![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The research in this article examines audience responses to a range of factual and reality genres. It takes as a starting point that television audiences do not experience news or documentary or reality TV in isolation but as part of a range of factual and reality programmes. Factual and reality programming includes a broad understanding of non-fictional programming on broadcast television, satellite, cable and digital television. The breakdown of factual and reality programming into specific genres includes news, current affairs, documentary, and reality programmes, with further sub genres applied within each of these categories. This article critically examines genre evaluation. The quantitative research in this article is based on two national representative surveys conducted in Britain and Sweden. In both Britain and Sweden, programme makers have moved towards a reliance on popular factual genres. In Britain this is across all channels, and in Sweden this is mainly concentrated on commercial channels. Whilst there is still a commitment to news, there is an increasing use of hybrid genres in an attempt to popularise factual output. The impact of this changing generic environment on audiences is that in both countries viewers have reacted by drawing a line between traditional and contemporary factual genres. It is precisely because of the redrawing of the factual map that viewers rely on traditional ways of evaluating genres as public and informative, or popular and entertaining. The data provides evidence that contributes to existing debate on television genre, public service broadcasting, and media literacy skills. The central argument in this article is that genre evaluation is connected with wider socio-cultural discourses on public service broadcasting and popular culture, and that these are common social and cultural values that are shared by national audiences in two Northern European countries.
Notes
1. The research in Britain was funded by the Independent Television Commission and Broadcasting Standards Commission (legacy regulators of Ofcom), and carried out in association with Ipsos-RSL; and the research in Sweden was funded by the Media Management and Transformation Centre at Jönköping International Business School, with a small grant from the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Göteborg University, and carried out in co-operation with the SOM Institute, Göteborg University.
2. Interview with Annette Hill, November 2004.
3. Some differences in the questionnaire of methodological significance might also influence the results. The Swedish questionnaire used a different response scale compared to the British; in Sweden frequency in watching was measured by the response alternatives: ‘daily’, ‘several times a week’; ‘once a week’; ‘once/several times a month’; ‘more rarely/never’; in Britain by: ‘always’; ‘most of the time’; ‘sometimes’; ‘rarely’; ‘never’. However, the hierarchical ratings evident in the results or this question were also evident in other attitudinal questions on actuality or ethics that used identical response scales. Therefore, minor variations in the response scale are likely to be related to generic preferences.