TikTok as TV? “A lot of people will be scared…” (Presentation)

As a big fan of internet content, I was very excited for this week’s topic of Post-TV. The readings did a great job at explaining the multiple sides of “open TV”, as Christian calls it, referring to “independent web TV production and distribution” (4). He briefly discusses how scholars have underestimated the value of open TV and although there has been a rise in scholarship unpacking new media and this independent format or style of television - if we can even call it television -, I think the more it evolves the harder it is to define. The internet keeps changing faster and faster and I don’t see how it would be possible for media theory to keep up with all shapes and forms media is taking with the impact of the digital. However, this week’s readings did a great job at setting up a base for theorizing post-TV. I specifically liked how Christian discusses the inner-workings of open TV in terms of how producers make it, what they’re making and to what ends; and how Parks attempts to define a “Television 2.0” by looking at the emergence of new forms of TV related to digital access and the shifting meanings of converging technologies, overlapping with politics of gender, race and class. No matter how blurry lines get, I strongly agree with Parks’ final remarks in her chapter, about not killing television. That if we are concerned about the future of the medium and the next wave of content, we should engage with it rather than kill it. So that’s the approach I would like to take with this “presentation” in presenting a case for a potential Television 3.0 with Parks as a starting point. 

Parks’ chapter was written in 2004, so yes, a lot has changed in postbroadcasting, as she calls it. I was fascinated by her description of flexible microcasting and the way our post-TV platforms would (and still do, very strongly) read into the content that we choose to watch to give us a computer-curated menu of shows. While it sounds amazing, by now we can see the limitations in this algorithm. With so much new content being made, that can quickly limit what’s pushed to your menu of options but many of us have also learned how clicking on wildcards can completely mess up the platform’s recommendations. I’ve gotten mad at YouTube countless times for filling up my homepage with recommendations I don’t want to see, only because I felt adventurous and decided to watch one or two (… or thousands) of videos that I wouldn’t normally watch. I also thought it was interesting how Parks discussed more people having access to TV than the internet. The way media conglomerates are quickly making as much of their “traditional content” available online (e.g. talk shows) shows that the tables are turning. But it’s conflicting how as much as they are trying to embrace media convergence, they’re also attempting to hold on to a clean-cut division between television and the internet, where what’s popular online is only popular online, and what’s on traditional media is still superior. A few weeks ago, YouTuber Nikkietutorials spoke about her experience as a guest on The Ellen DeGeneres Show after getting a lot of traction online for coming out as a trans woman. She said:

“'Call me naive, but I kind of expected to be welcomed with confetti cannons: 'Welcome to The Ellen DeGeneres Show!' But instead I was greeted by an angry intern who was a bit overworked. I was expecting a Disney show, but got Teletubbies after dark. Every guest at Ellen's had a private toilet, but I didn't. I was not allowed to use the nearest toilet, because it was reserved for the Jonas Brothers. Why do they get a private toilet, I thought. But in the end my item had eight million views afterwards and theirs two million, ha!'” (&C).

I thought this was relevant for our current state of Post-TV because we see traditional media running after “open TV” producers as an attempt to stay relevant while also neglecting its value to maintain a level of superiority, or freshly acquired sense of “high art” now that there’s a new form of “low art” in town. I’m not going to list everything that has changed since “Television 2.0,” but this made me wonder what could serve as an example of current post-TV and an evolution of what Parks was talking about, something fresh.

If “Television 2.0” removed “the spontaneity of the practice of channel surfing” (Parks, 136), we may look at TikTok as Television 3.0, still existing as “more of an archive than a schedule” (Parks, 150) and challenging traditional television with inclusive and innovative representations, but bringing back the flow and discovery viewing mode of channel surfing as the norm, instead of curating exactly what you want to watch. I’ve been spending a lot of time on TikTok lately and it has become my favorite form of escapism. What’s most interesting about it is the main page, called “For You.” It’s a never-ending feed of videos that represent what’s popular and currently “going viral” on the app at the moment. There’s a very fast turnaround, but the way you’re supposed to keep scrolling in search for more content encourages you to stay on the app for longer. You never know what’s next, maybe there’s something even funnier. Addicting as it sounds, it reminds me of channel surfing. In class we often discuss how we don’t practice channel surfing anymore and that we go straight to the TV shows we already know of. TikTok’s For You page encourages users to discover new content, producers and “channels” until it’s 3 a.m. and you realize you’ve been on it for too long, only because a video by the official TikTok account with a smiley teenage boy shows up and he says: “I understand it’s easy to keep watching videos, and trust me, I’ve been there before. But those videos will still be there tomorrow. Go get some extra sleep, turn your phone off, do yourself that favor, and have a great night.” The new generation of “open TV” spectators are channel surfing for so long that the platform has to tell them to go to sleep.

This never-ending flow also translates into the nature of the content in the platform. A popular user, @adamrayokay, became extremely popular for his exaggerated latinx character Rosa. Adam has uploaded countless videos of Rosa talking to the camera and users all over social media insert themselves in the stories by making “duets” with the videos. Then, there is not only the channel surfing in the For You page, but also under one video, as it generates a wave of new co-created content. This goes in line with Christian’s theory of how “the Internet brought innovation to television by opening mass distribution to those excluded from legacy development processes, fostering new ways of creating and marketing series” (4). The “duet” feature allows for viewers to find new creators, but it also encourages viewers to insert themselves in the narrative and expand the representation seen on screen. Adam, who was bored with his day-to-day job in Texas (as he describes on his first YouTube video), now has the opportunity to produce and market his own stories (we could consider Rosa to be a series) and has even collaborated with big YouTubers like Zane Hijazi from the Vlog Squad and James Charles, all from a couple of months of major internet success.

Here’s one of Rosa’s most popular videos:

@adamrayokay

POV: Rosa finds out her 8th period partner is gay😭😂 ##fyp ##viral ##foryou

♬ original sound - adamrayokay

And here are two of the many re-creations of her video:

@honeyanttt

Me everyday in Middle School. ##react to @adamrayokay . ##funnyvideos ##gay ##duett

♬ original sound - adamrayokay

@kevsters__

Rosa has a new gay best friend @adamrayokay @marlenedizzle @carlospereda_ ##rosa ##foryoupage ##fyp ##xyzbca ##viral ##foryou ##comedy

♬ original sound - adamrayokay