skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025833acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

"I've been manipulated!": Designing Second Screen Experiences for Critical Viewing of Reality TV

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The recent proliferation of a reality TV genre that focusses on welfare recipients has led to concerns that prime-time media experiences are exacerbating misconceptions, and stifling critical debate, around major societal issues such as welfare reform and poverty. Motivated by arguments that 'second screening' practices offer opportunities to engage viewers with issues of political concern, we describe the design and evaluation of two smartphone apps that facilitate and promote more critical live-viewing of reality TV. Our apps, Spotting Guide and Moral Compass, encourage users to identify, categorise, tag and filter patterns and tropes within reality TV, as well as reinterpret social media posts associated with their broadcast. We show that such interactions encourage critical thinking around typical editing and production techniques and foster co-discussion and reflection amongst viewers. We discuss, more broadly, how these interactions encourage users to identify the wider consequences and framings of reality TV, and offer implications and considerations for design that provokes criticality and reflection in second screening contexts.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p2252-feltwell.mp4

mp4

202 MB

References

  1. Morgan Ames & Mor Namaan. 2007. Why we tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media. Proc. CHI '07. April 28-May 3 2007, San Jose, CA, USA. ACM. 971--980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240772 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Edward Anstead, Steve Benford, and Robert J. Houghton. 2014. Many-screen viewing: evaluating an Olympics companion application. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX '14). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 103--110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2602299.2602304 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Santosh Basapur, Hiren Mandalia, Shirley Chaysinh, Young Lee, Narayanan Venkitaraman, and Crysta Metcalf. 2012. FANFEEDS: evaluation of socially generated information feed on second screen as a TV show companion. In Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Interactive tv and video (EuroiTV '12). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 87--96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2325616.2325636 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Eric P. S. Baumer, Claire Cipriani, Mitchell Davis, Gary He, James Kang, Jaclyn Jeffrey-Wilensky, Jinjoo Lee, Justin Zupnick & Geri K. Gay. 2014. Broadening exposure, questioning opinions, and reading patterns with Reflext: A computational support for frame reflection. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(1), 45--63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2013.872072 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Joe Bennett. 2013.. Social Semiotics 23, 1: 146--162 Chav-spotting in Britain: the representation of social class as private choice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2012.708158 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Anita Biressi, and Heather Nunn. 2012. Reality TV: Realism and revelation. Columbia University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David Bodoff & Eran Vaknin. 2016. Priming effects and strategic influences in social tagging. HumanComputer Interaction, 31, 133--171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2015.1080609 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke, and Gareth Terry. Thematic analysis. In Qualitative Research in Clinical Health Psychology (2015): 95--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. British Psychological Society. 2013. Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research. INF206/1.2013. Leicester. Retrieved 20th December 2016 from http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/inf206-guidelines-for-internet-mediated-research.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Broadcasters' Audience Research Board. 2016. Monthly top 30 programmes. (Website) Retrieved 20th December 2016 from http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingdata/monthly-top-30/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Phil Brooker, John Vines, Selina Sutton, Julie Barnett, Tom Feltwell, and Shaun Lawson. 2015. Debating Poverty Porn on Twitter: Social Media as a Place for Everyday Socio-Political Talk. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 3177--3186. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702291 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Michael A. Cacciatore, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Shanto Iyengar. 2016. The End of Framing as we Know it? and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society 19, 1: 7--23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Pablo Cesar, Dick C. A. Bulterman, and A. J. Jansen. 2008. Usages of the secondary screen in an interactive television environment: Control, enrich, share, and transfer television content. In European Conference on Interactive Television. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69478-6_22 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hatty Collier. 2014. Channel 4's Benefits Street claims 4.3 million viewers. The Guardian. Website. (7 January 2014). Retrieved 6th July 2016 from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/07/tvratings-channel4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ian Cole. 2015. Is a little knowledge about welfare a dangerous thing? A small scale study into attitudes towards, and knowledge about, welfare expenditure. People, Place & Policy Online. 9.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.3351/ppp.0009.0001.0004 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Carl DiSalvo. 2013. Adversarial Design. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Carl DiSalvo, Illah Nourbakhsh, David Holstius, Ayça Akin, and Marti Louw. 2008. The Neighborhood Networks project: a case study of critical engagement and creative expression through participatory design. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (PDC '08). Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 41--50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1325555.1325562 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Mark Doughty, Shaun Lawson, Conor Linehan, Duncan Rowland, and Lucy Bennett. 2014. Disinhibited abuse of othered communities by secondscreening audiences. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX '14). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 55--62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2602299.2602311 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mark Doughty, Duncan Rowland, and Shaun Lawson. 2012. Who is on your sofa? TV audience communities and second screening social networks. In Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Interactive tv and video (EuroiTV '12). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 7986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2325616.2325635 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Mark Doughty, Duncan Rowland, and Shaun Lawson. 2011. Co-viewing live TV with digital backchannel streams. In Proceedings of the 9th international interactive conference on Interactive television (EuroITV '11). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 141--144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2000119.2000147 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Wai-Tat Fu, Thomas Kannampallil, Ruogu Kang, and Jibo He. 2010. Semantic imitation in social tagging. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 17, no. 3: 12. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1806923.1806926. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Fabio Giglietto and Donatella Selva. 2014. Second Screen and Participation: A Content Analysis on a Full Season Dataset of Tweets. Journal of Communication 64, 2: 260--277. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12085 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Katerina Gorkovenko and Nick Taylor. 2016. Politics at Home: Second Screen Behaviours and Motivations During TV Debates. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971514 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. HBO GO. 2013. Game of Thrones Interactive Experience. Retireved 18th August 2016 from http://www.hbogo.com/geo.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Shanto Iyengar. 1994. Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1964379 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Tracey Jensen. 2014. Welfare commonsense, poverty porn and doxosophy. Sociological Research Online 19, 3: 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5153/sro.3441 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Qihao Ji, and Arthur A. Raney. 2015. Morally judging entertainment: a case study of live tweeting during Downton Abbey. Media Psychology 18, 2: 221--242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.956939 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Matthias Korn & Amy Voida. 2015. Creating friction: Infrastructuring civic engagement in everyday life. In Proceedings of the 5th Decennial Aarhus Conference: Critical Alternatives, August 17-21, Aarhus, Denmark, 145--156. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21198 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Yvonne Kammerer, Rowan Nairn, Peter Pirolli, Ed H. Chi. 2009. Signpost from the massis: Learning effects in an exploratory social tag search browser. Proc. CHI '09. April 4-9, Boston, MA, USA, ACM, 625--634. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518797Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ben Kirman, Conor Linehan, and Shaun Lawson. 2012. Get lost: facilitating serendipitous exploration in location-sharing services. In CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '12). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 2303--2308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2223793 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ben Lamb. 2016. Cathy Come Off Benefits: A comparative ideological analysis of Cathy Come Home and Benefits Street. Journalism and Discourse Studies, 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Robert MacDonald, Tracy Shildrick, and Andy Furlong. 2014. 'Benefits Street' and the Myth of Workless Communities. Sociological Research Online. 19.3: 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5153/sro.3438 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Abhishek Nandakumar and Janet Murray. 2014. Companion apps for long arc TV series: supporting new viewers in complex storyworlds with tightly synchronized context-sensitive annotations. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX '14). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 3--10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2602299.2602317 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Les Nelson, Christoph Held, Peter Pirolli, Lichan Hong, Diane Schiano and Ed H. Chi. 2009. With a little help from my friends: Examining the impact of social annotations in sensemaking tasks. Proc. CHI '09. April 4-9, Boston, MA, USA, ACM, 1795--1798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518977 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Dietram A Scheufele. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49, 1: 103--122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14602466.1999.tb02784.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Steven Schirra, Huan Sun, and Frank Bentley. 2014. Together alone: motivations for live-tweeting a television series. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 2441--2450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557070 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Cristian Vaccari, Andrew Chadwick & Ben O'Loughlin. 2015. Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement, Journal of Communication, 65, 1041--1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12187 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Jeroen Vanattenhoven, and David Geerts. 2012. Second-screen use in the home: An ethnographic study. Bridging people, places & platforms: Proceedings EuroITV2012. Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems, Berlin, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Wikipedia. I-Spy (Michelin). Website (16 July 2016). Retrieved 14 August 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Spy_(Michelin)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. "I've been manipulated!": Designing Second Screen Experiences for Critical Viewing of Reality TV

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader