Skip to main content

Audiences Speak Back: Re-Working Offensive Television

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Provocative Screens
  • 133 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter addresses audiences’ questioning of what they perceive to be ‘offensive’ material on television, not only with regard to its ‘realness’ but also in terms of its social functions and role in society. Through the development of critical responses to the text depicted, for some audience members, overtly offensive material that aims to marginalise particular groups enabled strong forms of emotional responses, through deeply affective engagement with texts. Offensive, provocative television, we suggest, is more than a negative disposable—television content that openly provokes or offends might become an important site where citizen-audiences perform a kind of audiencing, which moves individual disgust or upset into a contribution to publicness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, S. (2007). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, R. (2009). The becoming of bodies: Girls, images, experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, D. (2001). The peculiar public of television. Media, Culture & Society, 23(6), 743–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. (2010). Affective networks. Media Tropes eJournal, 2(2), 19–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, J. (1979). Semiotics: Its Contribution to the Study of Intercultural Communication. Educational Broadcasting International, 12(2), 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. (2001). Encoding/decoding. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, 166–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (1987). Invisible fictions: Television audiences, paedocracy, pleasure. Textual Practice, 1(2), 121–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermes, J. (2006). Citizenship in the Age of the Internet. European Journal of Communication, 21(3), 295–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmings, C. (2012). Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation. Feminist Theory, 13(2), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyrölä, K. (2015). Toward a contextual pedagogy of pain. Lambda Nordica, 1(2015), 131–144. Available at: http://www.lambdanordica.se/artikelarkiv_sokresultat.php?lang=sv&fields[]=art_id&arkivsok=511#resultat.

  • Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1990). The export of meaning: Cross-cultural readigns of Dallas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone (1998), Livingstone, Sonia. “14 Relationships between media and audiences.” Media, Ritual and Identity (2002): 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (2002). Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Trumansburg: Crossing Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, D. (2003). Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngai, S. (2005). Ugly feelings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on# Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 266–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2016). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 307–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge. Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zoonen, L., Vis, F., & Mihelj, S. (2011). YouTube interactions between agonism, antagonism and dialogue: Video responses to the anti-Islam film Fitna. New Media & Society, 13(8), 1283–1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, H. (2009). Talking with television: Women, talk shows, and modern self-reflexivity. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ytre-Arne, B. (2011). Women’s magazines and their readers: The relationship between textual features and practices of reading. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(2), 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ranjana Das .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Das, R., Graefer, A. (2017). Audiences Speak Back: Re-Working Offensive Television. In: Provocative Screens. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67907-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics