2 Liveness: Differentia Specifica ... 19

2.3 Liveness Drifting Away From Television? ... 21

2.4 Beyond the Debate ... 23

3

M

ULTI

-P

LATFORM

T

ELEVISION

,

S

PORT AND

L

IVENESS

... 25

3.1 Mediasport and Liveness ... 26

3.2 Sport Television in a Multi-Platform Era ... 28

3.3 Types of Multiple Platform Television: Second-Screens, Twitter and (Shared) Liveness ... 30

P

ART

II:

C

ASE

S

TUDY

... 33

4

L

IVENESS DURING

W

ORLD

C

UP

M

ULTI

-P

LATFORM

T

ELEVISION

... 34

4.1 Methodology and Corpus ... 34

4.2 Liveness during Traditional NOS Coverage of Spain vs the Netherlands ... 35

4.3 Liveness and NOS Multi-Platform Television during the World Cup ... 38

4.3.1 Technological and Aesthetic Dimension of Liveness ... 39

4.3.2 Social Dimension: Twitter and Shared Liveness ... 42

C

ONCLUSION

... 45

W

ORKS

C

ITED

... 47

Introduction

For the second time in history Brazil has won the race for hosting the World Cup in 2014. The World Cup is an international football tournament wherein 32 countries compete to become world champion. From June 12th until July 13th, Brazil will be the middle point of the world. Fans and football fanatics from all over the world travel to Brazil in order to support their national teams. In “football-countries” as the Netherlands, all media focus on the performance of the national squads. Far ahead of the start of the event newspapers, magazines, television shows and the Internet are flooded with advertisements and gossip talk related to the World Cup. For that reason, the World Cup can be defined as a “media-event (Dayan & Katz).” In the Netherlands millions of people watch live-coverage whenever the national team is playing. Lots of people break with their daily rituals and dress up collectively in orange to watch the matches of the “Dutch lions.” Nowadays television is still the most important mediator for live-events, but new technologies are bringing new ways of experiencing the World Cup.

In the early days of television, viewers were forced to watch broadcasts at the same time as an event occurred. At that moment, live-television was the only way of broadcasting that the medium was capable of. Later on new programming forms were developed, but television remained deeply influenced by its possibility of live transmission (Bourdon). This influence of live transmission is visible when television attempts to create a “sense of being there.” When a sense of being there is successfully created it means a connection exists between the place where an event occurs and the place where this event is watched. In terms of the World Cup, television broadcasters simulate a real stadium experience for their viewers. Live-coverage of football matches are constructions or simulations of reality, because television broadcasters control the mediation and construct the viewing experience (Funk, Gross & Huber). One of television’s essential characteristics which attempt to assert this feeling of immediacy and reality is defined as “liveness”.

Today, television has lost its monopoly on live-screen transmission. Online technologies such as second-screens and mobile applications are offering an alternative to television’s live broadcasts. They provide platforms for online text commentaries, live-streams and Twitter; all accessible at the same time as an event occurs. As online platforms are expanding, new forms of liveness emerge. These developments have an impact on the meaning of liveness and make it necessary to reconsider television’s concept of liveness. To be able to make a relevant and applicable reconsideration of the liveness-concept a framework for discussion on television in a theoretical perspective will be defined. Multi-platform television is not the result of a revolution that came out of nowhere. Rather it is the result of its characteristic to experiment as a consequence of which television constantly adapted to wider

technological and cultural influences throughout its existence. In other words, the medium has always been flexible and sensitive to changes (Keilbach & Stauff).

To grasp the changing concept of liveness for television, this thesis explores the transformation of liveness and aims to construct the current role of liveness for television based on an analysis of the stretched NOS multi-platform television experience during the World Cup in Brazil. The author’s previous work focused on aesthetic strategies of liveness and how they were incorporated to create an authentic television experience during live coverage of the World Cup in 2010. However, this work was limited to traditional broadcasting and detached from cross-media transformations and influences in the broader television landscape. Therefore in this thesis the concept of liveness is analyzed beyond the traditional broadcasting with an acuminate focus on the concept in relation to television’s transition to the multi-platform era. The complex relation between traditional broadcasting and the online platforms is examined by (a) the role of liveness during the broadcast of the match and (b) the occurrence of shared liveness in the stretched multi-platform experience of the event. In order to analyze the complex relation between traditional broadcasting and the accompanying online platforms, a notion of “shared liveness” is introduced. This shared liveness emerges online during live-coverage of the World Cup.

In the first chapter a brief historical overview defines television as a medium of transformation and experimentation. Television’s history is analyzed along a divide in three historical timeframes, the network era, multi-channel era and the post-network era. In the final subchapter an answer is given to the question: To what extent is liveness relevant as a characteristic of post-network television? More specific: What happens with liveness in a culture where television and the Internet are converging? Important here is the transformation of television in the post-network era.

In the second chapter an ongoing debate on liveness’ position between television and the Internet is examined. On the one hand liveness still remains a characteristic of television. This exact characteristic offers the basis on which television expresses its specificity. On the other hand, liveness is achievable via mobile phones and the Internet. Media scholars as Nick Couldry and Espen Ytreberg are not consentient in their opinions whether liveness is specific for television. To understand the complex function of liveness more aspects are relevant. Therefore it is necessary to step away from the debate and explore a middle ground wherein online experiences complement television experiences. Out of this position a new aspect of liveness emerges related to the use of contemporary media. Broader cultural relations are leading to different experiences of liveness, accessed via television and the Internet. A shift is taking place from notions of being at the event towards engaging and sharing the event with a wider public.

In the third chapter a closer relation will be examined between television, sport and liveness. Sport programming can be seen as an essential part of network television ánd post-network television (Johnson). Television broadcasters are using sport programming as 360-degree strategies by extending

the traditional experience over several platforms via second-screens and mobile applications. Eventually this extended experience is leading to a shared liveness.

The final chapter introduces a case study on the NOS multi-platform television experience during the match Spain-Netherlands, part of the World Cup football tournament 2014, with a specific focus on the role of liveness. In order to analyze the complex role of liveness, the case-study is divided in two chapters. The first chapter deals with the role of liveness during the traditional broadcast. The second chapter explores the contemporary relation of liveness during the stretched multi-platform experience. From the construction of the stadium experience, to a notion of being part of the event, social dimensions of liveness become more important. As aesthetic liveness is characteristic for traditional television, so is shared liveness characteristic for the multi-platform experience.

Part I: Theoretical Framework: Chapter 1-3

This thesis is divided in two main parts. This first part - three chapters - contains the theoretical framework and the second part contains a case-study on coverage of the World Cup. In this first part, a varied amount of literature - which forms the basis for television theory - is discussed. Important contributions to the field of television studies are borrowed and narrowed down to the findings of the author. Whenever adding contributions to the field of television studies, it is important to be aware of ongoing debates and to incorporate influential literature. In this part the author distilled a varied amount of literature which helps to place part II’s case-study in a broader perspective.

1 Transformation into Contemporary Television

Nowadays it is possible to watch broadcast television outside the living room, streamed on a mobile device connected with the Internet. Moreover, Internet platforms like Twitter give viewers opportunities to react directly to the content, a development which makes television more interactive than ever before. This so-called media-convergence has been a major change since the introduction of television and it affects directly the televisions main characteristic such as liveness. To grasp the influence of the current media landscape on the role of liveness as characteristic of television, it is necessary to have an understanding of the concept of television since its introduction in the 20th century. This chapter highlights first of all a brief, technological and historical overview of television’s main transformations and experimentations. Television’s transformational characteristic played a central role in the development of the medium. An important turning point in television studies is the end of the network era and the onset of a new paradigm, the post-network era, or the digital age of television. After

deconstructing the most important features of these time periods, one of television’s oldest and most important characteristic – liveness – is questioned according to its relevance in the digital age.

1.1 Transformation and Experimentation

Since television’s existence the medium has always been sensitive to changes. The medium has always been a place for experimentation and transformation. Technological, aesthetical and cultural developments played a central role in the transformation of television. From the early years (just after the First World War) until today, the medium has changed in every perspective. From live-transmission, big square television boxes and antenna towards reality-TV, flat screens and digital television. Some of the old forms of television disappeared, new forms of television arose and some of the old forms never left the television landscape and are still relevant today. In his article “A Multiplied Medium” (2012), Markus Stauff sketches a broader theoretical framework in order to frame the ambiguity of television:

In the 2000s it became clear that television was more resilient than expected – but also, it becomes less and less clear just what television is. This vagueness and television’s on-going transformation turned out to be a good point of departure for reflecting on the heterogeneity of digital culture in general – a culture that is no longer considered to be defined by several fundamental characteristics of the computer or networks, but much more by a constant re-arrangement of gadgets and industrial strategies, infrastructures, and practices.

In this thesis a similar approach is borrowed to place the role of television in a broader perspective by starting with a brief overview of television’s transforming character. Over the age’s ongoing processes of transformation took place in technology, textual organization, regulatory framework and viewing practices (Katz & Scannell; de Valck & Teurlings; Kackman et al.; Spigel & Olsson; Hilmes). Keilbach & Stauff scrutinize in their chapter “When Old Media Never Stopped Being New” (2013) television’s transformations in a broad context. It is obvious that nowadays television is no longer the same as 70 years ago, and the authors are questioning the presumed stability and homogeneity of (networked/broadcast) television. Most of the time, media are analyzed for their homogeneous characteristics. Keilbach & Stauff are more interested in television’s heterogeneous elements which allow for a constant rearrangement of the mediums status and function. The authors argue that contemporary transitions in television are the result of television’s alterable history. Therefore they define television’s past as one of “constant transformation” (79-80). Television’s transformation is also influencing its main characteristics. One of television’s most important characteristic is the concept of liveness - based on television’s ability of live-transmission (Feuer). The concept of liveness is extensively discussed in the second chapter.

Lisa Gitelman introduced in her book Always Already New: Media, History, and the Data of Culture (2009) the concept of ‘’media protocols.’’ According to her, it is not possible to historicize a particular medium without paying attention to the broader social and cultural paradigm of the era concerned. With the concept of media protocol she describes comprehensive characteristics of a specific medium. These media protocols involve not only technological features of a medium, but also the whole experience of using a particular medium. A media protocol about today’s telephone includes answering a phone call with “hello,” and paying monthly bills to the telephone company. The experience of using and engaging with a medium can differ depending on a particular historical timeframe with corresponding social standards. To describe media as historical subjects it is necessary to analyze the matching media protocol of the era. Media protocols express a huge variety of social, economic and material relations (7). According to Gitelman, it is necessary to describe a medium in relation to its social and cultural context. A medium is not a single thing, but consists of multiple understandings which are change over time. So whenever television’s transition is discussed, it is necessary to analyze broader social and cultural approaches to the medium, and not only technological innovations. Transformations in television related to new media are never completely new or revolutionary, they are “socially embedded sites for the ongoing negotiation of meaning as such” (6). Therefore it is not possible to essentialize or naturalize media in one specific way.

Keilbach & Stauff define television as an “experimental system.” According to them, a comparison between a scientific laboratory and television is an aid to understanding television’s constant transformations throughout history. Scientific laboratories are complex places of practices and technologies which are similar to television:

it produces (or makes visible) phenomena that can be scrutinized and manipulated by experimental procedures – just as television produces (and makes visible) audiences or cultural objects that can be sold to advertisers or become objects of political endeavour. Moreover, and instrumental to our aims, the concept of the laboratory – or to be more specific: the ‘experimental system’ – opens a new perspective on processes of media transformation (82).

Scientific and technological studies claim that processes of constant transformation are most characteristic for the efficiency of a medium, despite processes of stability. To clarify their argument on television as an experimental system, the authors give the example of the televised event of the moon landing in 1969. Live-coverage of media events such as the moon landing once started as an experimental process for “broadcast”- or “network” television. It is important to realize, the main reason for television’s coverage of the moon landing was a technological experiment to create footage of the moon and outer space beyond. Technology that was used for the television broadcast functioned

simultaneously as a mechanism for supervising and controlling the flight. Another important experiment during the moon landing broadcast was addressing a global audience. During the television broadcast commentators repeatedly emphasized television’s attempt to reach out to all viewers and monitored the world (88). Markus Stauff wrote in his article “Displaced – Die Fußballweltmeisterschaft als Display des Zukünftigen Fernsehens” (2006) that media events such as the World Cup and the Olympics remain a central playground for television to experiment and introduce new technological forms. Television as an experimental system is heterogeneous and adaptive to changes and constant transformations in “technical programming innovations, changing economic strategies, political regulations, or viewing patterns” (Keilbach & Stauff 84). Thereby television’s transition in a more digitalized era is questioning key elements of the medium. Televisual aspects such as its reality claim, its visibility, flow, liveness etc. are transforming and integrated into the production process of television (89).

1.2 Early Television, Network Era, Multi-Channel Transition

Paddy Scannell wrote in his article “The Dialectic of Time and Television” (2009) that radio and television industries in the early years had a dual function. First, the industry produced program content and second, they delivered this content to the television sets which were located in different households. This so-called dual process of production and transmission was based upon two central characteristics. Radio and television were supposed to be live and broadcast. All new electronic technologies which were invented by wired and wireless telegraphy and telephony were used for live connectivity. With these inventions and technologies, distant people and places could be connected in an immediate and living now (226). Broadcasting was a by-product of wireless technologies, discovered after WOI (1914-1918). Broadcast transmission was used to create a market to sell radio sets. Broadcasting started on the radio and later on it became a success on television as well. It created a new general public who were interested in watching a varied program of content on one particular channel (227).

Amanda Lotz divided television’s history into three crucial time-periods. First, television’s network era (1952-80), second television’s multi-channel transition (1975-1980), and finally television’s post-network era (1990). Lotz is merely interested in the transformations of the United States’ television landscape, although these experiences parallel other industrialized countries with a similar timeline for television. During the 1950s in the United States three major networks became extremely powerful in the television industry. Until the 1980s the networks CBS, ABC and NBC controlled almost the whole advertising business without having serious competition (Lotz 2007; 2009). Raymond Williams introduced in his book Television: Technology and Cultural Form (1974) the concept of “flow”. Flow,

according to Williams, could be defined as a characteristic of network broadcasting, that works simultaneously as a technology and as a cultural form. Network programmers developed methods that kept their viewers attached by offering them a structured sequence of content that included programs, advertisements and other content. The notion of flow shows the medium underlying strategy that broadcasting networks used to regulate the attachment of their viewers. An ongoing stream of content - structured in a strategic way - is the essence of broadcasting flow (79-88).

During the network era a scarcity of channels was offered not only because of technological reasons. For the networks there was no economic need to produce content for niche audiences. In Europe, national state television or public broadcasting networks had a comparable monopolized position to that of the U.S. networks. An important element of network era practices was the position and function of television sets within the household. Television was part of the furniture and the family gathered in front of the television set which functioned as a domestic ritual. Architecture and organization of domestic space and living rooms adapted the television in its repertoire. Most homes possessed only one set on which families watched programs together. Networks programmed content with broad and universal themes that was targeted to a large family audience (Lotz 2009, 51-2). William Uricchio refers to this time-period as an era of constraint, in which television corporations served contradictory goals. Television industries created an ideologically coherent national public, and at the same time networks acted to protect their own economic positions (Uricchio 2013, 67).

With the possibility of using flow as a broadcasting strategy there was little place for viewer control and viewer agency. Technological inventions that characterized the network era such as, Remote Control Devices (RCDs) and Video Cassette Recorders (VCRs) were testing television’s stability as a medium. With the growing popularity of the use of RCDs viewers gain more control in avoiding network television pre-structured sequences. Viewers were more easily enabled to disrupt the programming flow. Together with VCRs these two innovations preluded the coming of a new age, the post-network era. Where RCDs challenged mostly television’s characteristic of flow; VCRs became the early challengers for television’s liveness. VCRs introduced the possibility of “time-shifting” in which viewers became in charge of watching content at their convenience. (Uricchio 2004, 168; Newman & Levine 129-131). In the post-network era even more evaluations of the convergence between television and technologies took place. Characteristics such as liveness and flow never left the field of television. Uricchio asks for new notions of flow to understand television’s changing interfaces. A similar point can be made about liveness. Technologies of agency never led to the demise of television’s main characteristics. Liveness and flow are being transformed with the medium and for analyzing these transformations more contemporary understanding is necessary.

From the 1970s a higher number of channels became available because of television’s technological changes. New recording technologies and delivery systems were invented and two problems were solved; there was no longer a scarcity of frequencies, and the delivery systems reduced government regulations and control. In the United States the big network imperium came to a downfall because they lost their power of audience control to the increased amount of channels. Satellite and cable-television came into the playground, which made an end to the channel scarcity of the previous era. From the 1980s onwards, television viewers were able to watch hundreds of channels which led to the end of the network era (Scannell 2009, 227). This period - before Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of the World Wide Web - the multi-era transition became an intermezzo between the network era and the post-network era. These three periods are also known respectively as (1) the era of channel scarcity and (2) the plenty of the

deregulated cable era, and (3) “the on-demand/Internet-like present” (Uricchio 2013, 67). During the described periods in television’s history, technological changes, social-cultural changes, aesthetical changes and changed television practices demanded a constant rearrangement of the medium’s status and functions. All these aspects together are leading to a new understanding of what television is considered to be nowadays. Besides changes and transformations, there is still the medium of television. It did not disappear from the media landscape. Transformations to a multi-channel environment and later a post-network era do not automatically prelude the end for television. The same goes for television’s historical characteristics as for example, live-television.

1.3 Convergence in Post-Network/Digital Era

From the mid-90s until today, a new and important age has been arriving for television, the age of digitalization and media convergence. Watching television nowadays no longer means solely sitting with family in front of a traditional television set in the living room. Within the contemporary media landscape a paradigm shift is placing television in a new relational context with the Internet and other media. Lynn Spigel describes in the introduction of her book “Television after TV” (2004) television’s changing form in the current post-network age. Even though important forms of television have changed, it still remains a central mode of information and entertainment in our global culture. She confirms the coming of a new phase for television:

Indeed, if TV refers to the technologies, industrial formations, government policies, and practices of looking that were associated with the medium in its classical public service and three-network age, it appears that we are now entering a new phase of television - the phase that comes after ‘TV’ (2).

The phase Spigel mentions above is often defined as television’s post-network era or television’s age of digital convergence. Television scholars such as Jostein Gripsrud and Amanda Lotz, relate television’s reshaped cultural experience to the process of “digitalization.” According to both authors, digitalization has something to do with digital transmission of television signals, digital production technologies and devices used by audiences. Digital transmission offered an increased amount of channels, because it needed less bandwidth space than analog transmission. Digitalization paved the way for interoperability between television and other technologies that formed the contemporary media landscape. Convergence between computers and television played a central role in the broader process of digitalization. Differences between TV sets, computers and mobile phone are blurry, because all those devices can be used for the same purposes. Traditional forms of broadcasting are changing because television sets are able to connect with the Internet. Gripsrud mentions another important key element of digitalization, “interactivity.” Especially traditional forms of broadcasting are being transformed due to more interactive forms. Where traditional broadcasting aims at large and passive audiences, interactivity is leading towards more agency for individualized viewers, to become more active participants in the process of broadcasting (Lotz 2009, 53; Gripsrud 213). Television’s shift from the network era, via the multi-channel era, towards the post-broadcast era, was partly due to innovations in digital technologies. This shift took place in times where convergence became one of the main characteristics in almost every form of society. Digitalization and convergence were not only affecting television, other sectors of life became influenced by innovations in digital technologies as well. Industry, politics, culture, and individual lives started to engage with the positive and negative side-effects of this digitalization. Kackman offered a useful definition of convergence in the innovative book Flow TV – Television in the Age of Media Convergence (2011): “convergence is an umbrella term that refers to the new textual practices, branding and marketing strategies, industrial arrangements, technological synergies, and audience behaviors enabled and propelled by the emergence of digital media” (Kackman et al. 1).

This quotation offers an obvious definition of convergence related to digital media. Media convergence has been around for quite some time. In the heyday of television there have always been trends of convergence between analog and digital devices. Think about examples such as the RCD and VCR. With Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of the World Wide Web a lot of things changed in the relation between television and new media. Michele Hilmes claims in her book Only Connect (2011) that the new millennium was characterized by the “dispersal of digital media,” “from computers to cell phones, to digital television to the Internet, and the convergence of formerly separate media brought about by the digital revolution” (384). Developments in computer technologies and the growth of the Internet influence of television as a former analog medium. Internet offers an area of convergence for multiple

media forms. Film, video, print media etc., are collected on the Internet and can be accessed in new forms. Also the Internet provided complete by new forms of mediated communication and information systems, from e-mail to websites like Youtube and Twitter (388).

Another vision on convergence is given by Henry Jenkins. He approaches convergence merely on a cultural level - instead of a technological - by analyzing changing relations between producers and consumers, and audiences in general. Henry Jenkins describes this paradigm shift in his book Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (2006). Jenkins uses the term “convergence culture” to name these cultural transformations. According to him, one of the most important characteristics for the convergence culture is “the distribution of content throughout multiple platforms and different media” (2). For example, news items are no longer only formed by traditional media such as television and newspapers. The Internet is filling up the gap of traditional media's shortcomings and is offering extended forms of news coverage. Nowadays the importance of the Internet has grown till it has become a necessity on which industries and users are reliant in daily life. These cultural transformations are resulting in new relationships between traditional media and new media. For the media industries it is important to respond to this new relationship in order to control the distribution of content. In the convergence culture media industries are working together to connect the spreading of content throughout different platforms. At the same time, television and Internet audiences are changing as well. Audiences are changing from passive viewers into active media users who are continuously connected with media and the world (2-8).

Jenkins is often criticized for his optimistic view on media users and their influence in the media industry. According to Jenkins convergence is merely more a cultural shift than a technological shift. To completely understand television’s transformation into the post-network era, it must be recognized that some technological innovations played a crucial role. Michelle Hilmes summarized some of the main technologies of industry convergence as well as technological developments which became crucial for television’s contemporary role:

From compact discs (CDs) to digital audiotape (DAT) to digital video discs (DVDs) and digital recorders (DVR and TiVo), from high-definition television (HDTV) to multiplexed standard digital television (SDTV) to WebTV to direct broadcast satellite (DBS) to high-speed cable Internet connection, from video cell phones to iPods to satellite radio (XM, Sirius) (388).

Newman & Levine contextualize some of these innovations in their groundbreaking book “Legitimating Television: Media Convergence and Cultural Status”. Television’s convergence with technology, have a longstanding relationship. For example, older television technologies such as VCRs and RCDs offered a

form of agency to the viewers in times of analog television. In the late 1990s two new technologies altered the traditional idea of television. TV shows became available on DVDs and Digital Video Recorders (DVRs). In the United States the introduction of TiVo, an advanced DVR, included an inbuilt television guide and many more interactive functions for watching television. These innovations played an important role in television’s history and its transition to the post-network era. Both innovations were known as digital improvements of the analog videotape and offered viewers increasing opportunities for watching television at their convenience. Viewers were no longer dependent on programming schedule made by network programmers (130-1). Digital innovations also changed aesthetical characteristics of television. Improvements in visual and auditory quality and the introduction of High Definition (HDTV) were key aspects of television’s aesthetical transformation in the post-network era.

1.4 Liveness and Contemporary Television

‘Watching broadcast television outside the living room, streamed on a mobile device connected with the Internet’, is one of the many possibilities the post-network era offered so far. Television’s changing role is leading to new understandings of its traditional characteristics. One of television’s main characteristics is liveness. When traditional broadcasting is developing towards more interactive forms, this affects directly the traditional characteristics of the medium. Is the concept of liveness still applicable in a culture where television and the Internet are converging? Before answering this question, it is necessary to reposition the current role and status of television itself.

Over the last years media scholars have not always been consentient about propositions that television is reaching its demise. Elihu Katz engages with television’s current status in his article “The End of Television?”. It can be argued that traditional television with its cultural position in the previous network era has come to an end. Television is no longer based upon “nation-building” and “family-togetherness,” destroyed by the individualized possibilities of interactive television. In the first place it is even questionable whether television completely lost its function as “nation-builder.” It still remains a powerful technological apparatus for dissemination of information and cultural values. Television still functions as a powerful weapon for governments and institutions to influence audiences on the level of ideology. Second, television’s progression out of the network era does not automatically mean the medium’s demise (6-7). Because of digital innovations, audiences are no longer reliant on network’s prescheduled program structures. Websites such as Netflix are offering users endless streams of televisual content which is accessible on multiple devices. “Netflix members can watch as much as they want, anytime, anywhere, on nearly any Internet-connected screen”, is how they portray their network (Netflix.com). In times of the network era television had little competition from other visual media in

being a “window on the world.” In times of digitalization and the convergence of media, this position is being heavily attacked. Television has always been a medium of transformation - it still is today. In spite of these transformations, television has persisted as one of the most important catalysts of cultural values and events.

Daniel Dayan and Elihu Katz contributed an important concept to television’s theory in their much-quoted book: Media Events (1992). Dayan and Katz are scrutinizing the festive viewing of television and in particular they focus on the concept of “media events.” They are focusing on the highly coordinated and carefully produced coverage of live happenings. Media events offer a genre of narratives for electronic media that “collects attention universally and simultaneously in order to tell a primordial story about current affairs” (1). Examples of these media events are preplanned broadcasts of current affairs which are interrupting the daily routine of the broadcasting flow. Television spectacles like the Eurovision Song Contest or the Olympics could be interpreted as media events. To term something a media event, several characteristics need to be obtained. First of all, the event and the television broadcast needs to occur live and in real-time. Second, media events are never spontaneous or unexpected, but well prepared events. Elements of cultural importance are essential. Not every football match is a media event. The outcome of the event is unknown and effects cultural relations. Therefore a media event creates a social norm which is nearly obligatory to watch (211-14).

It is possible to argue that media events or sporting events were exceptional forms of television during the network era because they interrupted the programming flow. Paradoxically, today it is one of the view forms of television which did not lose a majority of its audience to digital replacements. One of the most important characteristics for media events and television today is still the influence of live-television. However, in order to keep a hold on the construction of liveness in a post-network environment, it is necessary for television to keep on transforming and experimenting with new possibilities of watching television. As Nick Couldry argues: “liveness, in its most general sense of continuous connectedness, is hardly likely to disappear as a prized feature of contemporary media, because it is a category closely linked to media’s role in the temporal and spatial organization of the social world” (Couldry 2004, 360). It is rather the question whether it remains television’s main task to maintain its position as the most important player of live connectedness in times when other players lurk to take over control. Throughout history, television constantly proved its capability of successful transition to broader cultural influences. This leads to the question, to what extent liveness remains a key characteristic for televisions medium specificity, and will be answered in the following chapter.

2 Debate Around Liveness: Television Specificity vs New Media’s Expanses

Throughout its history television has always been characterized by its ability of live-transmission. From the early years until today, media liveness is considered to be one of the core elements of television. Within the contemporary media landscape, television’s convergence with digital media influenced the role of the concept. Debates on liveness’ contemporary role are often mentioned in discussions between television scholars. A clear divide in arguments is visible. On one hand, there are arguments questioning whether liveness remains a privilege for television’s specificity. On the other hand, scholars argue that liveness no longer symbolizes television’s most important characteristic. According to them, digital media are separating liveness from its trusted field of television. In this chapter a third position is given on the debate around liveness. In this position a middle-ground is found to analyze the function of liveness in the contemporary mediaspace, by picking important arguments from the two previous visions. First, the important relation between liveness and television is briefly illustrated. Second, a clear overview is given on whether liveness remains distinctive for contemporary television. Subsequently, an oppositional viewpoint is presented on liveness as no longer controlled by television production. Finally, another position places liveness as neither a privilege of contemporary television nor digital media, but as an example which proves the presence and importance of media convergence.

2.1 What is liveness?

In order to understand the broader debate around liveness, it is crucial to begin with a conceptualization of the term. The term “liveness’’ can be defined in many different ways and many media scholars have contributed to different theorizations of the concept. That is to say, liveness is not only a collective noun for media technologies that broadcast real events in real time. It comprehends a broader meaning which is essential for social and cultural practices. The term influences television studies from ontological issues to the level of ideology. Jane Feuer was one of the first media scholars who contributed to the essence of liveness in a broader cultural field. In her influential article “The Concept of Live Television: Ontology as Ideology” (1983) she notes that liveness is not only crucial for television’s ontology, but it rather works on the level of ideology. She criticizes the generally ontological and aesthetic approach of liveness. According to her, television is not live in a literal sense and liveness is only used to elaborate on technological and institutional practices of mediation. She describes liveness as “television’s central myth”, which functions to create an assertion of fully live transmission. This assertion of live operates to cover the fact that television’s essence is deliberately constructed for commercial purposes. Feuer

criticizes the aesthetical function of liveness and she makes a reconsideration of the term to come up with a different perspective on liveness’ importance for the medium. Again, she argues that liveness functions on an ideological level: “television in fact becomes less and less a live medium in the sense of an equivalence between time of event and time of transmission, the medium in its own practices seems to insist more and more upon an ideology of live, the immediate, the direct, the spontaneous, the real” (Feuer 14).

Currently, liveness is considered as an ideology which directly incorporates access to reality. That is to say, liveness is a televisual construction for representing the truth or reality. However, televisual representations of truth and reality are always problematic, because processes of mediation are not capable of representing an untouched reality. Even media-events - which are characterized by their live coverage of cultural events at the moment of occurrence - are not fully capable of representing reality. Television broadcast is always influenced by processes of decision-making and aesthetic choices in order to construct a notion of reality. According to Funk, Gross and Huber “reality is thus inaccessible, or rather always already mediated” (10). Hence, a registration of an authentic physical truth is impossible and liveness is an aesthetic strategy and construction, which operates on credence of truth, immediacy and reality.

Having said that, other thoughts on liveness offer more optimistic perspectives. In the 20th century, radio and television became important for broadcasting information and entertainment towards mass audiences. In his book Radio, Television and Modern Life (1996), Paddy Scannell describes the cultural impact of radio and television through a phenomenological perspective. Liveness functions as the key to this cultural impact, because it offers the real sense of access to events at the moment of unfolding. According to Scannell, public events occur simultaneously in two different places. First, the event occurs in the place of the event itself, and second, the event occurs in the place where it is watched and heard. This is what he defines as the “doubling of place.” Television and radio are serving a double reality which characterizes public events. The connection between television or radio and its viewers (or listeners) is based around the power structures of liveness. As Scannell puts it, “the liveness of the world returns through the liveness of radio and television – their most fundamental common characteristic. The liveness is here understood as the specific temporality, the phenomenal “now” of broadcasting, and this “now” is magical” (172).

Here, liveness is defined as the “phenomenal now”, and as something “magical.” In 2000, Jerome Bourdon published his article “Live Television is Still Alive.” In this article he claims that liveness is still relevant in contemporary television studies, even though the golden age of live-television was during the 1950s. Bourdon defines liveness as one of the central characteristics for the specificity of

the medium television. Liveness is not only used as a concept to analyze actual live coverage of happenings when they occur, but liveness is also defined as an aesthetical characteristic of “non”- live television. Bourdon drifts away from the traditional and literal meaning of the word "live'"(ness) to a more contemporary understanding of the concept. In the beginning years of television, live-transmission was the only possibility. Later on other forms of live-television emerged. Think of forms as “reality TV” and “talent shows.” According to Bourdon, liveness is no longer an unambiguous term and multiple degrees of liveness occur. Television coverage of the World Cup falls under the degree of maximum liveness. Bourdon argues that “moments of maximum liveness” are when people watching television at the same time as the event, at the same time as other viewers and with an event taking place in different locations connected by television” (535). During live-coverage of sporting events as the World Cup, the commentator plays a crucial role. The main task of the commentator is proving his role as live-witness of the event, by directly explaining situations that are happening on the pitch. By doing so the commentator extends the viewing experience to a higher degree of liveness: the commentator creates a more instant relation between the live-event in the stadium and the television viewer at home (544).

An important element of liveness, besides its temporality (immediacy, simultaneity), is its “spatiality.” Especially, when television is not fully live, liveness creates a connection between the viewer and the mediated space. Television is able to create an experience that naturalizes events in an immediate now. Notions of liveness are contributing to a sense of flow which overcomes extreme fragmentation of space (Feuer 19). Mimi White argues in her chapter “The Attractions of Television” (2004) that spatial articulations are just as important as temporal articulations when considering liveness. Televisual forms - media events, news, catastrophes, shopping channels, etc. – are visualizing and representing different places for viewers to connect with. Liveness reduces distances in space between the represented place and the watching audience. Another author who examines multiple perspectives on space and the media is Nick Couldry. In his book Media Rituals (2003) he approaches liveness as a socially constructed term. For him liveness is more than a characteristic of television, it comprehends all media’s claim to present social “reality” (96). “Media rituals” is a broad concept which helps to explain media’s role in our culture and how media organizes social space:

[…] ‘media rituals’ are any actions organised around key media-related categories and boundaries, whose performance reinforces, indeed helps legitimate, the underlying ‘value’ expressed in the idea that the media is our access point to our social centre. Through media rituals, we act out, indeed naturalise, the myth of the media’s social centrality. The term ‘media rituals’ encompasses a vast number of things: from certain ‘ritualised’ forms of television viewing, to people’s talk about appearing in the media, to our automatic’ heightened attention if told that a media celebrity has just entered the room (2).

According to Couldry, liveness can be defined as a category of rituals, which contribute to the ritual space of the media. Media rituals and especially liveness, function as a myth to cover the fact that media still works from a social centrality. A new mediaspace is appearing with less place for television as the central institution of society. This mediaspace is becoming more and more fragmented and these developments will be further explored in the third subchapter.

2.2 Liveness: Differentia Specifica

In the first chapter television’s transition to the post-network era has been extensively discussed. In this part a description is given of literature that defends liveness’ significance for television. Is liveness still a privilege of contemporary television with its new forms?

Television remains influenced by the possibilities of live broadcasting, even though the golden age for live broadcasting is over. With the evolution taking place from broadcasting towards “narrowcasting” and from central broadcasting towards “fragmented broadcasting” a lot of critique came in favor of the unification of television. Despite these transformations a general audience still exists and the medium is still producing content related to liveness (Bourdon 531).

Hallvard Moe shares a similar perspective in his article “Television, Broadcasting, Flow” (2012). In this article he borrows and revisits older ideas from his supervisor Jostein Gripsrud. They describe the relation between television and liveness by “emphasizing that simultaneity between a ‘real’ event and its transmission and reception as audio-visual representation is central among television’s differentia specifica, its specificity as a medium” (289). In her article “Distinguishing Television: The Changing Meanings of Televisions Liveness” (2008) Elana Levine argues that throughout history, television’s medium specificity always functioned on its possibility to construct a notion of immediacy. Liveness became important to define television’s specificity, because it offered fundamental differences which distinguished television from other visual media forms. Also the construction of liveness function’s as a distinguishing feature to differentiate forms of television itself. Here the term distinguishing refers to Pierre Bourdieu who claims that “high-culture” is able to distinguish from “low-culture.” From this sociological perspective, liveness can be considered as a privileged characteristic of television, which can be linked to “high-cultural” values. Despite the advance of digitalization and media converge, liveness allows television to keep its distinguishing status in the post-network era (406-7).

Hallvard Moe offers two paradoxical trends that marked transformations in this period. Nowadays television is less live because of a growing number of channels, digital inventions and the

possibility of time-shifting. However, two new kinds of live programming have entered the arena. First, 24/7 news channels, which are based on live transmission emerged. Mary Ann Doane already noted in her article “Information, Crisis, Catastrophe” (1990) the importance of news coverage and in particular live broadcasting of catastrophes. Coverage of catastrophe is one of the most important tasks in which television can fully express its specificity. “Television’s greatest technological prowess is its ability to be there – both on the scene and in your living room (238).” Second, during the late 1990s reality television emerged as a popular genre. Television shows such as Big Brother (1999) and Pop Idol (2001) are all based on the aesthetic value of liveness. These programs are rarely fully “live,” but with possibilities of live audience voting and Big Brother’s never ending surveillance, different degrees of liveness are maintained (Moe 290-91).

Even though the core of these formats is built around broadcast television, other media forms are presenting new modes of engagement. Internet and mobile phones are offering new platforms for users to watch additional content or participate in the outcome of the program via voting channels or ‘fan’ blogs. In this sense, Jenkins’ convergence culture is working because these formats are distributed throughout multiple platforms and different media. In this space where television and new media are intertwining a reconsideration of liveness is necessary. An important contribution to a redefinition of the term is introduced by Espen Ytreberg in his article “Extended Liveness and Eventfulness in Multi-Platform Reality Formats” (2009). With reality formats such as Pop Idol and Big Brother Ytreberg notices a “working formula for combining broadcasting with digital platforms” (467). These programs interplay between broadcasting features, and web and telephony based platforms, functioning on participation of the audience. A crucial statement in this article is the introduction of the definition “extended liveness.” Important here is the significant role of television as the main institution which controls this extension of liveness. Television industries are spreading their formats over distinct platforms to reach broader audiences. John Caldwell describes several patterns of television’s changing industry in his chapter “Convergence Television,” Television’s conglomerate structure is getting less unified by changes in modes of production. In order to survive in ages of digital convergence, television’s economic structure needs to anticipate changes and merge with digital possibilities. New economic strategies of convergence and conglomeration are leading towards new formats. Some of the most important elements in this so-called “syndication industry” are “content migration” and “branding.” These elements are examples of economic marketing strategies to expand television in order to gain higher profits.

To return to Ytreberg’s article on multi-platform reality formats, content migration and branding are playing a central role. A reality show is created throughout different platforms that contribute to a central brand identity. For example, Big Brother, a reality show produced by television networks was highly dependent on content spread over different platforms. On their website (originated and controlled

by the television network), additional content and methods of communication became accessible for audiences. A form of content migration took place from television towards the Internet. In this sense, the Internet complements Big Brother by offering different forms of engagement from television only. Access platforms especially where users instantly communicate, are not shifting liveness away from the televisual experience. Multi-platform reality formats are extending liveness on behalf of the television network. According to Ytreberg, surfing on websites related to the reality show, maintains or reproduces the feeling of liveness. These marketing strategies are necessary to keep viewers attached to television in an era were television is losing audiences to digital media. For broadcasters it is necessary to explore and control digital media methods to search for new audiences and new sources of revenue. With the incorporation of these new platforms, mass audiences are able to interact with the television show and revenues can be made out of these interaction. The role of the broadcaster is no longer to maintain the viewers to one channel by offering them a flow of content as we know the concept from Raymond Williams. But flow needs to be designed to steer audiences over multiple platforms and let them vote for example or interact with other users online. If these strategies are working this automatically leads towards higher revenues. The steering of audiences is what Ytreberg calls a “facilitation of navigation” (468-472).” In a more recent article “Keeping Them and Moving Them” (2013), Ytreberg, Ihlebæk & Syvertsen expound upon television’s phase of platform proliferation. They argue that television scheduling not has become obsolete. However, transformations and experiments are necessary in order to draw people back into traditional broadcasting forms. As the title suggest, people are “moved” to multiple platforms designed by television networks in order to keep them attracted to traditional broadcasting (2-3). Despite the Internet’s capability to produce an assertion or extension of liveness, the concept still functions as an aesthetical strategy controlled by television networks. Thus, in times where television and Internet are syndicated and converged, liveness remains characteristic for television’s contemporary function which defines its specificity.

2.3 Liveness Drifting Away From Television?

Television’s distinguishing function is partly taken over by opportunities related to digital media. At moments when websurfing and other digital communication forms are reproducing liveness in a way television is incapable of, a different approach to the concept is necessary. With the growing popularity of electronic media a discussion arises around the transformation of place within new media. During the network era television became extremely influential in the progressive organization of social life. It still is today, but its distinguishing features are being slowly taken over by digital media. In the book MediaSpace (2004) Nick Couldry defines the word mediaspace as a result of media’s relation with social

processes that shape our spatial orders. Media and space are highly intertwined and formed by a broader social order. Throughout history, television’s power relied on its privileged access to central social reality. To put it differently, television functioned from a centralized position in society as mediator between reality and the audience. With the growth of electronic media it is becoming more problematic to define the exact relation between place and the media. Joshua Meyrowitz argued in his early book No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior (1985) that electronic media is leading towards a “no sense of place.” He investigated the role of electronic media and claimed that cultures in our electronic society are relatively placeless. They are lacking a social position and a physical location. For example, there is no difference in effectiveness between a telephone in a slum and a telephone in a villa. These highly questionable statements preluded a discussion on the contemporary space of the media. Crucial in this discussion is the role of liveness, whether it remains a key feature of television or not.

In his groundbreaking article “Liveness, “Reality,” and the Mediated Habitus from Television to the Mobile Phone” (2004) Nick Couldry introduces new definitions of liveness. His sociologic approach focusses on how social order is constructed by processes of perception and thought. Liveness needs to be understood as a category of rituals and is “involved in both naturalizing and reproducing a certain historically distinctive type of social coordination around media “centers”, from which images, information, and narratives are distributed and (effectively simultaneously) received across space” (353-4). With its categorical function, liveness is more than a descriptive term - it offers a wider framework which exposes “media’s role as a central institution for representing social reality” (354). Live-transmission is offering connection to shared social realities at the moment of occurrence. In the network era, television was the most important institution for representing these social realities. During the post-network era, Internet and mobile telephones have gained more influence on processes regarding instant access to realities. Most of the time, mobile phones and Internet are producing via instant/text messaging and live-streams, a more direct access to content than television. To stick with Big Brother as an example, “fans” are using their mobile phones to inform other fans that two housemates are in bed together (356). These live “bed-activities” were only accessible online at the moment they occurred, because they preceded the television broadcast. In this sense, digital media platforms are literally producing a more “live” representation of reality than the television broadcast only.

Besides these literal forms of live transmission, liveness involves a broader category which is no longer based on a particular institutional center. Television’s broadcast center fragmented into a more diversified mediaspace with different centers built on new media technologies. To get a grasp on this mediaspace Couldry introduced two new notions of liveness, “online liveness” and “group liveness.”

Online liveness contains aspects to Ytreberg’s definition of extended liveness. Both concepts expand liveness over the infrastructure of the Internet. Online liveness offers a variety of forms based on a social co-presence varying from small groups in chat rooms to international audiences on breaking news websites. The essential difference between extended liveness and online liveness is that the latter results in separate experiences which are no longer facilitated by the television industry, but simply taken over by expansions on the Internet:

[…] since the communications space of the Internet is effectively infinite, any number of “live” transmissions can go on in parallel without interfering with each other: Alongside live streaming of long-anticipated events on Web sites (major sporting events) and news-site coverage of breaking news exist chat rooms on myriad different sites that link smaller groups of people. All of these involve simultaneous co-presence of an audience, but in the latter case there is no liveness in the traditional sense — that is, a plausible connection to a center of transmission (Couldry 2004, 357).

Thus, online liveness can be interpreted as an extension of a traditional sense of liveness, but it no longer works only for television as a central institution. Audiences are interacting online and the Internet creates a fragmented space with no singular center of transmission.

Group liveness is building on co-presences not directly related to audiences created around televised events. Instead, this notion is aiming at the co-presence of a social group often created through the use of mobile devices. Couldry aims at calling and texting, but a more contemporary understanding of group liveness can be found after the mass adoption of the “smartphone” in western society. These modern devices distinguish themselves from cellphones through their convergence with the Internet. With the advance of applications like messaging services such as WhatsApp, a new form of group liveness comes to life. Nowadays social groups are more connected than ever even before they move independently across space. This so-called “continuous mediation” is forming a new degree of liveness which no longer refers to television. Smartphones are offering new ways of coinstantaneous interaction between audiences, whereby traditional liveness with a central point of transmission becomes redundant (357). Group liveness and online liveness are new notions that are eroding television’s privileged characteristic. It becomes harder and harder for liveness to remain a distinguishing element in defining television’s specificity when mobile devices and Internet technologies are leading towards social behavior based around simultaneity and live-connection with the world.

2.4 Beyond the Debate

In times where new technologies for communication are leading towards different structures in social behavior accompanied by changes in media, a redefinition of television and its main characteristic is

needed. Television is no longer only operating from one center of transmission, but experienced through multiple platforms. On the one hand, traditional broadcasting is no longer the only form where television is proving its specificity - its ability to construct simultaneity and reality. Expanded forms of liveness are additionally contributing to the construction of an instant reality outside the television broadcast. On the other hand, these online or multiple platforms are still controlled by, and related to, television networks. Therefore, liveness remains a distinguishing of television.

Another perspective claims that outside the televised broadcast – online – new types of immediacy and simultaneity have arisen, which disengage television’s control over the flow of liveness. Hence, liveness is no longer a specificity which distinguishes television from other media forms. With the advance of the Internet, smartphones and other communication technologies are separating liveness from television and with that its privileged specificity.

Until now both perspectives have been presented as opposed conceptualizations on liveness’ contemporary position. Given these points, a third approach is exploring a middle ground wherein a synthesis between extended liveness and group/online liveness is made. In fact, both positions are not completely oppositional and a broader field is lacking, where overlap and the importance of both positions is underlined. In order to analyze the contemporary media landscape or mediaspace where liveness is situated today, a different approach to the concept is inevitable. Similarities between Ytreberg’s extended liveness and Couldry’s online liveness are based on new technologies for communication that are able to construct liveness outside the television broadcast. To understand the unambiguity of liveness, and in order to use the concept for analyses, it is necessary to look further and step away from the debate on whether liveness is controlled by television or has moved towards the Internet. Instead, it is more fruitful to look at shortcomings of both approaches and to explore a concept where these approaches complement each other.

The first thing to remember when discussing liveness is the paradoxical working of the concept. In both cases liveness still functions as a construction of the truth or reality. Internet websites are built to produce notions of unmediated, real-time appearances. Images or information appear at the exact moment a user is surfing on the website. Additionally, these sites are constantly updating their content to amplify the feeling of directness. This rendering of liveness is preconstructed by Internet designers, who can be compared to television producers that are preparing a televised media-event. Neither television nor the Internet is capable of presenting an untouched version of reality. In essence, whether this reality is obtained via television, smartphones or a computer, the use of a medium always stands between the audience and the event or website.

Furthermore, there is no necessity to claim that the Internet is capable of constructing a liveness superior to television; nor is television “liver” than the Internet. Even if digital platforms and instant

messaging are leading to a literally “liver” experience than the television broadcast, it does not automatically implicate that a higher amount of liveness is gained. To link back to the example of the Big Brother “bed-activities”, it can be implied that live-streams prior to the televised broadcast are offering a more direct access to the event. However, the television broadcast in which these activities are summarized or discussed offers a more collective sense of liveness. Television broadcast is still the moment where mass audiences are addressed, instead of a more individualized group of media users who are dispersed over online platforms. Liveness remains a construction, which in both cases for different (and the same) reasons is relevant. On top of that, online users and fans are often also watching the regular television broadcast. Internet audiences and television audiences are more and more fused. Whenever television/Internet audiences are intertwined, a divide between different notions of liveness becomes superfluous.

Transformations between television and the Internet occur simultaneously with new and different relations between producers and consumers. In the convergence culture, top down broadcasting cooperates with bottom-up Internet users. Television/Internet audiences are no longer satisfied with the longstanding promise of traditional live-broadcasting: the feeling of being there. Simply consuming liveness is no longer enough. From a mass experience in front of the television set, together with a more individualized experience online, a new notion of liveness arouses: the necessity of sharing liveness. Media users are personalizing an experience throughout multiple platforms and on social media. Being live at the event is no longer interesting unless the experience is shared online with friends and the rest of the world.

3 Multi-Platform Television, Sport and Liveness

This chapter explores more explicitly the relation between television, sport and liveness. Throughout television’s history, sport has offered an important amount of programming content in almost every country. Live coverage of sport-events, especially, is attracting mass audiences to watch television together at the moment of occurrence. Even though traditional forms of television are extended on multiple platforms online, the relation between television, sport and liveness remains highly significant. In order to examine the contemporary significance of the relation between television, sports and liveness the following questions arise: What is the relation between multi-platform television and sports programming, and which role does liveness play in this relation? To answer these questions a division has been made into three different subchapters. The first subchapter contains a brief summary of the relation between media, sport and major live sporting events. In the second subchapter a theorization is given on multi-platform television in general, and more specifically in relation to sports programming. In