Academic literature on the topic 'Television programs Australia'

Mencinsky, Nadia, and Belinda Mullen. "Regulation of Children's Television in Australia: Past and Present." Media International Australia 93, no. 1 (November 1999): 27–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x9909300105.

Aisbett, Kate. "Production of Australian Children's Drama: Is There a Future?" Media International Australia 93, no. 1 (November 1999): 41–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x9909300106.

Potter, Anna. "Junk Food or Junk TV: How Will the UK Ban on JUNK Food Advertising Affect Children's Programs?" Media International Australia 125, no. 1 (November 2007): 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x0712500103.

Potter, Anna. "Junk Food or Junk TV: How will the Uk Ban on Junk Food Advertising Affect Children's Programs?" Media International Australia 125, no. 1 (November 2007): 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x0812500103.

Keys, Wendy. "Children's Television: A Barometer of the Australian Media Policy Climate." Media International Australia 93, no. 1 (November 1999): 9–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x9909300104.

Bonner, Frances. "The Mediated Asian-Australian Food Identity: From Charmaine Solomon to Masterchef Australia." Media International Australia 157, no. 1 (November 2015): 103–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x1515700113.

Smaill, Belinda. "Commissioning Difference? The Case of SBS Independent and Documentary." Media International Australia 107, no. 1 (May 2003): 105–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x0310700111.

Schibeci, R. A., J. M. Webb, J. Robinson, and R. Thorn. "Science on Australian Television: Beyond 2000 and Quantum." Media Information Australia 42, no. 1 (November 1986): 50–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x8604200114.

Roscoe, Jane. "Real Entertainment: New Factual Hybrid Television." Media International Australia 100, no. 1 (August 2001): 9–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x0110000104.

Bye, Susan. "Sydney Tonight versus In Melbourne Tonight: Television, Taste and Identity." Media International Australia 128, no. 1 (August 2008): 18–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x0812800104.

Lisosky, Joanne M. "Controlling children's channels : comparing children's television policies in Australia, Canada, and the United States /." Thesis, Connect to this title online; UW restricted, 1997. http://hdl.handle.net/1773/6171.

Sandefur, Sarah Jo. "Beyond "Sesame Street": Early literacy development in educational television programs from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Diss., The University of Arizona, 1995. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187434.

Green, Joshua Benjamin. "Acts of Translation: Young People, American Teen Dramas, and Australian Television 1992-2004." Queensland University of Technology, 2005. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16143/.

McKee, Alan. "Making race mean : the limits of interpretation in the case of Australian Aboriginality in films and television programs." Thesis, University of Glasgow, 1996. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/4783/.

Green, Joshua Benjamin. "Acts of Translation: Young People, American Teen Dramas, and Australian Television 1992-2004." Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2005. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/16143/1/Joshua_Green_Thesis.pdf.

Gee, Narelle. "Maintaining our rage: Inside Australia's longest-running music video program." Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2015. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/85665/10/Narelle_Gee_Thesis.pdf.

Davies, Llewellyn Willis. "‘LOOK’ AND LOOK BACK: Using an auto/biographical lens to study the Australian documentary film industry, 1970 - 2010." Phd thesis, Canberra, ACT : The Australian National University, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/154339.

Miles, Prudence E. "Teachers' use of multiplatform educational screen content: The case of Australia's SBS." Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2017. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/107547/3/Prudence%20Miles%20Thesis.pdf.

Papandrea, Franco. "Cultural regulation of Australian television programs." Phd thesis, 1996. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/144362.

Peters-Little, Frances. "The return of the noble savage by popular demand : a study of Aboriginal television documentary in Australia." Master's thesis, 2002. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/110389.

Cunningham, Stuart. Australian television and international mediascapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Australian television culture. St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1993.

Broadcast wars: The money, the ego, the power behind your remote control. Sydney, NSW: Hachette Australia, 2011.

Wilby, Sorrel. Surviving Australia: A practical guide to staying alive. New York: Pocket Books, 2001.

Personality presenters: Television's intermediaries with viewers. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2011.

Pat, Laughren, and Williamson Dugald 1946-, eds. Australian documentary: History, practices and genres. Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Australian television: A genealogy of great moments. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Edgar, Patricia. Bloodbath: A memoir of Australian television. Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Publishing, 2006.

Bauer, Graham. Australian story: Stories of courage, determination and love. Sydney: ABC Books, 2012.

Tony, Harrison. The Australian film and television companion: Over 2400 alphabetical entries. East Roseville, NSW, Australia: Simon & Schuster Australia, 1994.

French, Lisa. "Gender Still Matters: Towards Sustainable Progress for Women in Australian Film and Television Industries." In Women in the International Film Industry, 271–91. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39070-9_16.

Bell, Philip, and Kathe Boehringer. "Publicising Progress: Science on Australian Television." In Australian Television, 103–19. Routledge, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003114949-8.

Hamburg, David A., and Beatrix A. Hamburg. "Media as an Educational System: Can the Media Help?" In Learning to Live Together. Oxford University Press, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195157796.003.0018.

Jeffery, Ella. "‘Going Home is One Thing This Lot of Blockheads Can’t Do’: Unhomely Renovations on The Block." In Screening the Gothic in Australia and New Zealand. Nieuwe Prinsengracht 89 1018 VR Amsterdam Nederland: Amsterdam University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/9789463721141_ch04.

Galpin, Vashti. "Women in Technology in Sub-Saharan Africa." In Global Information Technologies, 1681–88. IGI Global, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-939-7.ch122.

"television programme, Lost in Space (Channel 2), screened on September 2, 1992, cites a British emigrant relocated, and unemployed, in an outer Brisbane suburb, blaming Neighbours for having misled him to Australia. The third difference pits Australian egalitarianism against British class hierarchies. The myth of Australia as egalitarian circulates widely in the UK as well as in Australia. It readily enables an elision of any working-class or unemployed populations. That elision was literally as well as metaphorically bought by Barry Brown, BBC Head of Purchased Programmes: “There isn’t a class system in Australia – or, if you like, everyone in Australia is middle class” (quoted by Tyrer 1987). In this way, Neighbours can focus British viewers’ notions that there is a safe, middle-class/classless suburban heaven down under. Wholesome neighborliness is highly pertinent here. Peter Pinne, executive producer of Neighbours, is quoted as ascribing its success to the fact that “it provides a vision of something that is lacking in the personal lives of many people in Britain today, particularly a sense of personal commitment and caring in the community” (Solomon 1989). The fourth difference concerns Australian accent and idiom, and their differences from British English. Acceptability of these differences has been facilitated not only by the steady succession of Australian television and film product screened in the UK since the early 1970s, but also within UK television production by the growing recognition of regional and ethnic accents since the early 1960s first moves away from plummy upper-class enunciation. Thus when “bludger” is noted in a Daily Telegraph (February 2, 1988) review as not being understood, it is not a matter of criticism or condescension, as in some reviews of Crocodile Dundee (see Crofts 1992: 210–220). The opening of the review indicates a ready acceptance of difference: “‘I was just goin’ to put the nosebag on. Fancy a bit of tucker yourself?’ This is the essential tone of Neighbours, BBC-1’s usually [sic] successful bought-in Australia soap. It is just quaintly foreign enough to please without confusing” (Marrin 1988). Of these four differences, then, between Australia and Britain, three (concerning the weather, suburbia, and egalitarianism) are virtually dissolved in that they enable the projection of British fantasies on to Neighbours. The last difference functions as a marker of cultural difference so familiar as to present no problems of assimilation. In sum, Neighbours’s huge success in the UK can therefore be traced in the three general categories of explanation set out above. Its ratings suggest beyond doubt that all of the general textual “success factors” of Neighbours apply in the UK; indeed, almost all have been commented on by British reviewers anxious to make sense of the “Neighbours phenomenon.” It is worth noting, second, that the institutional and cultural facilitators of Neighbours’s UK success are both very powerful, and also often historically fortuitous. Recall the opening up of daytime television on BBC1 and the expansion of tabloid coverage of television in 1986. Factors such as these are likely to escape the most assiduous attentions of program producers and buyers, as well as of governmental cultural and trade agencies concerned with promoting." In To Be Continued..., 116. Routledge, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203131855-18.

"37). Indeed, rumour had it that one of them, En cas de bonheur, was nicknamed En cas de déprogrammation (In Case of Happiness/In Case of Cutting from the Schedules) (Pélégrin 1989: 37). The third and least powerful element in this force field is the British contribution to French TV serial fiction. As the French preference for the high(er) cultural mini-series might lead one to expect, British production is represented by BBC-style middle-brow costume dramas such as The Forsyte Saga, rather than by such soaps as Coronation Street or EastEnders, neither of which had been screened in France when Neighbours opened. This triangular force field of high-gloss prime-time American soaps and high(er) cultural French and British costume and psychological dramas afforded no familiar televisual footholds for a Neighbours. It landed in a limbo, possibly ahead of its time, but certainly lost in 1989. Whereas its register of the everyday proved readily assimilable to the British aesthetic discourse of social realism exemplified by such community-based soaps as Brookside, EastEnders, and even Coronation Street, such a discourse is in France found less in soaps than in quite another genre, the policier. Simultaneously, Neighbours fails to measure up to two key expectations of French television serial fiction: its psychological characterization with psychologically oriented mise-en-scène, and its polished, articulate dialog involving word-games and verbal topping (Bianchi 1990: 100–101). The second and third factors working against Neighbours’s French success are linguistic and to do with television imports. Both the unfamiliarities of the English language and of other Australian televisual product doubtless played their part in Neighbours’s failure in France. Linguistically, France is more chauvinist than such European countries as Holland, Belgium, and Germany, where Australian and British soap operas and mini-series are much more widely screened. And apart from short runs of Young Doctors, A Country Practice, and a few oddball exports, Australian televisual material is known best through the mini-series All the Rivers Run, The Thornbirds, and Return to Eden (which was successful enough on TF1 in 1989 for La Cinq to rescreen it in 1991). This is a far cry from the legion Australian soaps which paved the way for Neighbours in Britain. All in all, the prospects for Neighbours in France were not promising. In the event, as in the USA, it secured no opportunity to build up its audience. Antenne 2 declined to discuss the brevity of its run or its (too) frequent rescheduling. Catherine Humblot, Le Monde’s television commentator, sees a “French mania for change in television scheduling” as a widespread phenomenon: “if a programme has no immediate success, then they move it” (Humblot 1992). Rolande Cousin, the passionate advocate of Neighbours who had previously sold Santa Barbara and Dallas in France, adds that Antenne 2’s lack of confidence in the Australian soap may have been exacerbated by its employment policy of the time of offering golden handshakes to its experienced management and installing young blood. This would have arisen from Antenne 2’s difficulties finding adequate advertising revenue to support its." In To Be Continued..., 127. Routledge, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203131855-29.

"far, far cry from the broad swathe beaten to the British market by soaps ranging from The Sullivans to Flying Doctors and from Prisoner: Cell Block H to Country Practice which preceded the Neighbours phenomenon there. “The accents” were constantly cited as a crucial point of resistance. KCOP: “People couldn’t understand the Australian accent” (Inouye 1992). WWOR: “We received some complaints about accents, but maybe that’s not the real issue” (Darby 1992). KCOP: “The actors are unknown, and it takes place in a country that few people know about” (Inouye 1992). WWOR: “One problem with anything from out of this country is making the transition from one country to the next. We’re all chauvinists, I guess. We want to see American actors in American stuff” (Leibert 1992). The tenor of these reflections in fact gainsays the New York Daily News’s own report five days prior to Neighbours’s first New York transmission: The program was test-marketed in both cities, and viewers were asked whether they prefer [sic] the original Australian version or the same plots with American actors. “All of them chose the Australian program over the US version,” Pinne said. It won’t hurt, he added, that a program from Australia will be perceived as “a little bit of exotica” without subtitles. (Alexander 1991: 23) The station’s verdict within three months was clearly less sanguine. Australian material did not stay the course, even as exotica. Two additional factors militated against Neighbours’s US success: scheduling, and the length of run required to build up a soap audience. Scheduling was a key factor of the US “mediascape” which contributed to the foundering of Neighbours. Schedule competition tends to squeeze the untried and unknown into the 9–5 time slots. Whatever its British track-record, the Australian soap had no chance of a network sale in the face of the American soaps already locked in mortal combat over the ratings. The best time for Neighbours on US television, between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., could be met no better by the independent stations. For the 6:00–8:00 p.m. period, when the networks run news, are the independents’ most competitive time slots, representing their best opportunity to attract viewers away from the networks – principally by rerunning network sitcoms such as The Cosby Show and Cheers. An untried foreign show, Neighbours simply would not, in executives’ views, have pleased advertisers enough; it was too great a risk. Even the 5:00–6:00 p.m. hour, which well suited Neighbours’s youth audience, was denied it in Los Angeles after its first month, with its ratings dropping from 4 per cent to 1 per cent as a consequence. Cristal lamented most the fourth factor contributing to Neighbours’s demise: the stations’ lack of perseverance with it, giving it only three-month runs either side of the States. This is the crucial respect in which public service broadcasting might have benefited it, by probably giving it a longer run. Until the late 1980s, when networks put on a daytime soap, they would." In To Be Continued..., 121. Routledge, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203131855-23.

"Max Ramsay is the cardboard cutout Ozzie clod who warns his son, Shane, against dating Daphne because she works as a stag-night stripper. His main fear seems to be the effect the newly arrived Daphne might have on the price of his property. (Smurthwaite 1986) As Grahame Griffin notes, “the closing credit sequence . . . is a series of static shots of suburban houses singled out for display in a manner reminiscent of real estate advertisements” (Griffin 1991: 175). Small business abounds in Neighbours: a bar, a boutique, an engineering company, with no corporate sector and no public servants or bureaucrats apart from a headmistress. 10 Writing skills must be acknowledged. It is very hard to make the mundane interesting, and indeed to score multiple short plot lines across a small number of characters (twelve to fifteen), as is appropriate to representing the local, the everyday, the suburban. As Moira Petty remarks, Neighbours is successful because “it’s very simple. The characters are two dimensional and the plots come thick and fast. The storylines don’t last long, so if you don’t like one, another will come along in a few days” (quoted by Harris 1988). These ten textual reasons doubtless contribute, differentially across different export markets, to Neighbours’s success in many countries of the world. Its wholesome neighborliness, its cosy everyday ethos would appear to be eminently exportable. However, lest it be imagined that Neighbours has universal popularity or even comprehensibility, there remain some 150 countries to which it has not been exported, and many in which its notions of kinship systems, gender relations, and cultural spaces would appear most odd. The non-universality of western kinship relations, for example, is clearly evidenced in Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes’s comparison of Israeli and Arab readings of Dallas (Katz and Leibes 1986). And, indeed, there are two familiar territories to be considered later – the USA and France – in which it has been screened and failed. Significantly, the countries screening Neighbours are mostly anglophone and well familiar with British, if not also with Australian soaps. But why does Neighbours appeal so forcibly in the UK? In the UK market, I suggest, five institutional and cultural preconditions enabled Neighbours’s phenomenal success. Some of these considerations are, of course, the sine qua non of Neighbours even being seen on UK television. The first precondition was its price, reportedly A$54,000 per show for two screenings; with EastEnders costing A$80,000 per episode, Neighbours was well worth a gamble (Kingsley 1989: 241). Scheduling, too, was vital to Neighbours’s success. This has two dimensions. Neighbours was the first program on UK television ever to be stripped over five weekdays (Patterson 1992). BBC Daytime Television, taking off under Roger Loughton in 1986, while Michael Grade was Programme Controller, was so bold in this as to incur the chagrin of commercial." In To Be Continued..., 112. Routledge, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203131855-14.

"to less prosaic representations. That five of the commentaries are positive in their evaluation of Neighbours, two neutral, and only one negative suggests the broad potential acceptability of the program to the US market (only one publication, the Wall Street Journal, has the kind of highbrow readership which might encourage its television critics to sneer at popular material such as soaps). The two textual features of Neighbours which do draw comment – the everyday, and the domestic and suburban – point to a crucial first feature of the US “mediascape,” in particular its “soapscape,” namely the preference for the exceptional, the non-domestic, the non-suburban. In US soaps, it is well known, the pole of melodrama exercises greater attraction than the pole of realism (cf. Geraghty 1991: 25–38) – in contrast to Australian and British soaps. These two textual aspects of Neighbours are a central theme of the US commentaries, combining under the rubric of the non-exceptional, the “realistic.” All the commentaries bar the sole negative one (Kitman 1991: 23) refer positively to Neighbours’ “realism,” often in contradistinction to the perceived artificiality of US soaps. Peter Pinne, the program’s executive producer, is twice quoted to just this effect (Goodspeed 1991: 22; Mann 1991: 28), while USA Today (Roush 1991: 15) applauds “how close the residents of Ramsey Street seem to our own suburban counterparts,” and notes that “its casual gossip and unexceptional lifestyle [are] closer to the early days of Knots Landing than to any current soap.” The redoubtable Wall Street Journal does not sneer, but praises a television version of middle- and lower-class life that is at ease with itself and singularly lacking in . . . the self-consciousness and discomfort that attends American television’s efforts to portray uneducated white working-class types . . . . [Its] characters . . . ought to be more recognisable to Americans than the peculiar beings that inhabit the worlds of our home-grown TV dramas . . . . [They] actually converse with one another in the way that people do – without declaiming or the rat-a-tat of one-liners, or recitals of a position on the latest hot social theme. If the beat of their daily lives is unhysterical – quiet, in fact – it is also eventful. (Rabinowitz 1991: 17) The Wall Street Journal takes a refreshing distance from the infamous “Greed is good” dictum voiced in Oliver Stone’s film, Wall Street! Given Neighbours’s atypicality in the realm of US soaps, its American reference points are either Knots Landing – which one British journalist described as “the nearest the Americans can bear to get to a soap about ordinary people” (Kingsley 1989: 226) – or US sitcoms (Kelleher 1991: 36; Rabinowitz 1991: 17). Buyer and seller agreed that its non-exceptional “realism” was one reason for Neighbours’s failure in the US “soapscape.” KCOP described it as “less raunchy than US soap operas, too wholesome” (Moran 1992). Its seller, Bob Cristal, added that." In To Be Continued..., 119. Routledge, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203131855-21.

Cunningham, Stuart, Marion McCutcheon, Greg Hearn, Mark Ryan, and Christy Collis. Australian Cultural and Creative Activity: A Population and Hotspot Analysis: Sunshine Coast. Queensland University of Technology, December 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/rep.eprints.136822.