18 REITERATIONAL TEXTS AND GLOBAL IMAGINATION Television Strikes Back Tasha Oren Fom1ar tclevmon IS so ub1qu1tou' a presence on the conccmporal") broadcast gnd chat, even more than the multi-stramls of convergence mcd1a or the prohfcracing arcs of rev1rahzcd dramanc sencs, It has come to ryp1fy what telcvmon IS m our concemporal) moment. Y ct, senous scholarly COil\ldcratlons of fonnat, as we note in our mtroducnon, have bt>en cunously fc\\i. Not only an mdll\tl) bonanza, the fonmc 1s also a thcorcncal challenge. The first scholar to undertake a sust.uncd scud) of fom1at as stmcrurc and mdustry, Albert Moran, defined, explamcd and explored the fonn as an mtemanonal phenomenon, and h1s work rcmatm foundational for format-scholar.h1p. llowever, wtth h1s definmon, Moran may ha\ c also pre-empted thmkmg of the format m tenm of tradinonal tele\'ISIOn stud1es SlllCl' he so dcfimttvd) char.1ctenzed tt as a textual no-thmg. Formats, as Moran cxplamed, have no core e'sence and arc not a ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀commod1ry: "The tent! has mcanmg not so much because of what tt is bur because of what ir pcrmtt' or fanhrates. " 1 Fom1at IS a busmess rclanomh1p, an mdmtnal condmon. a legal arrangement, a set of mles for sale; look roo closcl} at It q11a program, however, and content gcnerahnes d1ffuse and float away. Y ct Moran al o takes care to call fonmrs a mobtle technology . Tim. m light of the fonnat\ fundamental global appeal, 1s espeoally m1porranr as I rry in what follows to offer some closmg thoughts and opening mmal suggemom for further study of fonnats as televisual texts. Followmg Moran's ficld-fomting definition, ir has been easier for scholars (a' we rcv1ew 111 the Introduction) to rhmk about form,m specifically, 111 tenm of the1r gcnenc affihattom, subject mattcr, rcprcsentanonal strarcgtes, etc. Such spcc1fic1ry is, of course, far from a disadvantage. llowcver, a big picture perspcCti\'C remams wannng. In an effort to argue fo r fom1:tt as a parttcubrly Important aspect of the contemporary development of global televiSion and for an undcrstandmg Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination 367 of what tele\'ISIOll IS at a moment when m ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀1s dtscu\scd as often as 1ts ourput, a comtderation of alternative theoretical chmking about fonnat I'> worth trymg out. Note, coo, that 111 the statement above Ilmkcd televiSIOn's global meaconnectiOn w1th a susp1c1ously breezy charactenzanon of it\ es>ence. As scores of scholars have argued (myself mcluded), the histol) of television 1\ replete vv1th the med1um 's spec1fic, exphc1t (and often ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ arttculauon as, tiN and mamly, a national medium. In f.'lCt, msmunonal h1stones of televiSIOn arc tqld pnmanly and necessarily as narraoves oflocanon. nanonal a1cology. and-1f onl} perceived or hoped-for--expressions of collective culture and 1demiry. ro dm extent, early lmtones of televiSIOn arc by definition h1stones of national asp1rat1on and dtsoncnon. 110\vever, contemporary televiSIOn development, along With a broadening of the media field to include satellite, Web-based media, and other global content Rows, presents challengmg nevv opporrumnes to reconce1ve teleVISion's place m the global med1a field. Th1s "fidd" IS not only a content exchange and commercialmarkerplace but aho a larger cultural frame of reference that shapes our collective sense of the global. Understanding television as one exemplary aspect of cultural producnon and rccepnon where global and local arc expencnced 111 rern1s of one another 1s a maJOr assumptiOn 111 what follows (and mdecd, m pracncally aU considerations of specific fom1at programnung). Howe,·er, I w1ll also attempt to suggest additional and complementary ways of thinking about contemporary fom1at tdev1s1on beyond and along this (spaoally and temporally bound) framework. In what follows, I'd l1ke to rake up forn1ats not as a global ndal wave but a> pscudo-org.m1c fonnanom, constmcted yet now-naturahzed tclev1sual protocols that do not only shape the global mdustry and the telev1s1on text but also serve as useful models for understandmg, mdeed dctinmg. current and future tclC\'1\1011 in the global context. The Structure of Format- Reverse Engineering To begm thmkmg of fonnat as a worthy untt of theorencal mqtury, it may be helpful to exam me It in temlS of ocher reitcratJOnal texts. Lmda llurcheon dctincs adaptation as Jmt such an enory: a "form of repetition w1thout rephcaoon. "- Wh1lc this defimtton serves her purpose of red1rectmg cnocal we1ght and regard from the "prior" or onginal work and d1sd:un for the adapranon as secondary (the source of adaptatiOn, as she notes, 1s still cntically regarded ฀฀฀ "better" because 1t 1s ongmal), this defimtion is also extremely useful in thmkmg about fom1at a> a textual paruculanry. To go further, the nonon of an ongmal at all, in the case of format, ฀฀฀ R1msy; although a producnon reel book 1s often sold to fonnat hcensors (and "borrowed" without formal a):,rreement). forn1ats can be, and arc resold before production. Moreover, the classtc Industry notton of a fom1at 1s a text made for max1mum reproducnon:' As Keane and Moran observe, fonnat d1stnbunon also dtffers from the stmcture of fin1shed (or "canned") programs by 368 Tasha Oren the unportance of each format\ producoon h1story.4 W1th every iteranon, the fonnat gams m c.omplexlt), cultural nchncss, and ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀value. In thinkmg further about the nonon of med1um-spcc1fic1ty, Hutcheon's dcfimnon can also help us by dcducnon, as the class1c nonon of adaptatiOn (a cross-platfonn move of content from one med1a fom1 to anot?er) docs not s1t weU with fomut Clther. Formats d1fTer from narranve adaptations 111 that they are not "rcpurpo,ed" from another mcdmm or recycled (made mto an other) but are, paradOJocaUy, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀duplicates. What's more, they arc largely mcd1a specific. lmagJne a film play/com1c book adaptation of ฀฀฀฀Brother, Top Cltef or So You 11unk You Can Dtmce? An actual fonnat adaptation IS hardly concetvablc but their use as procedural ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀for a narranve overlay IS not on ly poss1ble but has already occurn:d in Jlmerica11 Dream: (Paul We1tz, 2006) and more famomly m Slumdo.s: .\ fillic!llaire (Danny Boyle. 2008). 5 As several authors in this collection pomt out, fonnat I\ an umbrella tem1 u cd across program t)·pes; o-caUed "real1ty TV" IS often used 1nten:hangeably With format yet the latter's scope is broader. For the sake of easy class1ficat10n, let us name fonnats that transfer narrative or character-speCific adaptations 11arratll'e-bascd formats and fonnats of qmz, make-over, or contest stmctures as procedurc-biiSed Jonuars. The latter category 1s dommated by-and recogn izable as--game-fonnah 111 as much as each program and season-arc most commonly feature the emergence of a "winner" through an elimmation process. However, when movmg beyond the market base definition of fonnat as sold property to a focus on fonnat as a w1dely-adapted set of form / content tclevisual conventions, a vast, third category offonnats opens up m non-ficnon. "real world" events programs such a' news or sports shows. As \\e ha\'e argued in the introducnon-and Tony Sch1rato develops in h1s essay for th1s ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀too have a tdev1sual fonnat logJC but, unhke the other two. can be thought of as ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀jon11ats as they ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀events access1blc outside tclev1sual creation.'' My Interest, for the re\t of the chapter, ISm theonzmg the ฀฀฀฀฀readil) 1denufied of the fom1at categones, the procedure-based fonnat. What I also \\ant to ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀and what these three categories already 1Uustrate, is that the procedural fom1at IS umqucly ltypcr-tclt:l'rsual. Unlike story, event, character or ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ transferable clements of the narranve and mdex1cal categones-what IS transferred (or "fonnarted'') about the programs w1thm the procedural category 1s ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ thc1r televl\ion-essencc: the1r look (set design, logos, placement), the1r sound (theme, musical and aud1o cues), and their programmability (rules, stmcture, sequence, and overall meanmg). Structures (Narratives and Stylistic Grammar) Repetition and reconfiguration arc the lifeblood of television. Indeed, tcleviston revels m ntuahzed pred1ctab1llty. Th1s understandmg ฀฀฀ mythically synonymous with television's coming of age m the U.S. context, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀out early experi- Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination 369 mentation and its theater affinity and shepherding in the gnd-based program types and the delll.lse of the so-called first golden age. As countless televisiOn scholars pomt out, duphcanon and recombmaoon are much more stable components of televlSlon than novelty, not only for the sheer Imperatives of contmuous ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ for content but also in the domestic, repetitive, and scheduled narure of its consumpnon and the cond10ons of Its sustamed production. Innovation w1thm conventions IS thm the pnmary logic of television Itself. The appreciatio n for vananon withm the constraint, the give and cake berween the syntagmatlc and parad1gmaoc elements w1thm, and the pleasures offanuhanty and repermon for an engaged aud1ence, have been some of the fim hard-won battles for televisiOn scholarsh1p. As Reeves and later Sconce emphas1ze, that very tens1on between constraint and freedom, the formulaic and the ongmal, the new and the repetitive, are essennal to telev1sual texruahty (and 1ts audience's kno\'vmg comphc1ty m Its repenove formulation) and consnrute the mherenr aspect ofthe1r production, readabtl1ty and enjoyment. ClassiC fonnats arc not only repettove across programs-in tcm1s of their conceptual foundanon and set of rule-bound acnons and outcomes-but also mternally (each program perfonm a repennve set of acoon-events m nght, regulated recurrence). Here, the nonon that this stn1cture is Itself, m Moran's tern1. "generative" is essential: Fon113ts arc not only cod1fication of serial program production but also. both paradoxically and Importantly, a creanve ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀It is prec1sely from the rules (and lumtanons) offonnat law that vanous permutations emerge. Such ii1Junction IS also coded mto many of format's most successful Iterations' DNA: the time constramt, the narrow and arbitrary task, the resulnng emononal duress. etc., arc all crucial for the productiOn of. and vananons on, acnon and aud1cncc mtere\t. Indeed, fonnats are the qumtessennal marriage of restrictive rules and p1thy pitch: they arc nothmg 1f not conceptual. Fom1at creators, known as deviSOr\, look to generate such rules, more commonly known as "engmes"-a set ฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀ fonnal or structural clements that would charactenzc a format p1tch. In a now classic example, M1ke Briggs, the U.K. talk show host w ho co-devised H11o Warm Tc> & A .\.lillicmmre?. p1tched the cngmes as: the maJOr prize, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀contestants a ฀฀฀฀of possible answers, offenng a senes of hfelmcs, usmg a host wuh a supercilious manner, and soundtrack, ligh nng and dark wardrobe to dramatic effect. " 9 Juhe Christie of Touchstone Production also stressed the importance of brev1ty for 1111ttal fonnat ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀descnptlon: " If you cannot say it 111 a paragraph. you cannot say it at all. "lfl As Chnsne explamed, a fom1at IS all about the rules you put on an idea. Christie's defimtion is simple, elegant and right on the money: Fonnat IS a protocol. As some ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀suggest about chess, the rules make the game: the cngme makes the format go. The televisiOn mdustry's use of the term "engme" recalls another's: that of the computer game mdustry. Th1s association may be ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀accidental, but It IS nch in relevance as game engines refer to base game sofuvare componentS 370 Tasha Oren (for example, the "skeleton" structure of a fit"it-per;on shooter game) that are licensed by subsequent game developen and bUilt on for content. A spar;e and fleXIble base-software configuranon, the game ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ 1s destgned as reusable foundanon for vanous revet"itonings. Sinularly. the format engme IS thought of pnmanly as a mobile set of rules and procedures de\tgned to be both fleXIble and gencranve. We can thmk of the game ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀then as havmg stgntficant (aJbett dmant} fanuly resemblance to the fom1at engme, that bundle of protocol and base components at the heart of the televtston fonnat. Games, and computer games m pamcular, arc a unique fom1 of reltcranonaJ text, and as such can lend ins1ght and dunens1on to our understandmg of fonnat. DaVld MarshaJI and John Dovey have recently suggested game models, playfulness, and Vldeo game mflucncc as cemraJ for thmking about contemporary media modes. Mar. hall charts the development of a "paedocranc rcgunc" of play aesthetic and game-like structure from its child-targeted ongms to current mainstream medta texts and practices. As he argues, game culture and the nsc of a play aesthetic have not only emerged as an orgaruzmg expencncc in mecha culture but arc ccntraJ to an mdustry-wtde reconfiguranon towards lntcracuvtty and mtertextual assoc•anons across mcd1a products. 11 Dovey regards the ehmmanon-comcst fonnat' hkc B(i! Brorller as simulacionsbehavtor-modeb set loose \Vlthm dynam1c rule-based systems-and mdicative of the emergence of an aJtemacive, ludic order of reprcscntanon. Thts logtc of the playful and gamehke, he argues, has replaced empmc•sm as the dommant mode of contemporary pubhc culture. Although televtsual, game format televiSion, he mamtams, IS a "new medta" product. best constdercd through the tnterdlsctphnary under;tandmg of medta that includes software studtcs, human-computer mtcractton and cyberculture studtes. By tim ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ fonnats arc "text machmes" of tdcntity stmulanon, populated by character algorithm\ ฀฀฀฀ Within a ludtc zonc. 12 While diverging 111 focus, both authors sec the emergence of games (and computer games in parncular) as constitutive 111 a maJOr tum for both med1a culture and mcdta studies. In this sense, video games loom large 111 the feel of culture, even for those who have never played them. In an effort to carve out more space wtthm tclcv"ion \tudtc\ for fonnat theory, I take these forays 111to aJtemacive ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀of culturaJ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀as more mcful here than the tradltlonaJ regard for fonnats as gencnc categones. ฀฀฀฀฀1s not to ฀฀฀฀ that genre IS unsuttablc or useless for fonnat apphcanon. As some conrribunons in thts volume demonstrate, genre analysts ฀฀฀ the one graspable textual 111strument we have to begtn considenng fom1at teleVl\IOn as a scnous and vaned a\pecr w1tlun the televtsual express•ve field. 13 However, such conventional genre approaches can also lnmt the rypes of questions we can ask, get nurcd 111 sub-categoricaJ tangents, and cannot adequately account for the parttcular rclanonsh•p benveen form and content that proceduraJ fom1at TV relics on. Moreover, fonnats appear as ncar-inversiOns of genre: texruaJ patterns where the "scams" of rules and cross- Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination 371 textual conventions are not only visible but highlighted. Genre theory may help us class1fy the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ w1tlun format programming but can tell us lmle about why and how ฀฀฀฀฀class1ficaoons of nakedly-repetmve pattefllS matter or mean. Altemaovely, a temunology-and its accompanymg vantage pomt and emphas1s ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀borrowed from ganung ฀฀฀฀฀฀a productive cons1deranon of code-based structures, atTecove repenoon, modular development, claboraoons on convention and rule-motivated content. It may also be helpfulm tigunng out JUSt ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀gomg on: How arc fom1at-based narraoon strategtcs d1fferent from other televiSIOn conventions? What ฀฀฀฀฀the growing populanty of playful and gamc-hkc structures mean for audumce engagement? Are there broader cultural unphcanons for the changmg shapes of ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀med1a and the1r global exchange? It IS also Important, 111 any invocation of ganung in a d1scuss1on of tclev1s1on, to d1stmgtmh between the use of game as a helpful-If imprcclst---structunng conceptual framework and the notion of play as a primary, experiential base for ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀studies. A'> gaming scholars insist, games fundamentally d11Ter from med1a texts 111 that they are most dec1dedly not "read" but played. 14 And wh1le It IS temptmg, for the sake of symmetry, to argue that much of fonnat programming also compmes games and compeotions "played" by the contestant'>, th1s fonnulanon ฀฀฀ myop1c at best: Games are made for the people who play them, TV game fom1ats are made for the people who ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ the game. Funcnonally, the concepts arc fundamentally and opcraoonally dtssmular, and practtcally, no easy :tl1gnment of ga1mng and televmon IS poss1ble or adVlsable. Ho\vever, bmh dlgttal games and format televmon share a culturally 1dennfiable playful structure, procedural logtc, and iteranon:tl legibility. In th1s sense, I propose the context of an mcreasmgly fanul1ar ganung culture as an Important, sympathetiC component of med1a and d1gital culture, and contemporary comfort With modulanty, configurauon, and an algomhm1c structure m wh1ch rules arc both forcgrounded and constitutive. Thm I am not claiming paternity but rather a larger cultural common denommator from which both contemporary tclcvtsual and d•gtt:tl games products draw cultural legtblhty. In this, the pleasure of fomlat abo mvolves the self-consciOus and referennal aspect of programmer's ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ and the audience\ apprec1anon of the back-of-the-camera n1les, des1gn, and the more contemporary plea,ures of custonuzaoon. 15 The codtficat1on of fonnat 1\ thus a fundamental part of Its enJoymem, along With the aud1encc's absolute comphc1ty m. and under;tandmg of. the h1ghly amfic1al order that other teleVlslon tools (such as edinng or castmg) bestow and impose on the alread) detem1med ra\\ matenal in th1s procedural, modular text. In lm work on the culture of televisiOn producnon,John Caldwell has argued ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ that telcv1s1on's survival in the \O-called convergence era ha.s depended not on radical transformations but rather on tweaked or re-emphasized industry strategtes that have characterized the busmess and creanve structures of televisiOn from the very start. Two of the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀he analyze\ arc n11grarory and ritualized textualines (or syndication and pitch). While Caldwell only touches 372 Tasha Oren on format-and views the ubiqUity of fonnat as a cannibalized and hybnd1zed fonn that has evolved through the "pitch'' culture of creaove textual mutationboth modes of telev1sual textual organizanon are cruc1al to undcrstandmg the current development and prohferanon of the fonnat as culrurally contemporary but ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀televisual. So far, I have suggested the fom1at as located m the cro\s-current of two seemmgly contradictOry temporal flows: The current ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀of fonnat tele' 1s1on IS associated w1th larger contemporary techno-cultural forces and shift;, yet its bas1c structure and logtc IS fundamentally hnked to televiSion's mrnnstc tendency towards fom1ulmc regulanty. As Caldwell argues, to understand this mode and practice of textual producuon 111 its current rage LS to understand the bas1c workmgs of televiSion. I now tum to another Janus-faced quahty of the fom1at stmcture: 1t.s functiOn as a localized product of a global fonnula. What's Global in Global Format? To invoke global televis1on in the convergence age and to ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀a synergetic relanonship between contemporary television and a framework drawn from dignal game scholarsh1p brings up yet another m a sencs of current "cnses" for contemporary televiSIOn ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Graeme Tumer has 1denofied a tendency wtthin television studies towards "techno-pohtical h1erarchy" that views the cmergmg Interactive and Web-based medm m opposition to traditional telev1sion. 16 This formulation perce1vcs telev1s1on as a dymg technology, wedded to outmoded nationahsm, top-down d1stnbution of power and ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀closure, ฀฀฀฀฀as dJ!-,'1tal media are celebrated as democratizmg. user-onented, progrcss1ve and global: "The closer to the global consumer we come ... the further we are trom the nanon state . . . the technology liberates the consumer from pohncal and regulatory contamment. ฀฀฀฀ Here Tumer further notes the exuberant enthusiasm of relevis1on scholars-followmg other soCJal and cultural theory-to endorse and embrace a model of post-national, globally-felt televiSion consumption (mostly vta the lntemet) as both progreSSive and w1despread, a much-overstated nooon on both fronts. The argument that fuses the dilution of television as a ire- (and technology- ) spec1fic medmm with cosmopoliun 1dentity appears to contradict recent programspecific scholarship (like many chapters m th1s collecoon), that argues for a particular national and cultural 1dcnt1ty that 1\ both reproduced and afrim1ed m local producnon-particularly of fonnat television. Indeed, satellite televiSion, Web-ba,ed programming, mobile med1a, convergence technology. and the growmg populanty and access1b1hty of regtonal and transborder tcleviSJOn-m addiuon to the robust trade in "fuushed programs"-dcmand that traditional television scholarship take account of a growing transnational media ฀฀฀฀฀ ence. As Jean Chalaby observes, " International TV channels are not simply I Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination 373 deterritorializing but de territorialized cultural ani facts themseiYes. Many of their features. mcludmg ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀and pattems of producnon tear apart the rclaoon between place and tclev1s1on." " Moreover, other scholars have urged tclevl\ion studtes to move away from the nanon-cemered stance that mSISt\ and affim1s the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀of nanon 111 the fuce of globalizing med1a-a perspective ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Ulnch l3eck mftuennally dubbed "methodolog.caJ nanonahsm." As Kevm Robms and Asu Aksoy have recently ms1sted. such models fall short of accounung for the comemporary globality and mobtht} of med1a texts. In the1r London study ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ communities, Robms and Aksoy argue for a cosmopolitan, tramnanonal perspective chat ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀tor a ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ unagmauon of co-ex1snng ways of hfe and expenence, nch and complex beyond the grasp of monolog.c, nanonal-centnc approaches. 1q Drawmg heavily on 13eck 's argument and his evocauve descnpnon of the nation-based analys1s as a "zomb1e ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀they go on to accuse such studies of a lack of ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀and mechamzed thmkmg at beq, or charactenze the1r authors as cheerleading stakeholders 111 the nation-state's power at \\'Orst. As they argue, tclevNon scholars who have recently articulated the cemraht}· of nanon 111 the1r d1scuss1ons of ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ telcv1s1on and med1a culture ''mob1lize the rhetonc of polmcal pragmansm and ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀1ntendmg to convey the 1dea that the old national model -.oil 'works'-and aunmg to rule out pomb1lmes that there could be any meanmgful potential 111 new transnational or globa l med1a ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀hkc these arc valuable in the1r ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ on altemanve 1dentlt}' tonnanons ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀med1a and their cauuon .tgamst academ1c automarton. And \\ hlie 111 Robms and Aksoy 's hands "The Nanon" looms as a snftmg and homogemzmg soul-pmon, the1r argument also resonates wlCh a kmd of fatigue for the standard1zed essay that keeps restag.ng, .td mfinitum, a celebrated nationlocal\ mumph over global-Western groupthmk. Yet, Jt Its weake)t. the .trgument f:1lls IntO the same d1alecuc system 1t aum to reJeCt whl•n It cam the national as a thm, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀broth, set agaum the nch, fragrant ste\\ of muln฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀multi-cultural, post-national complexJCy. The ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀of altemative. transnational models of med1a do not preclude, nor descnbe 111 toto, the current expenence of mtlmate, domemc, and more often than not, nationally-based programmmg. Such programs often anchor a ฀฀฀฀฀฀of collectiVe recognmon to mundane detalis of soCJal Interaction, habm, routines, and shared practical knowledge, as well frustratiOns, dlvtSIOilS, and acknowledged ten\IO!lS w1th1n these '>tructures of expenenCL"-p:trtlcularly so when we move away from ฀฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀ based scud1es. As M mna As lama and Men1 Panm observe 111 their study of ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ reaht} tclevmon fonnats, the sense of ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ is not by any means bound to authont:wve, offiCJaJ vers1on of culture and 1dent1ty. " That televisiOn's rclat1onsh1p to space can no longer be taken for granted is md1sputable. However, the current explos1on offonnat televtsion appears to ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ traditional theoretical approaches preoccup1ed with media's rclanomh1p wtth I 374 Tasha Oren cultural articulaoon on both "side\" of the nat1on-cenrric debate. No doubt the current ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀of global fonnats 1\ mtunately ned to a part1cular log.c of globalIzation-both capital and popular. It I'> also, .ts many scholar; argue 111 these pages, an ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀good example ofhow contemporary global cultural exchange d1ffer\ from older ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ of mAuencc and 1mpenallsm wh1le mnultancomly unseatmg chcmhed charactenzanons of local culture as resistance to the cn.1\hmg span and ub1quay of global/Wcstcm med1a product\. Arguments that IINSt on a break or opposmon between nanonal cxpenencc and global or tr:liNtatlonal consc1omness conAate the fomter w1th state-powcrt•d nanonahsm from above, and sweepmgly ascnbc chauv1msuc and msular dl\poSJtlon to vanous articulanons of national linkages that may opt·r.tte qlllte d1!fercntly. 1gnonng currently occumng mulnpbCitles that nrce.ssarily make up tlte nanonal expencnce of vu.:wmg. More Importantly, they cut off the pmsibihry of national address a.s Itself part of the meanmg v1ewers make of rranmauonal med1a texts. llere I suggest the mcemanonal format as one such textual category where the national franw comes IntO v1ew prcc1sely because and ฀฀฀฀฀฀the under;tandmg of such programming as muln-nanonal reiter:mom. Before addressmg \'Iewers' expenences. It IS Important to step back and cons1der ho'' and why the base "software" offonmtts 1s et1joymg so much current global succc\\. While the phenomenon of tom1ats 1s ea\11) dJsmt\\ed as mere mdusrry clamonng to repeat a proven money-maker, Silvio Wa1sbord argues that they arc better understood as revcalmg unportant developments 111 the globally mterconncctcd ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ mduscncs and msmuuons on the one hand, and the etfom of tr.lllmauonal producers to deal wtth the rcs1hencc of nattonal cultures on the orher.!2 The \lmplc cconom1c advantages of lorm,1t, over ongmal productions and "canned" 1111pom arc surely an Important fuctor, as are the local development of commerCial televiSIOn, and the mternauonahzarton of the television marketplace. 23 Another unportam factor, however, as Tmtothv Haven pomt' out. 1s the raptdly changmg and standanhzmg televmon prott·mon ltself. 24 As a gcncratton of profcss1onals worldw1de begtns to thmk about TV in s1milar way,, they hkcwtse define the tmagtnal) connccttom that bmd together different ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀of the publtc both withm and beyond the natton-\tate. These forms of standardization arc, Havens argues. far more powerful (and, for Havt>m, pcm1c1ous) than the representational strategies of telev•qon texts, the mcamng. that v1ewer; make from relev1ston or global pancms of med1a owner;h1p. Watsbord makes a smtilar point while mak1ng a coumer-argumcm: "Structural rcgulauons and msmuttonal expectations hnmcd programming ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ for programmmg trends to become truly globahzed, telev1s1on systems needed to be pattemed along the same pnnc1plc."25 In light of such sryhmc and cconomtc centralizatiOn, the futur.c. as Graemc lumer suggests. IS 111 md1geruzmg: "(T)he way to examine the local wtthm the global 1s through mappmg processes of appropnatton and adaptatiOn rather than propo ltion of any thoroughgomg speCJfictty or umqueness. " 26 I Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination 375 Global standardization of the imrimtional 'hape of ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ here actually the logic of programming. I want to think of elm sh1ft not as a rJd1cal deparmrc (or recontiguranon) but rather as a countermow deeper uno the pnm.1ry, modular logtt of tcle\·ision· ·Jmt <ls ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ non-fom1at texts break It apart. In tim globallogte. contenr 1\ local but systcm•c conventions of the apparatus arc both dett:mtoriahzed and naturalized. fhe nt:ws show, the 1nterv1e\\ program, the sitcom. the soap and the \"anety shO\\ .1re all base-fonnats that have speCific, recogtllzablt· and classifiable codes. These soft protocols of content orb>an1zaoon emerged-through particular procesws of exchangt.'-Withm ,·arious televiSIOn systt:ms and quickly sohd1hed with the naturalization of a tclt:visual space m each contt:xt. Such ,1 cod1ficaoon of protocols cannot be separated, as llavem, Was1bord and others ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀from tht: t-.'TOwth of a cosmopolitan mdustry ehtc whost: shart:d ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀o;em1b1llues and homogemzmg t<\Ste' make up a large pan of the explanation for fom1at growth. As such, the,e sensibilities' Western (and partlwlarl) U.S./U.K.) roots can hard!) be denied, but neitlll'r should their mdusrnal and styhstiC ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀all tht:lr lmtoncally 1mbued sig11iliers of global power and Ideology-be read as forever fixed and loaded. Tim ongms-bascd approach 1s further bolstered by many theorists' tendency co call local re1teraoom of glob,1l fonnats "hybnds." The tenn may be gent:rically useful but also ms1sts on p.mty and equivalenct: beC\vcen stmccure and content, fixmg both as speCific, suml,uly meanmgful cultural ennnes, and rendt•nng their encounter a "cultural 1111x" of ontologJcal equal\. Tim understandmg penn.u1ently fuses tclt:\'ISIOn \ cultural allcgJancc: to It' \ltC of mwnoon. We may, to bL·ner understand fonnat\ operational logic in the pre\C:nt, thmk {strategically) beyond the hybrid (what, after all, is nor?) and towards the modular and penpatwc. further, 1f globally-coalesong centripetal forct•s produce the forn1at to tramnm and mfuse cultural valut•. the value transmitted ht•re " that of tell·visuality itself ·as a particular, formal. globally shared and modular cxpencnce. ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀(indeed, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀a ฀฀฀฀฀฀in So What's Local? At the same ome, a central tenet of this homogemzed understandmg of the fom1at's appeal-nght along With IC\ globally-shared fonnal convennom " Its t•ssemwl, ever present, parnculanty. As Waisbord 111\lsts, "fom1ats are culturally spec1fic but naoonally neutral ... because forn1at\ expllmly empty-out o;igm of the naoonal. they can become ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀The braeh Jteranon of So)·,,, "11uuk ) ',,, Ctm Dall((' ("Nolad L1rkod"), for example, was hcav1ly promoted as an International fom1at semanon and compared (even within tht• text of the ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Itself) to the Idol format-also a h1t 111 Israel. H owever, 1ts first ep1sode {the obhgatory pre-season audmon segment With its nruallzed, heav1ly edited clips of tnumph and ndiculc) began w1th hiStoric 1948 footage following the declaranon of Israel\ fonnanon as a state, when hundreds of Israelis broke uno spontaneous I 376 Tasha Oren cclebratOI) cbncmg 111 the c•ty streets. The segment contmued ,,;th contemporary footage from vanom locanom 111 Israel, where groups gather to danct• in \tylcs rangmg from folk to the cha-cha, knunpmg and ballet. Lwered over clip\ of spmnmg toddlen, h1p-hopping youth, and sw1nging elderly couple\, the host\ vo1ceover con finned Israel\ spec1al affimry to the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀subject (w1th more than a hmt of com1c Rare): " Israelis wt·re born to d.mce ... we're a nanon of dancer.. The ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀celebrate With a dnnk Ill the pub, the rrench luxun.lte \\lth a lllle ฀฀฀฀฀ gras ... and lsraehs, we dance!" Tim efTort to locate the dance fonnat 111 ฀฀฀฀฀over-the-cop nanonahq context " amusmg ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ 111 light of the shO\\ \ formal ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀tO the SYTYC'() format-whose U.S. ver\1011 "fanllh;tr to the Israeli aud1ence. Tht• fomlat's esst•ntial playfulness and global rcproduc1b1hty thm anchor\ 1ts aud1cncc 111 watchmg, readmg and expcncncmg this ,md otht:r fomlat texts as ha\'mg deep local resonance, nested '' 1thm ,1 larger forn1at logtc that " fundamentally tclevl\ual and globally connected. Tim m1x 1s further enforced in the show\ openmg creches where the globally reproduced theme song and credit sequence also mcludes a smppet of lsraeh folk dance and song, 111 between tht• segments of 13roadway. ballet and 13oUywood stvlcs (sec Dana llclln\ essay. Chapter 2 111 this volume, for her analy'" of tim lsraeh format \'l'l'ilon). As th1s example illustrates, an unportant aspect of the fonnat as ,1 modul,u unit of televiSIOn progranumng 1s that It often travel'i, and announces itself. tlS an iteration. While the pract•ce of format adaptation exl\ted throughout televiSIOn hmory, the procedure has largely gone unacknowledged OUt\lde the televiSIOn mdumy ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀For example, hn U.S. shows of the late 19HOs and e.1rly 1990s, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ F111miest Vidc!ls and America's ,\ /Mt ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀appeared as d1stmct and ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀texts Without any rcvdanon of the1r ongms as a popular Jap.tnesl' program or Gem1.1n and 13ritish fonnats. By contrast, Bi,l? /m11her, Sun'itw, Idol, and Stl You "111i11k }'clll C.w ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ as well as L:I!JY Bt'll)-:tll massl\ e mtem.mon,tl hns that uslwred 111 the fonnat era-arc read, and often promoted. in tenm of thc1r prohferanon, populanty and global presence. Thus, the fonnat's recent large-scale ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ uon has aho produced a mcanmt,>ful shift 111 Its modl' of self-representation a'i a text-a newly fOund reRex1ve self-consoousncss 111 hght of It\ acqUired \1\lblhty. Readmg the Japanese 1teranom of l ฀฀7t(l ll 'cmrs ltl He a ,\ lilliclllairt•? and 'un•il'!lr, KoJChl lwabucht notes that the shows make w1de reference to the•r COll\tltutlon as local vemon of global fonmts that are popular all over the world. lwabucht concludes: The format ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀has given aud1ences ,\ pleasure 111 shanng the common framewo rks and the 1rrcduc•bly d1fferent appearances that manifest 111 local con umpt1on. Put d1fferently, what 1s bemg promoted IS not 'ilmply global locahzat1on that aims to adopt the common to the difference but also local globahzarion that mah-s aud•ences feel glocal. that ฀฀฀฀ a sense of part1opaoon Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination I 377 in a global ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀through the reciprocated enJoyable recognmon oflocal (in most cases synon)'1nous wnh nartonal) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀articulated through the shared fomuts. The western gaze of modernity thus melts mto a global modern1ry.:10 As lwabuch1 suggest,, the sense of (and pleasure in) "global moderntty" ts fundamentally dependent on the presence of a rccogmzablc, 1rreduc1blc dtffercnce that comfortably and ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀sits w1thm the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀format engme. The complex web of global and domemc lmkagcs wh1ch tele.,1ston systems (and aud1ences) find wtthm the forn1at exchange were smnlarly-1fless buoyancly-descnbed by one ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀fonnat producer as "paroch1al mtemartonalism. " 31 I would furthcr suggest that formats, 111 their very cxmcnce and acknowledged structure oflocal repetitiOn within a mulrt-national framework, can do more than JUSt express naoonal tdennry m content: they often cement the national quality of television. Format Diplomacy As a final, extended example. I offer the cunous case of the lsrach reahry conte\t format, Tite Ambassadc1r (" Ha 'shagrir"). 32 A loose adaptation of 11tc Appr£'11tice;n the show employs the same formal and styhmc clements as m unoffic1al progcnerator: A group of young and ambmous men and women, d1v1ded into 1111t1al teams by gender, compete in each ep1sodc by perfonning d1ff1cult and stressful missions. Each week. the losmg team 1s summoned to a solemn boardroom to face an imposmg expert panel, after each of the weakest perfom1crs argues thc1r case (and blames fellow contestants), Judgment IS rendered and one contestant IS selected for ehmmation. N. m Tite Appre11tice, the loser 1s dispatched w1th a catch phrase mtoned by the head Judge: "Take back your porcfoho and go horne." The portfolio in questiOn, however, is a pohncal reference. Desp1te lt.S Immediately recognizable fonnat conventions {the h1smomc segment-theme mus1c, the rap1d tens1on-seekmg narrartvc edmng, the md1cat1on-heavy soundtrack, the confe ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ the contestant's own retelhng of events, the set p1ece \Ccrtons 111 each ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ etc.), "T1te Ambassador differs dramatically from the Mark Uumctt version m a major engine detail; in this show, contestants compete to become a spokesperson for Israeli policy around the world, charged w1th rcprescnong the Israeli pomt v1ew to often hostile ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀The show follows a long-held belief 111 Israel that much of the ammo lty felt towards It throughout the world 1s the result of Israel's fa1lurc Ill the arena of public relations--of ltasbara {literally, explanaoon). The show seeks confrontatlonaJ s1ruanons 111 1ntemanonal ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ (on umversiry ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀encounters w1th a skepncaJ foreign press, sales-pitches to international businesses, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀with foreign leaders, etc.) and every such I 378 Tasha Oren encounter ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ the same temton: contestantS face negative attitudes about Israel, attempt to addre s quesnons ofpoliocs and pohcy, and try n11ghtily to change heart.s and mmd . The show's central preoccupation ts, of course, self-representation. Despite its genenc, play-by-numbers fomlU!a th.u makes the show\ look, sound, structure and narrartve-makmg srrategtes a classtc and mstantly famthar fonnat, 17te Ambassador firs perfectly mto Israel\ particular mecha past and the preoccupanon of''sdfto the world." As I've wnrtcn elsewhere, I rael's televmon origms are sourced 111 the tmage of broadcasting as a kmd of bordcr-crossmg elcctromc ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ card. The nooon that broadcasnng can help hrael's sclfrepre entaoon and "speak to" Israel's enetmcs (and Pale,oman restdentS) ฀฀฀฀v.1dely regarded as even more important for ฀฀฀foundmg than what televtston programs could say to Israeli cmzem. The idea of hamessmg televiSion 111 the servtce of hasbara was a pnmary mottvator for the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀of state televmon 111 1968, the year that followed Israel's occupation of East jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank, the mai and Golan HeightS 111 the Stx-Day War. Yet, for all of ils hetghtened, ultra-nanonaltst concept, the pohucal pnonttes of arttcularmg the nauon are repeatedly. and studious!}' challenged m practically every epi ode of thts hugely popular probrram. In various semng-. around the world, the contestantS are addressed by challengtng, often hostile, interlocutors who question Israel's baste moral posmon, mvoke the abuse and humthauon of Palesrimans. decry ttS refusal to constder the right of return or condemn its settlement bmlchng acriVJty. In the,e ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀contestane> arc rarely m control and are often caught at a loss for words, or worse, as they misspeak. In a famous mctdent 111 the first season, a contestant was unccremomously Jnd umformly dumped from the show after she defens1vely asserted, dunng a vim to Oxford's campus, that "Israel ฀฀฀฀ never taken anyth111g &om anyone." Tim, the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ panel (made up of a foretgn affatrs ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ an ex-I Ia,barah spokesperson and corporate advisor, and the forn1er head of Israel's sccunty agency, habak-"') concluded, was Simply the wrong answer. Far from smoothing out ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ challenges, the show '\eems to relish moments in whtch the conte';tants falter 111 the face of such challenges. Thetr awkward equtvocanons arc htghhghted and mercilessly repeated w1th111 the show, onhne, and 111 future ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ And, m telhng repemton, the winning contestantS are those who prevail through charm, personality, and an affable sktll to circumvent specific pohcy d1scussion 111 favor of communicatmg Israelis' love of peace and hopeful vtsion for a better future. While 1t unquemonably supports and celebrates national tdenrity and rhe underlying myth of Israel\ poor PR, the show far &om assumes such identity and nationaltst pnde as unproblematic, and 111 tcad gtves voice and moral credence to a range of political realines and non-lsrach pcrspecnves, undemtinmg the show's prenuse as easy exlJlanarion for Israel's status. It ts th1s very tensiOn that animates the space between the fom1at's global game-hke protocol and irs local content and meanmg. I Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination 379 71re Ambassador elevates such tens1on to thcmanc heights by positioning a local aeratton of a global forn1at wahm the context of naoonal ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀and global perforn1ancc. Sa1d differently, the program enacts a nat1on\ deepest anx1cty over global ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀through self-representatiOn. H Smce global fonnats, as I've argued above, arc most mfluent1al in the1r capacity to carry and d1sscmmatc the value of playful, standardized modular telensuahty -and transnauonal imagmanon-this quahty IS .tlso esscnnal to ho\', mcanmg ฀฀฀ made (and solunons arc posed) in nrc Ambassador. It 1s here that the naturalIzed tclcv1sual log.c of fom1at and ฀฀฀฀ rcstnrnve exprcss.ve palette ฀฀฀฀฀and profoundly shapes local express1ons of parnculanty, as l'racl\ sclf-comc1ous preoccupation 1s ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀the c1rcumsrnbed soft protocol of re1tcrational televisual style. ฀฀฀offered here, the case of Tire Ambassador 1s (instructively) extreme in Its exphcirness, and ฀฀฀฀฀ the lsraeh fixaoon and hypcr-awarcnes\ of national 1dent1C)' and acnon under global srruuny. Further, both lsraeh examples I rched on here (.\'11/ad l..Jrkod and Hashagrir) appropnate the global fom13t code to amculatc spcc1fic and exphc1t natiOnal idemmcs for the1r aud1enccs. However, I do not argue th,n such negoo,mon oflocal ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀111 a globaliZing ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀environment functions m tlus way m every rase. Rather. I want to stres'> mat when such nanonal cxpres\lons or mvocanons appear, they do so 111 the context of International presence and participation. Such global acknowledgement 1s not jmt about references to one national identity in companson to otllcr.. but also 111 full textual acknowledgment of the fom1at qua fonnat, as a local veNon of a globally travelmg fornlllla. As Linda I Iutcheon remmds us, there IS no such thing as an autonomous text. 36 Textual ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀are not only mev1table but a),o \'Ita) to the legibility of each text 111 tum. The ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ub1qu1ty, It' global recurrence. fonnulaic structure and lntertcxtual dependence arc all essenttal to how ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ text IS made meamngful and plea\urable tn each reiteration. Through 1ts partteular ab1hty to 1nvoke a local 'pcc1fir1C)' withm global textual exchange, the contemporary fonnat prov1des u' wnh a clear-cut example of tclevi\IOn 's specific cultural work in an cxpandmg mcd1a env1ronment. A' I've argued above, both s1de\ of the nat1on-centnc debate can rontnbute to our under.tandmg of the fonnat phenomenon, but only \vhen coupled wtth a cons1deratton of its mdustrtal development, the globally-linked standard1zanon of the telens1on mdusrry-w1th 1ts express1ve cost' and benefits-and the fonnat's as umlanon IIHO, and leg.btl1ty w1thin, a w1der dlgttal and modular med1ascape. 17 Ne1ther polanty on the nanoncentric debate ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ fully for how fonnats work, smce fom1ats arc most ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀helpmg us understand how televmon can conmtently osc1llate betweenand hold 111 mutual dependence--a domemc, communal, nattonal, regtonal. transnanonal and global addres\. In tenm of It\ funcnonahty .md the dynamte feedback loop 1t generates between convention and innovatiOn, locahty and the (mediated) world, the global TV fonnat IS now television 111 1ts purest fonn. I 380 Tasha Oren Notes 2 3 4 5 6 7 !l 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 I !l Moran, A., ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Fonn.m m the ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀World ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀FonnJt\," in Trkvisimr Arr,•ss Asia: Telt-r•isio11 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ f7t>nrum mrd ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Moran, A. and ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀M .. ed\., Abmgdon: ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀2004, p. 6. Hutcheon, Lmda, 4 l7rtwy r!f Ad.tpt.ltioll. Abmgdon: Routledge. 2006. p. ""'· Thl\ definmon af,o ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ made 115 format\ from those wh1ch become fonnat adapt.mom "after the fact" (tck·novcla' \UCh a\ { )!/y Hetty ฀฀฀฀the mo\t common ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀complicated snll ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀adaptations hkc the slow cvolunon of the lsraeh Betr[lpul, 1ts "stra•ght up" tramlaoon to HBO's 111 'I rc<ltmrlll and now "fom1anzanon" 111 several other nauonal vcf\iom that Jettisoned Its narrative and kept only us \lructural rules. Whether ficuon programs narrowly qualify as fomtars " les' mtercmng here than what categoncs ont• .tpplie\ to make such d1mncciom. Keane, M. and Moran, A., "Tclevmon's New Engme," Trlr••iswn and ,\'ell' .\1t'd1a 9(2) (2008). pp. 155-169. A ficnonahzed Amrric.m Idol film JS rumored m be 111 c.1rly pre-production at the rime of wntmg tim amcle (spnng 2009) Tim reducnon can also be, at lea\t phllosophJCally. d1sputed "'man} 'pom event:.. and mcrcasmgly new\ event:. arc both staged and perfonncd for tclcvi\JOn Tim category, then, docs not refer to the an atom) of programmmg but rather to a more b.tsic non on of "real world accCS\" to event.,, ฀฀฀฀฀ 1f they arc, finall}, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ for TV consumption. Reeves,J., "Rewnong Culture A ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Vtcw ofTelenston Authorshtp," 111 .\laklt!l[ Telt-11isron: ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ and tire ProduCII(lll Proce.<s. Thompson, R. and 13ums, G., eds., W ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀('T· Pracgcr, 1990. ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀J., "Wh.tt II?: Ch.1rong T clevJSton \ New Textual Boundancs," 111 Te/r•'i510n J!/irr TV· Essays ou a .\frdumr 111 Tr<Jusilllln. Sptgcl, L. and ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀J , cds., Durham, NC: ฀฀฀฀฀Umvermy Press, 2004. Moran A. "Televmon Fom1at' 111 the World The Work ofTclcvt\JOn fomub," 111 Tclri'ISIOII Am>ss .tl.11a, Moran, A and Keane, M., cds., Abmgdon: R outlcdgeCurzon. 2004. Moran A. and Malbon J., {. 'udmtaudill.l! tltt' Glob11l TV hm11a1, Portland. OR: Intellect Press, 2006, p. 38 lb1d., p. 39. Maf\hall, P. Dav1d, "The New lmcrtextu.tl Commodtty.'' 111 l1rr ,\'t•w \/t'dia &>Cik, D. Hams, cd .. London: 13FI. 2002. Dovey. j on, " It\ Only a Game Show: 13tg 13rothcr and the Theater of Sponranctty," m ฀฀฀฀฀ Brotltrr lmmrational, Mathtgs, E. and jones, J., cds., Bnghton, U.K.: Wall Rower Press, 2004 Further, format heavily rehcs on structures of narrauon .111d 'ignificauon tn ways that certa111ly lend ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀to producnve ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀analyses. Sec Fiw Pcrso11. '\'ell' Mrdia as Story, Prrfon11a11u a11d Game. Wardtp-Fru111. N. and Hamgan, P., eds., Cambndgc, MA: M IT Press, 2004, for an extended mulu-author debate about the spectfietty of game thcory-e\pectally m regards to narraovtty and textual ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Jason Mtttell ha\ developed a sumlar mode of .tudtcnce pleasure for complt·x tclcvmon n.trranvcs. See Mmcll, j .. "Narrattvc Complcxtty tn Contemporaf) Amencan TeleVJsJon." nrr I 'elr•t:t Ll.'!lll Tr.1p, no. 58, Auson: Umverstty of Texas Press. 2006. Turner. G., "TclevtSJOn and the 'lauon," 111 I rlrl'l.llt>n 'wda·s .tljirr J firiiiSI<lll, Turner, G. and Tay, J., eds., London: R outledge, 2009. Turner, G .. Jbtd, p. 57. Chalaby, J. Traumational Telrl'i5ron li'orldll'idt•: Toward5 a \!'II' .\f!'d1o Ordrr. Jean Chalaby, ed., London: I. 13. Taum, 2005, p. 8. Reiterational Texts and Global Imagination 381 19 Robul\, R :md Aksoy, A , ''Whoever ฀฀฀฀฀Alway' Find': Tnrl\llJtwn.tl V1ewmg and Knowledge E xpl·nerKe." 111 'fr.JII.<II,I/it>lltJ/ l'rlrl'isit>ll II 't>rldwidf li>ll•.:rtls ,, '\m• .\ lrdi,, Ordfr, jc.m CIJJI.lby. ed .. London I. 13. Tauri,, :mos. 20 Robm,, R .md Ak,oy. A . "Whoever Look' Alw,ty' hnd,," p . l X. 21 A'hm.t, M .md P.llmi, M, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Finnishnc'' Reprotludng n.uional ldl·nriry in Reahry TV," /rh·r•t.<u>ll mrd '\rw \lt'dia !!(I 2007 pp 49-67. 22 Wal\bord. <; "McTV UndcN.mding the Global Populanty ofTl'il'\·i,ron FomlJt,," IC-/m.<illll .wd '\r11• \lrdw 5<4). pp. 359 -3!!3. 23 lice Mor.m. A .md Keane, M . "Culturdl Power in lntem.niorul TV l"onn.n r\brhr,:· Ct>1111111111111 )t>llnllll t>j \lnlw ,md Cu/11rr.r/ Studit'.< 20( I ) (2006): pp. 71 !!(>. 24 llavens, T. (;[,,[,,,[ 'li'lrl'isit>ll ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ P.llt-.'TJ\'e M.1nnill.m. 200!!. 25 W.mbon.l. "McTV." p. 363. 26 Turner, G . "Cultural Identity, Soap Namtive, .111d Re.lhl) TV," li·ln•r.w11 .uul '\nr• .\lt'liia 6(4) (2005)· pp. 415-422 27 5Cl' aJ,o Toby M1llcr\ UI\Cli'>\IOn of the planer llollywoml phenomena ,mtl the IIHcm.ltiOil.ll dlvl\ron of cultural labor. 111 M1llc:r, T. (wrth Nrthn Govll.john McMurna and Rll'hard Maxwell), Glt>bt1/ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ London l3rl, 2()()1 2H W.mbord, "McTV." p . :\68. 29 Moran. Alben, C.>pyc.u /'1 ' Gloi>Jii:::all(lll, fln'.l/''"" h>ntiiW .md ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Luton. U. K UniveNry of Luton Pre''· 199!!. 30 lw,1budll, K "l'echng GIOl'.1l: Japan 1n the Glob.1l Tdc\N{lll hmn.lt l3U\IIll'"·" in 'li-lcr·isic>/1 ·1.-rc>.<.< l.<i<l. Moran. A. and Keane. M., ed.s .. London Routledgl·Curzon, 2004. p. 34. J I Mor.m, A .. "J)i,t.Httly European? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ 111 rhe Global Tclevl'ion Btl\ine,,," in 'li-J,,;_.;.,. Am>.<.< .tl.<i<l, Moran. A. and Keane. M . elk. London ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀2004. p 170. 32 The Kl·,hct Nl·twork. 21104-2006. J3 Thl· 'hO\\ wa' not an oflin.llly ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀tomtJt .!I though 1t' \tnlcture .md \tyle i' clc.uly drawn from the: f'cnnamk• fonn.H In fan. Mark Bumeu\ produnion company ฀฀฀฀฀฀ 1,1\\'\lllt ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Jg:JII1\t the Ke\het network. J4 Rrn,1 M.nzh.1d1, Nat:hman Sh;u. and Ya'akm Perry made up tlw liN \C:.I\On \ judgmg panel. l"om1er Shabak head Perry ฀฀฀฀฀replaced 111 the 'ccond 'l',l\on by an l'x-fightt·r ptlm, Gil Segcv. ,1 rmhtary ht:ro rumcd mdmtnall\t. Perry returned a' a 'pcri.1l guc>t Judgl' 111 tlw wnu-tiruk 35 llrr'.<il"-1/"' pcrft.'nly typ1fic> .tnd encapsulates ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ polmcal anxrety. 1ntenul ronA1ct and brad\ own .Kutl' ,df-con\C10U\IK"' ฀฀฀฀ the fed of glob.tl \Crutiny. It j, then '1gmficam that 1t\ fiN scJ\011, 111 the: f.-til of2004 ..1ppcared Jc,\ than a year .1fi:c:r then-pnmc m11mter Ancl Sharon\ historic reference to hraeh policie' a' "orcup.mon." Tlw ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ corrc,pondcd with .1 tien:t' ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀debate owr dr'lnanthng 'ctdemem' 111 Gaza and the media 'pcctaclc of ,·iolcnt cJa,he, berween hracli ,oldtcl"' and C\'Jcuated wrrlcr.. 111 the summer of 2005, Jll't ฀฀฀฀฀฀after the liN \ea,on \ tin.1le. J6 Hutcheon. Lind.t ..-1 ฀฀฀฀฀฀t?[.tldapt.lli(lll, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Routledt,tl'. 2006, p. Ill. J7 Importantly. the fonnat\ tit within the broad ฀฀฀฀฀฀ of dign.1l med1a j, .It orKe \trunural and culrural. and involvl"\ industry and tclevl\ion .lUdierKe' ,1, mucl1 .1\ a digitally-,ymp.uhcnc modular \tructure.