JP Kelly

This is a follow up to my last post for

 CST

. Given that this is a blog about television it seems only fitting to begin with a brief recap:

 Previously On Quantitative Studies in Television…

In my previous post I described some of my early attempts to analyse television at scale using some widely-available software and a few simple lines of code.

QUANTITATIVE STUDIES IN TELEVISION (PART 2): ALGORITHMS IN ACADEMIA

CSTonline

CALL FOR PAPERS: Global Internet Television -- A Media Industries
special section  
Issue 13, September 2018 -- http://www.mediaindustriesjournal.org

Editors:

- Ramon Lobato, RMIT University --
  [ramon.lobato@rmit.edu.au](mailto:ramon.lobato@rmit.edu.au){target="_blank"}
- Amanda Lotz, University of Michigan --
  [lotz@umich.edu](mailto:lotz@umich.edu){target="_blank"}
- Julian Thomas, RMIT University --
  [julian.thomas@rmit.edu.au](mailto:julian.thomas@rmit.edu.au){target="_blank"}

In recent years major over-the-top subscription services including
Netflix and Amazon  
Prime Video have been expanding into new international markets, becoming
quasi-global television networks. At the same time, online TV offerings
from incumbent pay-TV providers, broadcasters and telcos are
proliferating, using diverse programming, pricing, and marketing
tailored to the demands of their national and regional audiences.

Together, this mutating landscape of internet-distributed television
raises many questions for media industry research. Which models of
internet television distribution are succeeding in different countries,
and why? What are the major policy issues shaping the evolution of
internet television around the world? What regulatory problems and
responses are emerging? What are the implications for longer debates
about transnational and global television? Despite all the change
characteristic of these services, legacy television institutions persist
as well. What frameworks help us explain and talk about television in a
period of such a variety of industrial practices?

This special section of *Media Industries* invites critical analyses of
the industrial dynamics of internet television as seen from various
parts of the globe. We especially invite contributions that take a
comparative or transnational approach to the topic. Internet television
is an evolving and contested term that, for some, encompasses a range of
services, from amateur video channels and live-streams through to
curated subscription services such as Netflix. While acknowledging these
blurred boundaries, this issue focuses primarily on industrially curated
services for professional content.

**Topics to be considered may include:**

- The evolving geography of different services and their various
  characteristics (programming, catalog structures, business models,
  branding, marketing, etc.);
- The infrastructural and market conditions required for success in
  internet television services, the unevenness of these conditions
  across countries, and their implications;
- National and transnational policy issues including net neutrality,
  internet filtering, censorship, classification, and local content
  quotas;
- The challenges posed by these services to existing scholarly and
  industrial frameworks for understanding transnational television flows
  and trade;
- Debates about local taste and viewing cultures as they relate to
  internet TV;
- Internet TV and the international intellectual property system.

Articles should be 5000-7000 words in length, and may take the form of
argument-driven case studies; analyses of particular industry, policy,
regulatory or infrastructural issues; or other approaches as agreed with
the editors. Submissions should reflect a media industry studies
approach to the topic. (Please note we are not seeking articles focused
exclusively on analysis of the content distributed by these services,
unless accompanied by discussion of industrial practices.)

*Media Industries* is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that supports
critical studies of media industries, institutions, and policies
worldwide. Media Industries expects contributions to adopt a critical,
rather than instrumental, perspective and to engage with relevant media
industries literature. We are especially interested in contributions
that draw attention to global and international perspectives, and use
innovative methodologies, imaginative theoretical approaches, and new
research directions. We encourage authors to employ the online format
creatively by incorporating audiovisual materials and hyperlinks within
their articles. Articles accepted for review will be double
blind-reviewed by two reviewers.

#### SUBMISSION PROCESS

Abstracts (500 words) should be emailed to the editors by 1 October
2018. Please send to:
[ramon.lobato@rmit.edu.au](mailto:ramon.lobato@rmit.edu.au){target="_blank"}
\| [lotz@umich.edu](mailto:lotz@umich.edu){target="_blank"} \|
[julian.thomas@rmit.edu.au](mailto:julian.thomas@rmit.edu.au){target="_blank"}

For accepted articles, the following deadlines apply:

- Full article submission: 1 February 2018
- Revision deadline: 15 April 2018
- Publication date: September 2018

Email enquiries to the editors are welcome at any stage.


CALL FOR PAPERS: Global Internet Television – A Media Industries special section Issue 13, September 2018 – http://www.mediaindustriesjournal.org  Editors: Ramon Lobato, RMIT University – ramon.lobato@rmit.edu.au Amanda Lotz, University of Michigan – lotz@umich.edu Julian Thomas, RMIT University – julian.thomas@rmit.edu.au  In recent years major over-the-top subscription services including Netflix and Amazon Prime Video have been expanding into

CfP: Media Industries special section &#8216;Global Internet Television&#8217;. Deadline: Oct 1, 2017.

Martin R Herbers

**Viewing practices in the age of second screens**

Watching television has always been a social activity. Recently,
audience practices have been changing with the introduction of new forms
of media technologies such as smartphones and tablet computers. Audience
members have the option to log onto the Internet anytime and anyplace --
even while watching television. The process of television watching thus
is no longer restricted to a single screen, but happens in a
multi-screen environment. Audience members make use of a second or even
third screen, switching their attention between their smartphones and
the television set. Nevertheless, attention must not necessarily be
divided, as audience members can choose to direct their activity to both
screens. Making use of social network sites such as *Twitter*, users are
able to engage in communicative practices, such as commenting on a
certain show through the second screen while at the same time watching
the show on the first screen. These forms of communication are quite
similar to the above-mentioned established forms of audience practices.
Nevertheless, they are novel, as audience members gain the option to get
into contact with other formerly unknown audience members. By
communicating through social network sites via the second screen,
audience members become visible to each other, allowing for vivid forms
of communication about television shows.

Market-driven research suggests that these new styles of watching
television are all-encompassing -- everybody uses a second screen to
engage in a communication-rich environment. This highly ambitious
assumption requires further scrutiny, as media audiences are by no means
undifferentiated masses, who employ new modes of communication as soon
as they gain access to them. Members of different media generations and
cultural backgrounds adopt new technologies in a cautious or curious
manner. They employ different styles of watching television and present
a variety of modes for selecting television shows, engaging with content
or socializing with other audience members. These styles of watching
television in different media generations using the second screen are
fairly unknown and thus constitute a gap in research, which we aimed to
close in our research project "Mediatized Media Reception", running from
October 2014 to December 2016.

**Researching the use of second screens**

Funded by the *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft* as part of the larger
research network [*Mediatized
Worlds*](http://www.mediatisiertewelten.de), we focused on changes of
audience practices regarding television viewing, brought forth by
changes to the media which are reified by the second screen. We analysed
the practices of commenting on television content as well as on the
processes of *co-orientation*, i.e. social forms of recommendation and
programme selection of individual audience members. In accordance with
Couldry (2012) we propose that these practices have become stable forms
of audience behaviour, which nevertheless renew themselves whenever
media changes occur, leading to different styles of audience practices.
These forms can be seen as the groundwork for the analysis of "media
generations", which differ in styles, but not in the forms of media
practices.

Our research took a closer look at audience practices during the
introduction of novel forms of television viewing in Germany. Our
research design was exploratory and based in Grounded Theory, as we put
the spotlight on changes in audience practice in the context of
television viewing as an everyday activity. We chose guided interviews
as our method for data acquisition, in order to grasp the circumstances,
contextualisation and actual practices of television viewing in old
(that is traditional, one screen) and new settings. Empirically, we
conducted a total of n=40 explorative qualitative interviews with
members of two media generations. Older participants (age 50 and older),
as well as so-called digital natives (ages 19 to 29) were asked to
recall and describe their practices of communication in the context of
their peers, such as family, co-workers, as well as non-peers, such as
commenters on the Internet. We conducted a computer-aided analysis of
the interviews, forming categories of audience practices regarding the
second screen, which occurred inter- and intragenerationally. The final
analysis is underway. However, we are able to give a summary of the
primary insights on the use of second screens and the accompanying
processes of communication.

Quite surprisingly, all our participants in both media generations
reported that they use a second screen during television viewing.
Members of any age group mainly used smartphones or tablet computers in
order to access the Internet during a television show they were about to
watch. Their use of the second screen is thus intentional and not merely
casual.

![](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/second-screen-usage-300x268.png){.size-medium
.wp-image-3819 .aligncenter loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="300"
height="268"
srcset="https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/second-screen-usage-300x268.png.webp 300w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/second-screen-usage-450x402.png.webp 450w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/second-screen-usage-140x125.png.webp 140w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/second-screen-usage.png 585w"
sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px"}

**Finding 1: Generation 50+ and their use of second screens**

Turning to the older members of our sample, we asked them about the
practices, which they conduct through the second screen, while watching
television. As far as processes of communication are concerned, most of
our older participants refrained from actively using social networking
sites, especially *Twitter*, to engage in conversation with other
audience members while watching television. Our participants gave
several reasons for their behaviour. First of all, members of the
generation 50+, reported that they simply did not feel the urge to
comment publicly on the shows. This answer was usually grounded in their
media socialisation. At times when they grew up, personal television
sets were a rare sight in Germany. In the 1950s and 1960s, owning a
television set was quite expensive and therefore an exclusive item.
Usually, neighbours gathered around privately owned television sets in
order to watch a show collectively. They were used to keeping quiet
during the course of the show. Some members of our sample reported that
if they owned a television set in the family, their parents usually
restricted the access and they were told to keep quiet as well. Thus,
older audience members have learned to watch TV in silence or without
any further commenting and transferred this learned behaviour to present
forms of watching television.

This silence of our older participants on the second screen had another,
more cultural, reason. Entertainment television in Germany is regarded
as a form of guilty pleasure -- all our viewers enjoyed watching popular
crime dramas or Reality TV shows, although they perceived them as a form
of low culture at the same time. Citing the need for recreation as their
main motive for turning to crime dramas (and *Schadenfreude* as the main
motive for turning to Reality TV), members of the older generation told
us that watching these shows had to be done in private. As these shows
are not regarded as high culture, public admittance to watching them
through social network sites could be seen as a loss of face.

Some older participants reported that they abstain from using social
networks through second screens as they are worried about data
protection and unforeseeable consequences of these forms of
communication. Once more, cultural and political reasons are guiding
this behaviour, as data protection is a heavily discussed issue in
German politics, leading to conservative and protective policies, which
emphasise user privacy. Our older participants generally follow this
line of argument.

Nevertheless, older users of a second screen frequently used it mainly
for gathering information on shows. They used websites such as
*Wikipedia* or *IMDB* in order to retrieve information on actors and
filming locations. Some of the older participants used the second screen
to perform a quick cross-check on information presented in the show, for
example on quiz shows.

**Finding 2: Digital natives and the second screen**

Digital natives in our sample reported that they usually refrain from
using *Twitter*, as its 'look and feel' did not attract them. The social
network relies on text-based messaging, makes heavy use of commentary
and meta-commentary through hashtags and employs a sarcastic mode of
communication, which needs to be decoded actively. Thus, younger
audiences in our sample frequently lost interest in using *Twitter*,
turning to apps such as *Snapchat* or *Whatsapp* instead, as they allow
a more casual way of communication, which focuses on the actual
situation of the users. They refrain from using *Twitter* both actively
and passively. Furthermore, they do not follow the older generation's
behaviour of information seeking while watching television and did not
turn to websites such as *Wikipedia* during the course of shows.

**Finding 3: Cross-generational use of the second screen**

Nevertheless, when leaving the *Twitter*-based public sphere and taking
a closer look at mediated private conversations about television, we
found vivid and engaging conversations between family members and
friends in both the older generation as well as among digital natives.
Watching television is a lively activity, especially in a family setting
where audience members regularly comment on shows. Nevertheless, many of
our participants made use of the second screen in order to reach out to
absent friends and family members, mainly by using channels for private
conversations, such as *WhatsApp* or other messenger apps. An older
woman told us that she and her husband frequently sent text messages to
their son, recommending crime dramas. The digital natives in our sample
reported that they use group conversations in messenger apps while
watching Reality TV-shows, such as casting shows. Thus, members of all
media generations in our sample make use of the second screen in order
to communicate with family and friends. Instead of choosing to
communicate with a group of random strangers via *Twitter*, our
participants preferred to engage in communication with well-known
individuals. We can assume two reasons for this behaviour. On the one
hand, the second screen is used to emulate the 'normal' setting of
television watching, i.e. a group of friends and family members in front
of a television set. The second screen serves as a digital extension of
the couch in front of the TV, drawing in absent individual users. On the
other hand, as the communication is not directed at unknown audience
members, our participants could 'keep their face' and do not feel the
need to justify watching Reality TV, as they are in the (virtual)
presence of like-minded individuals.

**A second screen for talking about television**

Our findings show that watching television is a highly social activity
as it employs different forms of communication in the age of second
screens. These forms are different with regard to media generations --
older audience members make use of second screens in order to
communicate with friends and family members, making frequent use of
messenger apps for private conversations. Furthermore, they use the
second screen to gather information. Digital natives on the other hand
refrain from this kind of behaviour but turn to the second screen in
order to engage in private communication with friends and family members
as well. The use of *Twitter* for publicly commenting on television
shows and engaging in conversation with strangers, which are
nevertheless part of the same audience, happens only scarcely. Thus, the
use of second screens is by no means all-encompassing, yet brings forth
new public forms of communication about television. As such, it can be
regarded as a tool for private conversations amongst friends and family
members.

 

**Works Cited**

Couldry, N. (2012). *Media, Society, World. Social Theory and Digital
Media Practice*. Oxford: Polity.

 

 

 

**Dr. Martin R. Herbers** works at Zeppelin University in
Friedrichshafen, Germany. Other than getting a great view over Lake
Constance, he spends a lot of time watching television, especially
comedy. His research interests are in the fields of political
entertainment media and their contribution to the public sphere. You can
follow him on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/MR_Herbers).


Viewing practices in the age of second screens

Watching television has always been a social activity. Recently, audience practices have been changing with the introduction of new forms of media technologies such as smartphones and tablet computers. Audience members have the option to log onto the Internet anytime and anyplace – even while watching television.

LET’S TALK ABOUT TELEVISION. TELEVISION WATCHING AND THE SECOND SCREEN

telemedicus.info

Ein SPD-Gesetzentwurf soll ein Zweitverwertungsrecht für Wissenschaftler
schaffen, der Bundesrat winkt De-Mail durch, die Datenschutzbeauftragten
tagen. Der Wochenrückblick. []{#more-7006}

![](https://irights.info/wp-content/uploads/illustrationen/irights/490x150_px_GIF/1_490x150.gif){loading="lazy"
width="490" height="150"}

**SPD veröffentlicht Gesetzesentwurf zu Open Access  
**Die SPD-Bundestagsfraktion hat
einen [Gesetzesentwurf](http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/050/1705053.pdf)
(PDF) veröffentlicht, der Urhebern von wissenschaftlichen Werken ein
unabdingbares Zweitverwertungsrecht einräumt. Damit soll es
wissenschaftlichen Urhebern, deren Arbeit überwiegend aus öffentlichen
Mitteln finanziert wird, künftig möglich sein, ihre Werke unabhängig von
etwaigen Vereinbarungen mit Verlagen frei zu veröffentlichen. Damit soll
einerseits die Position der Urheber gestärkt, andererseits der Zugang zu
Forschungsergebnissen erleichtert werden.  
[Pressemeldung der
SPD.](http://www.spdfraktion.de/cnt/rs/rs_dok/0,,55988,00.html)

**De-Mail-Gesetz passiert Bundesrat  
**Der Bundesrat hat das umstrittene De-Mail-Gesetz am Freitag
abgesegnet. Ein Änderungsantrag aus Brandenburg, der u.a. eine
durchgehende Ende-zu-Ende-Verschlüsselung gefordert hatte, wurde nicht
berücksichtigt. Bereits seit 2008 gibt es Pläne für ein rechtssicheres
Kommunikationsmittel, mit dem Bürger verlässlich und nachweisbar mit
Behörden und Unternehmen in Verbindung treten können. Nachdem die Idee
eines „Bürgerportals" in dieser Form wieder begraben wurde, [zieht sich
die Debatte um De-Mail
hin](http://www.telemedicus.info/article/1890-De-Mail-Warum-verzoegert-sich-das-Gesetz.html).
Nun sind zumindest die gesetzgeberischen Hürden vorerst genommen.  
[Meldung bei Heise
online.](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bundesrat-winkt-De-Mail-Gesetz-durch-1210572.html)

**Datenschutzbeauftragte tagen in Würzburg  
**Die Datenschutzbeauftragten von Bund und Ländern haben vergangene
Woche in Würzburg getagt. Auf der Agenda standen u.a. das
SWIFT-Abkommen, Telekommunikationsüberwachung und der
Beschäftigtendatenschutz. Die ausführlichen Ergebnisse der Konferenz
wurden beim „Virtuellen Datenschutzbüro" veröffentlicht.  
[Die Konferenzzusammenfassung bei
datenschutz.de.](http://www.datenschutz.de/news/detail/?nid=4837){style="color: #7a8800; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; text-decoration: none;"}

**Kartellamt verbietet Videoplattform von Privatsendern  
**Das gemeinsame Videoportal von RTL und ProSieben/Sat.1 (auch
„deutsches Hulu.com" genannt), ist vorerst gescheitert -- das
Bundeskartellamt hat das geplante Joint Venture vergangene Woche
untersagt. Bereits Ende Februar hatte das Bundeskartellamt Bedenken zu
dem Vorhaben angemeldet: Die gemeinsame Plattform festige das bestehende
Duopol der beiden Privatsendergruppen. Nur eine offene Plattform ohne
Beschränkung der teilnehmenden Sender und Inhalte könne kartellrechtlich
zugelassen werden. Dazu seien die Sendergruppen jedoch nicht bereit.
Diese vorläufige Einschätzung aus dem Februar hat das Bundeskartellamt
nun bestätigt -- diesmal endgültig. RTL hat
bereits [angekündigt](http://www.digitalfernsehen.de/RTL-wehrt-sich-juristisch-gegen-Verbot-von-Video-Plattform.51901.0.html),
gegen die Entscheidung juristische Schritte einzuleiten  
[Weiter bei der
FTD.](http://www.ftd.de/it-medien/medien-internet/:rueckschlag-kartellamt-verbietet-tv-sendern-onlinevideothek/60027337.html)  
[Telemedicus zu den kartellrechtlichen
Hintergründen.](http://www.telemedicus.info/article/1835-Das-deutsche-Hulu-im-deutschen-und-internationalen-Kartellrecht.html)

**Grünes Licht für xxx-Domains  
**Die Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) hat
vergangene Woche die Einführung einer neuen Top-Level-Domain
beschlossen. Die Domainendung „.xxx" soll in Zukunft für Webseiten mit
pornographischen Inhalten vergeben werden. Schon vor einigen Jahren
hatte es einen Anlauf für diesen „Rotlichtbezirk" im Internet gegeben.
Damals hatte die ICANN das Vorhaben
noch [abgelehnt](http://www.telemedicus.info/article/129-XXX-Domains-endgueltig-gescheitert.html):
Man wolle nicht als „Aufpasser für Inhaltsfragen" fungieren. Heute sind
die Bedenken andere: Indem man einen eigenen Adressraum für
pornographische Inhalte anbietet, fördert man auch die Filterung solcher
Inhalte, so die Befürchtungen. Saudi-Arabien hat etwa schon jetzt
angekündigt, Domains mit der Endung „.xxx" in einheimischen Netzen nicht
zuzulassen.  
[Die Hintergründe bei Heise
online.](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/ICANN-gibt-gruenes-Licht-fuer-Rotlicht-Adresszone-im-Netz-1211025.html)

**Wahlomat bleibt online  
**Der Wahlomat, die beliebte Software der Bundeszentrale für politische
Bildung zur Hilfe bei der Wahlentscheidung, bleibt auch für die
Landtagswahl in Rheinland-Pfalz online. Das Verwaltungsgericht Köln hat
einen entsprechenden Eilantrag der Partei ddp am Freitag abgelehnt. Die
Thesen, die beim Wahl-o-mat abgefragt werden, seien einseitig an den
Themenkatalog der großen Parteien ausgerichtet, so der Vorwurf der ddb.
Die Partei sei deshalb in ihrem Recht auf Chancengleichheit verletzt.
Das VG Köln sah das anders: die Auswahl der Thesen erfolge in einem
mehrstufigen Prozess, der auch kleinere Parteien nicht benachteilige.  
[Weiter bei Legal Tribune
Online.](http://www.lto.de/de/html/nachrichten/2816/vg-koeln-wahl_o_mat_bleibt_online/)

**BGH prüft Sportwettenverbot im Internet  
** Am Donnerstag hat der BGH in einem Verfahren über das
Sportwettenmonopol im Internet verhandelt. Gegenstand des Verfahrens
sind Klagen staatlicher Lotterieveranstalter gegen ihre privaten
Konkurrenten: Die privaten Wetten im Internet verstießen gegen das
Sportwettenmonopol und seien deshalb wettbewerbswidrig, so der Vorwurf.
Die Privaten werfen dem Gesetzgeber vor, mit dem Monopol rein
fiskalische Zwecke zu verfolgen. Dies entspreche jedoch nicht
dem [europarechtlich
vorgegebenen](http://www.lto.de/de/html/nachrichten/1395/EuGH-verbietet-deutsches-Gluecksspielmonopol/)Sinn
staatlicher Glücksspielreguierung.  
[AFP-Meldung bei Google Hosted
News.](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2fS74C40Z7C1jT02JvIZ0O8D44A?docId=CNG.22618495b764225b1874bef823d1b7b9.751)

*  
Dieser Text steht unter der
Creative-Commons-Lizenz[BY-NC-SA](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/de){style="color: #7a8800; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; text-decoration: none;"}.*

The post [Wochenrückblick: Open Access, De-Mail,
Datenschutz](https://irights.info/artikel/wochenrckblick-open-access-de-mail-datenschutz/7006){rel="nofollow"}
appeared first on [iRights.info](https://irights.info){rel="nofollow"}.


Ein SPD-Gesetzentwurf soll ein Zweitverwertungsrecht für Wissenschaftler schaffen, der Bundesrat winkt De-Mail durch, die Datenschutzbeauftragten tagen. Der Wochenrückblick. **SPD veröffentlicht Gesetzesentwurf zu Open Access **Die SPD-Bundestagsfraktion hat einen Gesetzesentwurf (PDF) veröffentlicht, der Urhebern von wissenschaftlichen Werken ein unabdingbares Zweitverwertungsrecht einräumt.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

QUANTITATIVE STUDIES IN TELEVISION (PART 2): ALGORITHMS IN ACADEMIA

CfP: Media Industries special section ‘Global Internet Television’. Deadline: Oct 1, 2017.

LET’S TALK ABOUT TELEVISION. TELEVISION WATCHING AND THE SECOND SCREEN

Wochenrückblick: Open Access, De-Mail, Datenschutz