The Channel’s Changing

Isn't that just hyperindividual, then?
It's a continuation of the VHS and the DVR technology, really, watching TV whenever you want it. It changes the whole network philosophy, actually, because the whole idea of a "season" is vanishing with all the new technology: computers, mobile phones, etc.

So if broadcast television is over, why try to make it all fancy with digital cable?
Well, right now, each household is in a different evolutionary point in television's technical history. This will make it so there's a common ground, so people that might have resisted cable in the past, for whatever reason, or even resisted computers, will now have access to all that digital technology. It's really just upping the quality, though. I don't think it'll change the trend we're seeing now; we've already moved from the traditional appointment-television model of viewing to an era where you can watch any show when you want to on Hulu. There's not one "television experience" anymore—but going digital might help in terms of creating that movie-theater experience, where we're all watching HDTV communally. This might be a way for television to sort of evolve into cinema.

Well, aside from the massive screen.
We're also thinking about size— whether that's from the computer or the cell phone. Like movie theaters, as I said, going digital might give life to the good ole box.

After digital goes through—hopefully hiccup-free—what's next?
Reality TV was always an unexpected guest at the party, so who really knows what's next. There's this whole Warholian idea that everybody will be some type of media star, and what that signifies is the viewer engaging in the media. So from that, maybe there's a possibility of a 3-D experience at home; that's been tested out at some of the trade fairs. In a way, television technology is headed for a very theatrical experience, especially with three-dimensional technology and new programming, like the latest broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera. But it's also becoming less spectacular with all the mobile media and reality television.

In your view, which path will help the networks profit? What about benefitting viewers too?
Really, what we need is something like Marshall McLuhan's "global village." If you can somehow deliver programs that don't have to be translated or adapted, there's certainly a tremendous economic incentive to that. For a while, that was the American market, with the syndication of successful American television shows. But so much of television—and technology—is highly nationalized. The impulse to go international with programming [or engineering] hasn't happened yet, even though McLuhan and his thoughts are certainly with us. That's what will happen next, I think, but it's a long way out.

© 2009