Reality Television and Big Brother Essay Sample

Papua New Guineans and Norwegians are familiar with Dawson and his brook. Rachel and her friends. Oprah and Dr. Phil. in the same vena that Americans are now devouring fans of ugly Betty and worshippers of their ain American Idols. This phenomenon has been possible over the past few decennaries because of globalisation. Jonathan Bignell ( 2004 ) defines globalisation as “the procedure whereby ownership of telecasting establishments in different states and parts is concentrated in the custodies of international corporations. and whereby plans and formats are traded between establishments around the universe. ” Structural and Technological alterations guide the growing of this pattern that straight affects economic and cultural issues. From being an isolated. national industry. telecasting has evolved to being an unfastened medium for a planetary trade of content.

The telecasting medium has been liberalized and privatized. giving manner to a deregulating of local broadcast medium Torahs and censors ( Waisbord. 2004 ) . With their plans. international media companies freely penetrate airing systems around the universe. Cultural boundary lines are now flexible. blurry to some extent. because of these structural alterations. Progressive and broad shows like Will & A ; Grace are now available for sing in culturally faraway states like the conservative Philippines. Technological inventions such as orbiters and the cyberspace besides contribute to the announcement of globalisation. Involved and interested parties instantly and handily do concern through an established technological web. Using these inventions. foreign intelligence webs such as BBC World. can easy convey a unrecorded provender from its London studios to any point in the universe.

Taking advantage of this development. Western media establishments. peculiarly that of the U. S. A. . controls this “buy and sell” system. The “emergence of a multi-channel. liberalized environment” served as an inviting chance for big production outfits to profit from the “increased demand generated by the detonation in the figure of telecasting hours” ( Waisbord. 2004 ) . Keeping an oculus on gaining an easy net income. Hollywood spearheaded the pattern of exporting shows to assorted states. The inflow of American soap operas like Dallas and situation comedies like Cheers in the 1980s marked a permanent bid of the trade that besides propagated the American system of programming in most states that it reached ( Bignell. 2000 ) .

However. as commercial telecasting rules grew to be more unvarying and the overall industry developed. other “domestic industries” have begun bring forthing and selling content that “catered to audience niches” . “What was good for Hollywood could. under the appropriate conditions. besides be good for other production companies based in other states as long they could get the hang the game of commercial telecasting. ” ( Waisbord 2000 ) . Now. media companies from Australia. Japan and most notably. Western Europe. have established a interest in this market every bit good.

Reality Television Formats: Culturally Specific but Nationally Neutral These new players’ successful shows in the international trade are correspondingly new and different from the transcribed plans ab initio made by Hollywood. Reacting to a demand administered both by local protectionist Torahs that require telecasting content to be closer to a country’s native individuality and values and by viewing audiences who statistically prefer local content ( Dhoest. 2004 ) . new major production outfits started to make more room for their program’s localisation. The tendency started with broadcasters geting merely a show’s book or plot line while they produce it locally. using their ain linguistic communication. histrions and location. Swerving off from canned plans that are fully-produced and ready for immediate broadcast medium. companies from the USA and Latin America are able to come in assorted “protected markets” like Europe and Asia by “selling books. packaged formats or partnering with domestic companies in co-production arrangements” ( Waisbord. 2004 ) .

Formats. defined by Bignell ( 2000 ) as “the design for a plan. including its scene. chief characters. genre and ( production ) signifier and chief themes” . otherwise “thematize” the inquiry of civilization. The construction of plan formats is based on cultural values that go beyond national specificity. Waisbord ( 2004 ) elaborates on this: …format shows are less prone to hold specific mentions to the local and national. exactly because they are designed to go good across national boundaries. Formats intentionally eviscerate the national. Could we say that Survivor/Expedition: Robinson is unambiguously a Dutch show? …What is British about Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Because formats explicitly empty out the marks of the national. they can go nationalized – that is. customized to domestic civilizations.

This quality of formats explains its popularity in planetary telecasting today and besides leads to another aspect – profitableness. Manufacturers market formats because it sells better than canned shows. which have small room for localisation. Cultures are therefore commodified through format trade. ( Robertson. cited by Waisbord. 2004 )

It is of import to observe that the popular formats in the market right now are largely reality plans. With its simpler construction and construct. the world genre extends the chance for socialization. Since world telecasting shows do non name for peculiarly known histrions to play functions. or a individual location to be set in. or one steady secret plan to follow. domestic companies can shoot more of their gustatory sensations and attacks that they could in a dramatic narrative format. It is interesting that while the globalisation of program/formats represents a blurring of national/cultural boundary lines. world telecasting scheduling besides basically obscures the different criterion genres.

But merely because formats are “glocalized” ( globalized and localized at the same clip. Robertson. p. 3 cited by Waisbord. 2004 ) it does non intend that they are wholly “malleable” by the local franchisers. “Copyright holders finally determine what alterations can be incorporated ; they remain ‘the authors” of the text despite a assortment of national versions and audience’s interpreatations” ( Waisbord. 2004 ) . This point could possibly be connected to the quality-control that format Godheads would wish to keep to maintain their merchandise it attractive to possible purchasers. taking cue from the stating. “why hole it if ain’t broke? ”

Aside from its cultural flexibleness. local telecasting webs invest in these “commodities” because they are low-priced scheduling with a “good path record” . The formats’ plasticity and “tested run” as a production ensures corporations of lower costs that “eliminates some of the highest fixed costs that fiction programming demands” ( Waisbord. 2004 ) . Harmonizing to Bernard Wainraub’s ( 2000 ) research. CBS’s mean outgo for a Survivor episode ( $ 200. 000 ) is three times the cost for a individual episode of King of Queens ( $ 600. 000 ) . There is besides less hazard in purchasing a format franchise because the format presents a predictability of how it will do. Its tally on its state of beginning and other states that have produced it gives the interested corporation a history to look at and establish its future version on. World formats are besides attractive to manufacturers because it offers a multimedia attack on pulling in a larger audience. Shows like Big Brother incorporate the cyberspace ( synergistic web site ) . nomadic telecommunication ( updates. phone games ) and a more masterful partnership with its patrons ( publicities. competitions ) .

Filipino Television Programming and Global Formats
Third-world states. specifically those in East Asia. have been the mark markets for formats. harmonizing to John Langdale ( 1997 ) . an economic geographer. Since their economic conditions are non as favourable. states in this part are non prone to build new shows that require a full-on production procedure ( e. g. fiction narrations. docudramas ) . With this in head. the survey will concentrate on the Philippines and its response and/or opposition of foreign plan formats. The Philippines is non new to importing foreign content. In fact. harmonizing to Michael Keane and Albert Moran ( 2003 ) . Philippine telecasting foremost started as a platform for “predominantly foreign scheduling. ” The celebrated telecasting researchers-cum-critics elaborate that this is caused by the chiefly “private. commercial and entertainment” orientation of local telecasting in its early old ages ( 1950s-60s ) . Besides. this happening takes root in the alleged “colonial mentality” that was fresh at that clip when the Americans “left” the state merely to go forth a tarriance grade in Filipinos’ heads ( Tuazon. cited by Keane and Moran. 2003 ) . Taking cue from this tendency. local coders followed the foreign. peculiarly American imprint of production.

As locally produced plans gained more undermentioned with the increasing center and lower categories at that clip. it was besides noticeable that most of the plans ran on foreign divine constructs. peculiarly in intelligence plans and assortment dance shows. At the same clip. foreign content would travel through two different types of version procedures which answered the call of viewers’ increasing demand for local topics. Keane and Moran named the two types minimum version – “narratives of foreign genres and programmes are minimally altered such as where programmes are dubbed into the lingua franca” – and format re-versioning – “format version. whether cloned…this is licensed or where an wholly ) new local version is refashioned from the ( original ) programme. ” Minimal version has been widely used in the 90s where in Latin American telenovelas invaded the state. Marimar and Monica Brava told us their typical Cinderella-rags-to-riches narratives in Tagalog. Today. Korean. Chinese and Nipponese characters fill the local telecasting airtime with their humourous love narratives delivered in the local idiom. From “breaking” or borrowing foreign shows’ constructs like Dawson’s Creek and 7th Heaven to bring forth “local versions Tabing Ilog and Munting Paraiso. Philippine telecasting has since kept up with the planetary tendency of formal franchising formats.

The new millenary ushered the entry of local versions of game shows such as Who Wants to be a Millionaire and The Weakest Link both produced by UK-based Celador ( now under the Endemol group ) . Both versions were produced by Viva Television Corp. . an independent production outfit and were aired on minor telecasting channel. IBC 13. Both game shows reach comparative success on their biennial tally ( 2000-2002 ) by much or less subscribing to the formats’ criterions. Major industry participants ABS-CBN and GMA on the other manus created GAME K N B and Korek Ka Dyan to vie in the market. While running on the same primetime block and having similar “high-tech” sets. typical hosts and an rational inquiry and reply attack. both claimed that their shows were Filipino-made. With a figure of alterations and rescheduling. GAME K N B? is still a viewer favourite.

Dabbling with a few shows that were arguably foreign inspired ( Starstruck. Search for a Star by Star Search. Extra Challenge by Fear Factor. Born Diva by The Swan ) . ABS-CBN and GMA are have besides engaged in geting official formats. GMA has bought narrative formats like Lupin ( Anime ) . the soon-to-be shown Marimar ( Televisa ) and their ain edition of the singing competition Celebrity Duets ( FOX ) . ABS-CBN has invested on the popular world format Big Brother ( Endemol ) to titivate up its primetime batting order. The teleserye nanogram totoong buhay has created such a multimedia phenomenon in the Philippines as it has in other franchisee states.

Philippine Idol
Riding this moving ridge. ABC 5 has decided to get the celebrated Idols format. The web. which has chiefly been demoing foreign transcribed plans such as the U. S. situation comedy Friends since it started. has decided in its recent reorganisation in late 2004 to spread out its scheduling and audience range. Together with the creative activity of local productions such Shall We Dance and acquisition of the legal rights to air Philippine Basketball Association games. ABC 5 has banked on Idol to derive a stronger audience clasp. Another factor that encouraged this determination is the cantabile competition plan tendency that has been on Philippine telecasting since the 80s ( RPN 9’s Ang Bagong Kampeon ) . This tendency carried on with Pinoy Pop Superstar ( GMA 7 ) Search for A Star in A Million ( ABS-CBN ) . Initially created by Simon Fuller and Simon Jones of Fremantle Media for British telecasting. Pop Idol ruled the evaluations game in its two-season on-air tally. The show operates on the singing competition construction that features draw a bead oning recreational vocalists who go through three judge’s “supervision” and vie for a considerable sum of money and a recording and direction contract among other things. But the Godheads injected a world telecasting factor that is partially encapsulated in the widely appreciated hearing stage of the plan.

Filled with echt wit and human-interest plot lines. the hearing stage of the competition anchors the contestants in the plan. giving them faces. names and images that resonate throughout the whole competition. The “journey” of these contestants from being anon. citizens to start stars proves to be appealing to the audience ; this chronicling of their immediate rise to stardom and richness provided a relatable connexion to most of the audience. The format’s success is besides attributed to the advanced add-on of place viewers’ engagement. or even power as others may set it. in choosing the victor. The occupant judges’ witty comments stretch the human involvement angle of the plan as they either “damage or aid” the contestants’ standings ( Holmes 2004 ) . This has led Fremantle to sell the format to a important figure of states. Harmonizing to the company’s functionary web site. the Idols format is presently “aired in over 40 territories” which include Armenia. Brazil. Finland. India. Kazakhstan and South Africa. “The planetary figure of ballots for Idols has now exceeded three billion” . the web site continues.

Arguably the most successful version of the format is American Idol. Debuting on 2002 on FOX. it is now considered one of the biggest shows in US telecasting history. With an mean estimated audience of 37 [ 1 ] million in the States entirely. it has besides broken records in the audience vote. American Idol has served as the paradigm. Simon Cowell. in his 2003 book. I Don’t Average to Be Rude. But … . . divulges that the Godheads of the show had targeted to set Idol in the American market. seeing its broad range and influence and a more stable land for their “star-making” purposes. It has spawned a phenomenon worldwide – its most recent season was broadcast in 55 states.

The Philippines in peculiar has caught on American Idol-fever. Since its 3rd season ( the first to be aired on local telecasting ) . the show has been shown on two mercantile establishments – overseas telegram telecasting channel Star World and ABC 5. This shows a sense of urgency for the plan. supplying two channels to break make a wider viewership ( Star World – classes A & A ; B ; ABC – center to take down categories ) . Google Trends. an internet tool that measures the most popularly searched footings on Google. enter the Philippines as the figure one beginning of American Idol questions over the past twelvemonth. Multimedia synergisms besides attest to show’s importace. Another index of the show’s esthesis is the comparative success of its former winners’ and finalists’ callings in the local music industry.

From this. it is apprehensible so that ABC 5 decided launch Philippine Idol despite the reported high cost of the franchise. The plan ran from 30 July 2006 to 10 December 2006.
With no significant informations ( official evaluations and net income information ) . the general feeling that engulfs Philippine Idol’s tally was non the same with that of old American Idol seasons. During the first season. the show was often rescheduled – public presentation darks would travel from Saturday to Sunday and consequence shows from Sunday to Monday. Ads are perceptibly largely that of San Miguel Products and Smart Communications. corporations which are under the same company as ABC 5. In add-on. the victor and finalists of the local Idol do non hold the same callback and success.

B. Statement of the Problem / Research Questions & A ; Objectives This study’s chief end is to find what happens when a telecasting show of transcultural beginnings is shown on Philippine telecasting. The research workers would wish to cognize how the Filipino spectator receives such a show and what factors are involved in their response of the show whether it is positive or negative. This survey aims to take a expression at how Filipino Idol as a foreign plan format was received by the Filipino telecasting manufacturers. industry and the sing public. Hence. it will reply the undermentioned research inquiries:

How receptive/resistant are the Filipino telecasting decision-makers and audience to a local version of a transcultural Television format like Philippine Idol?

• What are the societal. economic. and cultural facets of the Idol format that were taken into consideration during the dialogue between Fremantle Media and ABC 5? How did they hold on creating/producing a Filipino version of this international format? • How did the manufacturers of Philippine Idol place the Idol format so it can be catered to the Filipino viewing audiences? How did they market this localized plan to the Filipino audience? • How did the Filipino viewing audiences react to Philippine Idol? Did the show entreaty to the Filipino audiences’ gustatory sensation?

C. Significance of the Study
The phenomenon of international plan format franchising brings another dimension to the widely acknowledged power that telecasting as medium has. Aside from being chiefly an mercantile establishment for a nation’s cultural individuality. telecasting has now been a platform for globalisation. a freer platform for international exchange of civilizations and thoughts. The discourse that this phenomenon spurs is what the survey aims to discourse and analyse explores the trade between the format Godhead and the format buyer. the different factors on which cultural thoughts are married to bring forth an wholly new individuality through a plan. The survey stands on this exchange of conditions and the separate attempts of both the bring forthing and having parties to shoot their ain set of values and cultural traits. It besides extends to the discourse between the having local web. through the produced local version of the format and the mark audience. With the usage of a three-tiered attack that exhaustively analyzes a broadcast medium procedure. this thesis hopes to lend a gage of the Filipino producers’ . broadcasters’ and finally. the Filipino audience’s matching degree of receptivity to an acculturated plan format.

The consequences that would come from the filter covering the discourse between the plan format manufacturers and local manufacturers geting the format would lend to analyze of media globalisation. how the Western hegemony operates and how the having state accepts it or otherwise. The 2nd filter would lend to national individuality edifice by happening out how the local manufacturers acculturate the plan format through existent production and broadcast medium methods. The audience survey of the thesis offers the categorization and analysis of spectator typologies and the tantamount grade of their response to the localised version of the format. On a more concrete and specific degree. the consequences of this thesis survey is accessible to the telecasting industry as an assistance to parties interested in geting a foreign plan format.

D. Scope and Restrictions
In order to carry on the survey. three filters of socialization are being proposed based on the theoretical model that the group is suggesting to work with. All three filters are a important portion of finding how the Filipino market ( media and audience ) received the show. These three filters are production. broadcast medium and audience. This thesis approaches this model with Philippine Idol as a instance survey. A cooperation between the research workers and the local manufacturer. ABC 5 through Philippine Idol Unit Head Percival Intalan. has been forged to efficaciously carry on this thesis. The Filipino Idol production unit volitionally agreed to allow the research workers with first-hand informations. in the signifier of in-depth interviews.

In bend. the research workers have agreed to offer the consequences of the survey for the producers’ privilege. To cover the filters impacting production and broadcast medium. the survey utilizes in-depth qualitative interviews with the program’s primary manufacturers – Perci Intalan. ABC 5 Vice President for Creative and Entertainment Production ; and Anthony Pastorpide. Philippine Idol Supervising Producer. Initially targeted for this filter. was an email correspondence with the Fremantle representatives based in Singapore who were straight involved in Philippine Idol. but the said method was non ideal sing the representatives’ handiness and given timeframe for the research survey.

Since the plan ended ( December 2006 ) seven months prior to the start of the survey ( July 2007 ) . this restriction would besides include farther analysis from the producers’ portion. The producers’ positions by this clip are in a reappraisal province on how they treated the plan.

The same status applies with the audience that deals with the 3rd portion of the survey ; Philippine Idol viewers’ feeling of the show. at this clip. would non be the same as it was during the dissemination of the said plan. To counter this. respondents were chosen through a snowballing method in order to guarantee that the respondents have so seen the telecasts of Philippine Idol. . Viewing audiences were surveyed for quantitative intents and were subjected in focal point group treatment for qualitative aims. Determining the audience sample and the sample size is of extreme importance in carry oning this survey. Frau-Meigs says about the theory of located socialization. “The most loyal audience is composed of immature houwewives ( 20–30 ) . who did non travel to university and who ( stay at place. They are closely followed by immature pgople ( 12–25 ) . old plenty to travel to school but with no employment” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) . Taking into consideration what Frau-Meigs said. this thesis narrowed down the age scope of possible respondents to the ages of 16-25.

The sample’s socio-economic scope is besides influenced by Frau-Meigs’ drawn construction. She says. “reception of these programmes reaches the lower in-between class” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) . For the survey. the audience sample was chosen from among viewing audiences within category A. B and C. Again. taking into consideration the ( clip ) bounds imposed upon the survey. the sample audience were composed of Ateneo de Manila University Students. Finally. taking into consideration the group’s ability to go around the metropolis to manus out studies the figure of study respondents was pegged at 90 respondents.

Chapter II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter provides a comprehensive position of surveies. publications and articles that contribute to the domain of survey included in this research enterprise. In reexamining the bing scholarly plants. we aim to detect and verify the proven political orientations that support and land the study’s three chief variables in inquiry: 1 ) socialization and the discourse between the planetary and local and the application in production that consecutive consequences from it ; 2 ) the localisation manifested in farther production and broadcast medium in a macro-level ; and. in conclusion. 3 ) the audience response and matching attitudes to the ensuing “product” .

Waisbord places the root of the proliferation of plan format trade in the discourse between capitalistic and established ( largely Western ) media corporations and the other media corporations ( largely from the 3rd universe ) . With the alterations that shaped current scheduling commissariats ( less rigorous policies that allow more foreign content ) and technological criterions ( the development of orbiters and other inventions that ease communicating ) . a supply and demand relationship was set up between media corporations seeking more net income and smaller media companies seeking for programming assortment at a more cost-effective manner.

Large international media establishments grabbed the chance presented by the alterations in the telecasting industry. Waisbord continues to explicate that the “principles of commercial telecasting became standardised and industries ( consequently ) matured. ” American corporations were peculiarly speedy to see this possibility and acted on selling their canned plans to interested purchasers. The American command of the commercial telecasting pattern has propelled their system to be a criterion in most Western-influenced states. “What was good for Hollywood could. under the appropriate conditions. besides be good for…other states every bit long as they could get the hang the game of commercial telecasting. ” ( Waisbord 2004 ) .

Canned shows like play series and situation comedies were one of the most favorite import-export merchandises in the planetary telecasting trade. This marked a important transcultural phenomenon – foreign produced content with chiefly foreign subject and manner of production was come ining different states. This was an of import minute. signaling the entry of foreign thoughts across different civilizations. some of which are non that familiar with any other civilization than their ain. Michael Keane and Albert Moran contextualize this happening in Asia. wherein local content is dominant over foreign produced shows ( and they besides take note how Filipino telecasting pervert from this. as the said state was a former American settlement ) . But as the Western companies were able to commercialize and market their transcribed plans for distribution. the other states were led to devour them in their ain preferable mode ( Keane & A ; Moran 2005 ) .

As cultural boundary lines are blurred. another alteration in the telecasting industry called for another obscureness – that of plan genres and types. Fiction and non-fiction formats and even more types of plan formats are combined that gave rise to the world telecasting genre. Uniting elements of music/singing performance/concert. docudrama and an component of a populace sphere forum. the Idols format tantrums in this class. Since the said genre has no specific set of rigorous factors ( plot line. character/actor. puting among others ) . it is unfastened to alterations and

The rise of this genre. which has adequate room for flexibleness. enhanced the buyer-nations’ resiliency in seeking to shoot their ain national individuality on the formats that they purchase Waisbord farther expounds that formats. as culturally non-specific. are more attractive for interested media companies because they posses more room to infix a local spirit to it. a factor that makes local productions click with the viewing audiences. Alexander Dhoest. in his article. “The Pfaffs Are Not Like The Osbournes” ( 2004 ) . says that “What viewing audiences ever look for is the familiar: “familiar rights. familiar faces. familiar voices. ” ( Elsaesser 1994. as cited by Dhoest 2004 ) . Therefore. the format or genre parametric quantities may be “imported. ” but the existent plan content must be as familiar to the viewing audiences as possible. ” Divina Frau-Meigs provides the term socialization to encapsulate the pattern which she defines “dissymmetric power dealingss – without preventing the possible schemes to resistance to hegemony… that brings out domestic alteration after foreign contact… ( and ) Takes topographic point in the cross-cultural scene of format migration. ” Similarly. Waisbord devises the term. “glocalization” – the act to “think globally. plan locally. ”

Most research surveies use the widely popular world docudrama/gamedoc format. Large Brother. as a peculiar instance survey to discourse how localisation works. Divina Frau-Meigs and They find the said format to suit the different facets that happen in the socialization. It efficaciously combines the fiction and non-fiction genres as it already borders to a narrative type of plan. The interaction between the base original Endemol format and the localisation is seen in greater range and item because the format allows a thorough screening of the “spontaneous” characters and plot lines.

The research workers on the other manus decided to utilize the Idols format as the peculiar instance survey for the research. While the plan format is arguably as known and circulated as Large Brother. the existent narrative component of format is confined to the hearing stage. But what is interesting about the Idols format is how the “reality” facet of the show lingers in a more originative and subliminal manner until the existent victor and even finalists make it as dad stars. Su Holmes credits the “star-making” machinery that fuels Idol as a show. In her article. “Reality Goes Pop! ” Reality Television. Popular Music. and Narratives of Stardom in Pop Idol. she explains that the Idols format possess an indirect manner of building a narrative. holding to utilize the vocal pick and public presentation to try a contestant’s individuality. There is besides that personal ( the contestant’s background and endowment ) to public ( the selling of the contestant to the audience ) dynamic that enriches the show and keeps a clasp on the audience.

The format ab initio establishes a relatable point for the audience in angling the contestants as existent people who have endowment and are holding a opportunity at doing it large through the competition/program. This audience engagement extends to the format’s voting powers cast upon the place viewing audiences. The contestant’s overall public presentation. the host’s patters. the judges’ witty comments compose a portion of the populace sphere that the format tries to emulate with the attendant factor that is the audience’s ballot. Frau-Meigs acknowledges this pattern in her survey refering Big Brother. but she besides takes note that the direct engagement given to the viewing audiences during the show’s existent tally. though existing. is already narrow in grade as the factors presented for their engagement ( taking of winner/s ) have already been pre-selected by “producers. broadcasters and sponsors” . Though the survey recognizes that this certain engagement keeps some of the audience hooked on the plan. it still aims to happen out how receptive the viewing audiences are to the whole plan.

A figure of spectator typologies and motives. drawn up by Frau-Meigs. are examined in Correa and Ebreo’s 2006 research survey. Under One Roof: Pinoy Big Brother. Filipino Audiences and the Negotiation of Culture. They discuss type 1 as the viewing audiences who see Large Brother as a “mirror” who represent themselves through the jutting images/personalities of the housemates. This type’s matching sing scheme holds no major opposition of the stuff and incites a “socialization procedure that requires internalisation and changeless re-evaluation of self-presentation procedures” ( Frau-Megis 2005 cited by Correa & A ; Ebreo 2006 ) . Type 2 embodies the viewing audiences who are still supportive of the show but are. on changing grades. aware of the show’s “artificiality” and “reinforcement of stereotypes” through the characters and set-ups. These viewing audiences besides chiefly ticker because of the talk ( societal degree ) that is generated by the plan. “Disgusted critics” who watch the show to emphasize their abomination and incredulity of the plan. The research workers are influenced by the same operation ( utilizing the typologies ) as the typologies are comprehensive to be used in the survey of the Idols format.

Merely in this thesis’s instance. angling of the elaborate research instruments geared towards the audience would take into consideration the more straight entertainment-orientation of the format at manus. Aiming to pull up with the Filipino viewer typology of opposition to the Big Brother format. Correa & A ; Ebreo’s research survey yielded consequences that “neither confirm nor reject the being of such spectator types” . The Filipino audience turns out to be the “general. non-homogeneous yet homologous type… that exhibit features similar to those demonstrated by each of Frau-Meigs’ types. but bing at the same time with each other. such that a Filipino PBB spectator may either be a combination of any of the two: ( a ) Type 1 and Type 2 ; or ( B ) Type 2 and Type 3. ” The viewing audiences are represented by a screening scheme that indicates a more or less informed nature of the Filipino audience of the Big Brother format. This is a notable jumping point provided to this thesis as it confirms certain consciousness to the plan format pattern. The survey takes off from with the information that Filipino audiences are reached. if non to the full receptive. to another transcultural format.

Chapter III: THEORETICAL. CONCEPTUAL. AND OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORKS

Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) . a Gallic bookman and professor. sees that most of the academic surveies sing the response responses of the European audience to transcultural telecasting formats have focused merely on either genre or gender. Hence. with such limited range. she claims that the critics have failed to comprehend and measure other factors that could besides hold played a critical function in relation to the aforementioned capable affair. These include: 1 ) placing the specific sort of socialization procedure taking topographic point in the cross-cultural migration of telecasting programmes ; and 2 ) sing the whole communicating procedure. from production to response. in a comparative mode. Having these observations. Frau-Meigs has pioneered and proposed a model that addresses and recognizes these unseen factors ; that is. the Theory of Situated Acculturation by the Media. This chapter discusses the abovementioned communicating theory. which the research workers have seen appropriate and suited for this Television production-related survey. The first portion of the chapter relays the theorist’s certificates in order to set up her credibleness as a bookman and a premier mover of the field of communicating. Then. the chapter’s wining parts delves into the theoretical. conceptual. and operational applications of Frau-Meigs’ theory.

A. The Theorist: Professor Divina Frau-Meigs
Divina Frau-Meigs is an American Studies and Media Sociology professor at the Institut du Monde Anglophone. Universite Paris 3-Sorbonne nouvelle who specializes in media and information engineerings of Anglo-Saxon states. To day of the month. she has written many publications about the media. engineerings. screen subcultures. and the connexion between media and engineerings. Some of these include Les Ecrans de la Violence ( 1997 ) . Medias et Technologie: l’exemple diethylstilbestrols Etats ( 2001 ) . and Medias ( 2003 ) . Professor Frau-Meigs has besides been involved in making research refering media ordinance and self-regulation. Furthermore. she has been the Director of the Media Research Association and the Foreign Affairs Deputy Chair in the councils of the Gallic Information and Communication Studies Society ( SFSIC ) and the European Consortium for Communication Research ( ECCR ) .

B. The Theoretical Model: Theory of Situated Acculturation by the Media in a Nutshell Frau-Meigs’ Theory of Situated Acculturation by the Media is a merchandise of her attempts to analyze cultural diverseness and culturization. She explicates this communication-related theory in her research. “Big Brother and Reality Television in Europe: Towards a Theory of Situated Acculturation by the Media. ” which has been published in the European Journal of Communication in 2006 ( Vol. 21. 1 ) . In this research. Professor Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) looks at the “cross-border circulation of world scheduling ( normally known as world telecasting shows ) among European states. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 33 ) Using Endemol’s phenomenal world Television show. Large Brother. as a instance in point. and accordingly. matching its elements and characteristics with the whole communicating procedure. from production to response. she analyzes and tests the procedure of socialization via the media. Harmonizing to Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) . “when sing the socialization procedure via the media. the asymmetrical relation does non merely occur between a foreign production filter and a domestic receiving filter: the media themselves create an intermediary filter for this transportation. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2001. p. 37 cited by Frau-Meigs. 2006 )

This is a really of import thought that she has raised in her old plants. which she has reiterated in this survey. Surely. it has helped in modeling the basicss of Theory of Situated Acculturation. Such media filter. she explains. Acts of the Apostless in a complex mode. puting socialization in a specific communicating scene. in add-on to a cultural and a geopolitical one. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) The procedure of socialization must be examined in the visible radiation of this communicating filter which acts both on the initial foreign message production and the domestic response. With this analysis. Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) says that the whole concatenation of audiovisual communicating demands to be taken into history ; that is. from production to broadcast medium. so airing to response. That is why the model she proposes has established media to be involved in three degrees. which she labeled as “acculturation filters” – Filter 1 ( Production ) . Filter 2 ( Broadcasting ) . Filter 3 ( Reception ) . In these filters. different tendencies of socialization happen and different groups of people interact because of a telecasting format that is transcultural in nature – a Television show that can be adapted by any civilization.

Figure 1. A Model of Divina Frau-Meigs’ ( 2006 ) Theory of Situated Acculturation by the Media ( Correa and Ebreo. 2006. p. 12 )

1. Filter 1: The Transcultural Drive in Production ( Transcultural Acculturation )
The first socialization filter is related with the production phase of the communicating procedure. and Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) calls it. the “transcultural thrust in production. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 37 ) It involves the interaction between a foreign telecasting tendency and a domestic telecasting industry. These elements are represented by the creators/producers of an internationally produced Television format and a peculiar broadcast medium company who desires to aerate this Television show in its ( the web ) state of beginning. severally. In this socialization phase. the local telecasting industry experiences a multinational socialization through the foreign telecasting format’s basic foundation and nucleus values. Filter 1 revolves around the construct of being “transculturally acculturated” because the “transcultural principles” of an international format are forwarded and made applicable to different states and in consequence. necessitating a homogeneous version.

Through building what is referred to as the show’s “bible. ” in which the construction and regulations of the format are stated. they facilitate the creative activity of a transcultural format. much in the same manner as faith aimed at uniting different states around a alone text. even before state provinces have emerged. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) Hence. if the creators/producers agree to sell a franchise of their show to a local broadcast medium web. the web needs to follow with everything written in the “bible. ” so as to continue the original nature of the merchandise. Furthermore. a transcultural socialization – in footings of basic nucleus values – of the franchised world Television format to the accepting local telecasting industry can besides be seen. Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) points out that most of the world Television shows that are cross-culturally migrated in Europe are highly attached with the strong nucleus values of the alleged “Anglo-American matrix” . This matrix includes: “1 ) nominalism ( expressive power of linguistic communication ) ; 2 ) empiricist philosophy ( matter-of-fact power of state of affairss ) ; 3 ) useful ( the economic power of exchanges ) ; 4 ) presentism ( the concrete power of emotions ) ; and 5 ) the kernel of work and production. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 38 )

“This is so because the United States and the United Kingdom are in a more advanced and utmost phase of world Television development ; Godheads of formats following the genre of world telecasting pattern their merchandises with those produced by the aforementioned strong states. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) Hence. even if a peculiar format does non arise from the US or the UK. it still possesses the Anglo-American matrix. With this. a certain fright that such matrix would advance hegemony has emerged. However. Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) thinks that the first socialization filter makes a matrix of Anglo-American beginning acceptable by redacting out this angst ; and therefore. taking to an grasp and credence of values like individuality. competition. net income. and presentism. This is done through doing the audience feel and allowing them act like the participants. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) Furthermore. the abovementioned angst is edited through being advanced ; that is. partially opposing the transcultural thrust – i. e. using production elements that are non included/stated in the Bible. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) But. D. Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) clarifies that despite this little resistance and distinction exhibited by a peculiar version of a state that adapted it. the transcultural thrust remains undisputed due to its flexibleness.

2. Filter 2: The Intracultural Dynamics in Broadcasting ( Intracultural Accultuaration ) The 2nd socialization filter is associated with the
2nd portion of the audio-visual communicating procedure – broadcast medium. “If in production. telecasting can further a multinational socialization. thanks to the world Television format and its acceptance in different geographical countries and among different societal categories. paradoxically. in broadcast medium. the most outstanding impact of this transcultural format is its intracultural kineticss. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 41 ) Therefore. Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) names this filter as the “intracultural kineticss in broadcast medium. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 41 ) In this filter. it is apparent that the broadcast medium company which has acquired the franchise of the transcultural show. now. becomes the centre of socialization ; it functions both as the 1 that is being acculturated and the 1 that acculturates. Harmonizing to Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) . the 2nd filter Acts of the Apostless as a “transfer air lock aimed at doing people accept the commercial audiovisual systems and in making so shows the province of socialization of the decision-makers and the manufacturers of national telecasting. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 51 )

These people behind the local broadcast medium industry conform to the national penchant and individuality acknowledgment that [ seem to ] prevail [ s ] in its society. This is manifested through the “localization” of the transcultural show. so it would appeal to its local audience. It ( the show ) is marketed in such a manner that the domestic viewing audiences it marks can easy accommodate and familiarise with the format. As Hill and Palmer ( 2002 ) put it: “what makes the format a originative concern proposition is that it has been imported into states where their ain national features can be revealed. ” ( Hill and Palmer. 2002. cited by Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) As the localisation of the foreign telecasting format is being done. the broadcast medium web. so. unleashes its self-seeking socialization procedure – “to socialise the populace to its ain industrial modus operandi. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 42 )

In the kingdom of world Television shows. for illustration. telecasting webs have a inclination to interfere in people’s private lives such that they become normative and didactic. implementing regulations and values to follow. Furthermore. D. Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) observes that they put over their viewing audiences. their primary topics. and turn them into active. self-interested participants. while enrolling those most likely to function the amusement universe and be game. And as the world Television moves toward the nucleus of pop civilization. the media reinforce the general public’s credence that the economic system generates civilization. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) And as these intracultural kineticss of broadcast medium plants. Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) affirms that the transcultural thrust in telecasting is better promoted. 3. Filter 3: The Sparse Intercultural Prospects in Reception ( Intercultural Acculturation )

The last of the three socialization filters is chiefly concerned with the audience’s response and Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) labels it as “intercultural chances in response. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 45 ) Since it is all about response. this filter trades with the diverse and complex audiences – whether within or outside of a peculiar scene – that receive the transcultural telecasting format. It is concerned with how these people react to this show and how they use it in acculturating their penchants and values. Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) observes that viewing audiences of a peculiar multinational plan across different states have formed a “shared cultural infinite. ” originating from the consciousness that people in other states are besides watching the same plan.

With this sense of common telecasting activity. which Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) coins as “co-presence” . these viewing audiences become motivated to watch as they begin to experience that they belong to a “cultural system and a market in which the significance of an object is tallied with the significance others give to this object. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 46 ) Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) says that the 3rd filter shows a assortment of schemes sing response. Co-present populaces vie for the values that are being transmitted by telecasting. Their significances and their impact on young person socialisation require symbolic exchanges and acknowledgment of the bets around the socialization procedure per Se. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) With such analysis. she presents three typologies of typical viewing audiences who are fond of accepting transcultural world Television shows.

Measuring these socialization filters. Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) is able to develop the impression of “Situated Acculturation. ” whereby “populations are offered a composite matrix that affects their national civilization and allows for dianoetic patterns about values. non merely gustatory sensations. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 52 ) For her. this may reflect better the cardinal bets at work in cultural transportations of telecasting formats – dissymmetric power dealingss – without preventing possible schemes of opposition to hegemony they entail and the cultural beltwaies they produce. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 )

C. The Conceptual Framework: Large Brother as a Case in Point
Professor Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) has considered the phenomenal Big Brother ( BB ) as a instance in point of her survey about the Theory of Situated Acculturation by the Media. because it has opened the manner for a European migration of formats. Before this hybridized programme – a combination of game show. speak show. soap opera and documentary – invaded the European screens in the late ninetiess. exchanges in amusement scheduling among the states in this continent remains low. and in some instances non-existent. Through this world Television show produced by Endemol. transcultural hybridisation of formats and content became known throughout Europe. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 )

Using BB as the transcultural telecasting format variable. Frau-Meigs is able to gestate her Theory of Situated Acculturation by the Media.

1. Large Brother and Filter 1
In exemplifying the transcultural thrust in Large Brother production. Frau-Meigs employs the different European telecasting industries and Endemol and its BB format to stand for the domestic telecasting industry variable and foreign Television tendency variable. severally. And following the trail of Frau-Meigs’ theory. it is inevitable that Endemol and their show Big Brother acculturate the European telecasting industries that have adapted BB.

This multinational socialization has taken topographic point because there is a general format that must be followed by all states that adapted it. As written in the alleged “Big Brother bible” . all BB versions must hold the followers: the Spartan house and life style. the drawn-out parturiency ( about a 100 yearss ) . the absence of any media. the panoptic rule of surveillance. the confessional duty. the battery of trials. the eliminating ballot and the exhibition of ordinary people’s private lives. ( Frau- Meigs. 2006. p. 38 )

The transcultural thrust of BB is farther strengthened by the general premiss of the show’s construction of the trials and of the nomination ; that is. “survival of the fittest. ” ( Frau Meigs. 2006. cited by Correa and Ebreo. 2006 ) Such premiss is exercised among states that air Large Brother. It starts with the nominations made by the “housemates” ( this is how the BB contestants are called ) ; they nominate two of their fellow housemates whom they want to go forth the house and the competition. It ends with the determination via audiences’ ballots. The nominative housemate who gets the lowest figure of the viewers’ votes leaves the house. The procedure so continues until one housemate emerges as the “Big Winner. ”

Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) references that “Big Brother is an original. initial paradigm produced by an Anglo-American cultural matrix. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 38 ) The show’s elements such as the competition. promise of money. transparence. and separation from the household circle are decidedly rooted from this matrix. As Large Brother is aired in European states. these values are besides communicated and transmitted to the European audience. even to those who are used to the opposing criterions. For illustration. “some values connected to money and individuality. come in the Southern European countries’ spectrum. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 39 )

But. such hostility is remedied by redacting out the angst against these Anglo-American values and accordingly. transfusing in them an accepting attitude towards these rules. through transforming the audience into the province of being “viewer-participants. ” In this apparatus. they are placed on both sides of the screen ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) . Indeed. they are viewing audiences of Big Brother but at the same clip. they are besides participants because the endurance of televised participants lies on their custodies.

Another manifestation of the socialization procedure is through partially defying the transcultural thrust. like what the Spanish version of BB did in the yesteryear. In Gran Hermano 1. the Spanish housemates nominated everyone for riddance alternatively of merely calling two people ; hence. the viewing audiences have been compelled to take and take on the great duty for this unusual exclusion. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) Indeed. it is different but such motion has non truly challenged the transcultural thrust. Rather. it has dressed up the homogenising multinational inclinations of the format and its dominant Anglo-American matrix. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 )

2. Large Brother and Filter 2
Following the construct of the 2nd socialization filter of Divina Frau-Meigs’ theory. the different European telecasting webs. which have obtained the sole BB franchise. is at the centre of the socialization procedure. Surely. conformance and trueness to the civilization of the having audience define the “intracultural kineticss in broadcasting” which harmonizing to Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) works to better advance Filter 1. Therefore. the altered Big Brother format should non come into struggle with the environment in which it is produced. for it to hold a good destiny in the telecasting industry of that peculiar scene. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) The local manufacturers must subject their determinations. non merely to the foreign format they have franchised. but besides to the local civilization in which they belong to.

A strong fond regard to local beliefs and traditions explains why cultural participants are non represented in the European BB versions. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) Among European states. the mono-cultural vision of a society. along with individuality conformity and uniformity. still prevails. Hence. no affair how the Big Brother franchise in France attempted to include contestants with Northern African beginnings. they are still the first one to be eliminated ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) .

Furthermore. this conformity to local civilization – “conformity with a sunken morality” – besides affects how the viewing audiences select the “Big Winner. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 42 ) The least distressing campaigners normally have the inclination to win.

In footings of the socialization done by the broadcast medium web. the local manufacturers of Big Brother franchises are able to exert its power through the rubric ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 ) . They give “Big Brother” a local individuality so as to force for a more personal and familiar character. Hence. there are a batch of “Big Brothers” with different nationalities – i. e. Pinoy Big Brother ( Filipino ) . Australian Big Brother ( Aussie ) . and the similar. Still. they possess the same personalities – they watch and they punish but. they still remain sympathetic and compassionate. merely like a true “big brother. ”

Furthermore. the local manufacturers continue to acculturate the viewing audiences as they propagate the thought that housemates must act and move “on telecasting as in existent life. ” He or she needs to be himself or herself for this is of import winning the game. These manufacturers have besides reinforced the thought that economic system generates civilization. As a consequence. the civilization becomes attached with reproducing goods ; that is why the format is reproduced. DVDs of the past seasons are sold. and even the subject vocal is borrowed. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006 )

3. Large Brother and Filter 3
Correa and Ebreo ( 2006 ) states that the response schemes as populaces “vie about the values that are being transmitted” can be illustrated within the scope of utmost reactions: from “support attended by identification” to “suspicion attended by denouncement. ” as substantiated by the sing public. classified further into three types. ( Correa and Ebreo. 2006. p. 16 )

Frau-Meigs identifies and characterizes the three types of BB audience: Viewer Type 1. Viewer Type 2. and Viewer Type 3.
Viewer Type 1 is comprised of those within the populace who perceive telecasting as a ‘mirror’ . As they recognize themselves in “the participants and the state of affairss presented. [ they ] acquire volitionally involved in the glory of the participants. ” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 16 as cited in Correa and Ebreo. 2006 ) Such viewing audiences include those who want to go rich and celebrated. those who see the show as a agency of entree to television’s star system. and the underrepresented young person and the adult females who see themselves represented by the BB characters and state of affairss. A effect of a acknowledgment or designation with an audience is either support for the show or support for a housemate. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 16 as cited in Correa and Ebreo. 2006 )

The Viewer Type 2 group includes members of the supportive public merely like the Viewer Type 1. “But. unlike Viewer Type 1 members who believe in BB’s honest word picture of existent state of affairss and existent people. those under Viewer Type 2 are cognizant of the artificiality of the set-up. the commercial usage of the adult females and young person images. and the support of stereotypes. ” ( Correa and Ebreo. 2006. p. 16 ) Still. they do non reject these elements of Big Brother. but they see these as agencies “to achieve their ain purposes for national alteration. ” ( Correa and Ebreo. 2006. p. 16 ) And harmonizing to Divina Frau-Meigs ( 2006 ) . these include the people who are: pleased by the dirt caused by the exposure of societal and moral prohibitions… They prove Oscar Wilde’s regulation of dirt whereby to be talked about. even negatively. is ever better that non being talked about at all. Scandal creates conversation. reshuffles hard inquiries and arranges people in a assortment of unexpected groupings or even parties. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 47 )

The people who are considered members of the Viewer Type 3 are decidedly non fiends of Big Brother. They are blatantly unsupportive of Big Brother. unlike the two other viewer types. but surprisingly. they still watch the show to “reinforce their disgust and their suspicion” ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 17 cited by Correa and Ebreo. 2006 ) . These are the fed up critics. largely comprised of: grownups. work forces. intellectuals. politicians and church governments [ whose unfavorable judgments were in two phases: 1. ) before the broadcast season were denouncements on ] the format and set-up [ which are ] said to be contributing to humiliation. confine and even disaffection. . [ and 2. ) ] during the broadcast season…on the [ unauthentic ] content and the participants [ who are ] of small involvement. excessively similar and excessively stereotyped. ( Frau-Meigs. 2006. p. 48 )