Bit
1 | |
Interactivity is, arguably, a relatively recent phenomenon. Increasingly employed as a means of advertising new media products - like the dubious hyperfiction, fan interactivity on ancillary program websites or, more recently, interactive television channels, Big Brother voting, or even the studio-audience opinion-poll ‘worm’ in a recent Australian election debate - interactivity functions in a number of different, often disparate ways. Interactivity, in its basic form, refers to some form of consumer involvement, usually in the form of a direct action, within the product they consume. It proffers increased information, access, power and even control for consumers. In this M/C Reviews feature, we have collected a series of thought-pieces that represent a broad range of interpretations of the terms ‘interactive’ or ‘interactivity’ as they relate to various arms of media and/or cultural studies.
|
Bit
2 | |
For example, in his article “The pacification of interactivity’, Mark Andrejevic employs the term ‘interpassivity’ as a means of speculating on, and discussing, the largely passive interactive options that threaten to replace advertised promises of active participation in online environments. Gareth Barkin discusses Indonesian television in “Oldest Trick in the Book: Interactivity and Market Interests in Indonesian Television”. Yesim Burul, in “Intertextuality and Interactivity: When Twin Peaks goes to the net”, explores the role of ‘interactivity’ in online Twin Peaks ‘fan’ communities, as a means of looking at how fan activity can complicate notions of authorship.
|
Bit
3 | |
In “Increasing the Interactivity: The Eurovision Song Contest and Australian fans”, Kate Douglas explores the effects of SBS Australia’s editing the 2001 Eurovision Song Contest broadcast in favour of adding “more Australian content”. In their quest to enhance the interactivity and, in turn, the relevance of Eurovision for Australian fans, SBS ironically increased fan interactivity via fan complaints on their website. In “The Personal Periodical: Problematizing Notions of Self-Disclosure and Interactivity”, Megan Foley proposes that the "Say Anything" column in Young & Modern broaches a paradox: incredibly personal, disclosive stories that do not fit current definitions of self-disclosure. Not only do these stories appear personally disclosive, readers think about and interact with these stories as though they were
interpersonal self-disclosures. Foley argues that this calls for a revised definition of
self-disclosure that accounts for the receiver's perspective. Co-writers Michael D. Giardina and Jennifer L. Metz, in “TV you do!”: Disney-style interactivity and the corporo-empowerment of American tweens”, look at the Disney Channel “Zoog Television” as a means of discussing the relationship between interactive media and the corporatisation of American ‘tweens’.
|
Bit
4 | |
For some, interactivity offers to fulfil the desire to make audiences
knowable. Against the model of interactivity this assumes, Michelle Henning in her article “Interactivity and the Realm of the Dead” proposes “a model of gift-giving akin to offerings to the dead”. “Consumer, or the Consumed? MMOB reverses consumer’s identity” sees Amy Lee examine the role of Multi-Media On Board (MMOB) services on a local bus line, and the wider implications this may represent about shifts in consumer positioning. John Miller’s “Why Hyperfiction Didn’t Work” explores the phenomenon of hyperfiction, looking particularly at how its potential interactivity functioned to paradoxically discourage the reading practice it was designed for. Greg Oguss, in “Television: Theory, Practice and the Interactive”, discusses the relationship between Television Studies, the interactive TV phenomenon and resultant viewing practices. In “The Illusion of Consumer Participation: The Case of Talk Radio”, Sara O’Sullivan - in producing a case study of The Gerry Ryan Show, a popular Irish talk radio program - discusses the limited and largely illusory nature of audience participation. Cally Phillips’ “We Love Big Brother” looks at how interactivity functions on reality television, and argues for a reading of Big Brother as a kind of rewriting of George Orwell’s distopian vision in 1984.
|
Bit
5 | |
Individually these articles represent an eclectic approach to the topic of ‘interactivity’ and highlight the diverse approach to media studies that M/C Reviews is committed to. As a collection the “Interactive” issue of M/C Reviews recognises the relationship between the specific issues highlighted within these articles and some of the key issues affecting media scholars today such as media ownership, media intertexuality, and consumerism.
|
Bit
6 | |
So, if you’d like to ‘interact’ with us, read on!
| | | | |
Bit
7 | | Citation reference for this article
MLA style:
Kelly McWilliam and Kate Douglas. "EDITORIAL: Your Say - Interactivity in Contemporary Media" M/C Reviews 25 Oct. 01. [your date of access] <http://www.media-culture.org.au/reviews/features/interactive/yburul.html>.
Chicago style:
Kelly McWilliam and Kate Douglas, "EDITORIAL: Your Say - Interactivity in Contemporary Media," M/C Reviews 25 Oct. 01, <http://www.media-culture.org.au/reviews/features/interactive/yburul.html> ([your date of access]).
APA style:
Kelly McWilliam and Kate Douglas. (2001) EDITORIAL: Your Say - Interactivity in Contemporary Media. M/C Reviews 25 Oct. 01. <http://www.media-culture.org.au/reviews/features/interactive/yburul.html> ([your date of access]). | |
|
![[image]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0553567527.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg)