Thanks to the annual TV discussion board media-friendly frequented by theorists and practicians our attention has been drawn once again towards the eternal conflict between information and entertainment. In fact, televison's self-criticism seems to be focussed upon these two terms. Once a year programme managers of the diverse stations show up, magically attracted by an inviting motto such as ‚Quo vadis, journalism' and discuss the quality of TV journalism. Even the impartial observer who has been spending large amounts of his lifetime in front of the telly has meanwhile found out that the roles are clearly distributed; on the one hand the public stations, matter-of-fact, quality-oriented, sincere, senile, on the other the private stations, colourful, infantile, representative of the fun generation.
As the debate is not meant to appear too auto-referential, attention is quickly drawn towards the Invisible Third, the audience. It focuses on the feedback, that is the effects of the effects on the audience on the programme stations. Preferably, empirical research is quoted drawing the line between public and commercial TV sometimes boldly, sometimes weakly - depending on who has ordered the research.
What makes the definition difficult is how information and entertainment are related. As is mostly the case, the categories depend on the observer who nonetheless somehow tries to ignore himself, thus creating the impression they are real. But the problems strike back: How entertaining may information be without being confused with entertainment? In turn, how much information can entertainment afford without taking sides with it?
So there is a variably sized district within which entertaining gets gradually informative, information entertaining. Apart from that the definition is per se difficult because the term information is ambiguous; beside the above mentioned meaning it can also denote any content. In that sense, anything is informative and it remains to be decided after that whether that information is informative or entertaining. (That is the ironical aspect of information; it is commonly used, because it is not very informative.) But before entering the nirvana of semantics, we seize a term which expresses this dim state of equality: It is called infotainment. A (by the way nearly successful) morphological contamination of information and entertainment. Originally brought up by the commercial stations in order to break through to the domain of public information, the public stations have widely lost their inhibitions and adopted the term. Sober knowledge has turned into a trendy one. And whoever was considered to be cynical because he held his audience for dumb enough to soften up the hard facts, has transformed into a sensitive programme maker who serves the sophisticated client. As the TV competitors observe each other how they are recognized by the audience, the standards of TV aesthetics have changed on both sides: more images and PowerPoint graphics, shorter sentences with dubious grammatical justification. Entertainment has shifted from SUBTRAHENDUM to SUMMANDUM of information. We might draw the conclusion that the distinction of information and entertainment still exists, but is disposable.
In short: Informative and entertaining formats each differ in information and entertainment. Another difference (the positive respectively the negative evaluation of the issue) then causes the continuous and endless self-representation typical of programme stations. Accordingly, the informative side of the information side counts as serious, whereas the entertaining side of the entertainment side is regarded as dubious. This is for sure, for the mingled forms information/entertainment or entertainment/information are all the more shady. At this stage, the common difference public/commercial is of no more avail.
Therefore, infotainment is a cipher of uncertainty if spectator A informs, spectator B enjoys himself. Or vice versa. We might assume the term remains open to speculation and will be further distinguished after high value and low value infotainment.
Horatio would be delighted to know his formula of prodesse et delectare still causes some headscratching - today and at the next annual TV meetings.
As the debate is not meant to appear too auto-referential, attention is quickly drawn towards the Invisible Third, the audience. It focuses on the feedback, that is the effects of the effects on the audience on the programme stations. Preferably, empirical research is quoted drawing the line between public and commercial TV sometimes boldly, sometimes weakly - depending on who has ordered the research.
What makes the definition difficult is how information and entertainment are related. As is mostly the case, the categories depend on the observer who nonetheless somehow tries to ignore himself, thus creating the impression they are real. But the problems strike back: How entertaining may information be without being confused with entertainment? In turn, how much information can entertainment afford without taking sides with it?
So there is a variably sized district within which entertaining gets gradually informative, information entertaining. Apart from that the definition is per se difficult because the term information is ambiguous; beside the above mentioned meaning it can also denote any content. In that sense, anything is informative and it remains to be decided after that whether that information is informative or entertaining. (That is the ironical aspect of information; it is commonly used, because it is not very informative.) But before entering the nirvana of semantics, we seize a term which expresses this dim state of equality: It is called infotainment. A (by the way nearly successful) morphological contamination of information and entertainment. Originally brought up by the commercial stations in order to break through to the domain of public information, the public stations have widely lost their inhibitions and adopted the term. Sober knowledge has turned into a trendy one. And whoever was considered to be cynical because he held his audience for dumb enough to soften up the hard facts, has transformed into a sensitive programme maker who serves the sophisticated client. As the TV competitors observe each other how they are recognized by the audience, the standards of TV aesthetics have changed on both sides: more images and PowerPoint graphics, shorter sentences with dubious grammatical justification. Entertainment has shifted from SUBTRAHENDUM to SUMMANDUM of information. We might draw the conclusion that the distinction of information and entertainment still exists, but is disposable.
In short: Informative and entertaining formats each differ in information and entertainment. Another difference (the positive respectively the negative evaluation of the issue) then causes the continuous and endless self-representation typical of programme stations. Accordingly, the informative side of the information side counts as serious, whereas the entertaining side of the entertainment side is regarded as dubious. This is for sure, for the mingled forms information/entertainment or entertainment/information are all the more shady. At this stage, the common difference public/commercial is of no more avail.
Therefore, infotainment is a cipher of uncertainty if spectator A informs, spectator B enjoys himself. Or vice versa. We might assume the term remains open to speculation and will be further distinguished after high value and low value infotainment.
Horatio would be delighted to know his formula of prodesse et delectare still causes some headscratching - today and at the next annual TV meetings.
No comments:
Post a Comment