Academic literature on the topic 'This today tonight (Television program)'

McIver, Damian. "Representing Australianness: Our National Identity Brought to You by Today Tonight." Media International Australia 131, no. 1 (May 2009): 46–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x0913100106.

Turner, Graeme. "‘Popularising Politics’: This Day Tonight and Australian Television Current Affairs." Media International Australia 106, no. 1 (February 2003): 137–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x0310600114.

Restendy, Mochammad Sinung, Mishbahu Rahmah, Reza Muh Edy Putra Perdana, and Ziadatul Fauziah Aryati. "Gaya Penyampaian Presenter Program Acara “Tonight Show” Dalam Menarik Minat Penonton." Journal of Communication Studies 1, no. 2 (December 30, 2021): 115–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.37680/jcs.v1i2.729.

Pramukti, Dita Intan, and Asep Purwo Yudi Utomo. "The implication of humor discourse in the Tonight Show television program." Journal of Social Studies (JSS) 15, no. 2 (September 21, 2020): 145–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/jss.v15i2.31939.

Putra, Marselinus Chandrajaya, and Muhammad Gafar Yoedtadi. "Pengaruh Pembawa Acara terhadap Minat Menonton dalam Komunitas (Survei Talkshow Tonight Show pada Komunitas Tonight Mania)." Koneksi 5, no. 2 (September 29, 2021): 359. http://dx.doi.org/10.24912/kn.v5i2.10370.

Jannatania, Jasmin, Eni Maryani, Dadang R. Hidayat, and Sri S. Indriani. "Diversifikasi Konten Tonight Show dan Regulasi yang Berlaku Pada Media Massa (NET TV) dan Media Online (Youtube)." Jurnal PIKMA : Publikasi Ilmu Komunikasi Media Dan Cinema 5, no. 1 (September 30, 2022): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.24076/pikma.v5i1.778.

Alkebaeva, D., Zh Satkenova, and А. Amirov. "PRAGMASTYLISTIC KAZAKH TV." BULLETIN Series of Philological Sciences 73, no. 3 (July 15, 2020): 381–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.51889/2020-3.1728-7804.60.

Lizetha, Vivin, and Angga Prawadika. "Konvergensi Setengah Hati : Invasi Konten Media Sosial dalam Program Berita Televisi di TVOne." Jurnal Media dan Komunikasi 2, no. 1 (October 26, 2021): 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/medkom.v2i1.29350.

Krauss, Ellis S. "Changing Television News in Japan." Journal of Asian Studies 57, no. 3 (August 1998): 663–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2658737.

Ulfah, Mariana, and Amadou Barry. "Indonesia Leader Forum, post-truth and political interests in social media and television." International Journal of Communication and Society 1, no. 1 (June 1, 2019): 17–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.31763/ijcs.v1i1.18.

Seromiat, A. O., and А. О. Серомят. "Influence of family entertainment of today`s youth." Thesis, National aviation university, 2021. https://er.nau.edu.ua/handle/NAU/50054.

Ryan, Kevin. "King of the News: An Agenda-Setting Approach to the John Oliver Effect." Thesis, University of North Texas, 2017. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1011854/.

Kasoff, Sy. Odyssey: Early days on the Tonight show starring Johnny Carson : fun and games, insights and observations, from someone who was there at the beginning. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2008.

Sweeney, Don. Backstage at The tonight show: From Johnny Carson to Jay Leno. Lanham, Md: Taylor Trade Pub., 2006.

Johnny Carson: An unauthorized biography. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987.

Stephen, Cox. Here's Johnny!: Thirty years of America's favorite late - night entertainment. New York: Harmony Books, 1992.

Here's Johnny! / Ed McMahon. New York: Berkley Boulevard, 2006.

The Today show: An anecdotal history. New York: Morrow, 1987.

Right here on our stage tonight!: Ed Sullivan's America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

The war for late night: When Leno went early and television went crazy. New York: Viking, 2010.

Kessler, Judy. Inside today: The battle for the morning. New York: Villard Books, 1992.

Kessler, Judy. Inside today: The battle for the morning. New York: Villard Books, 1992.

Gershon, Richard A. "Intelligent Networking and Business Process Innovation." In Business Information Systems, 1412–24. IGI Global, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-969-9.ch088.

Case, Thomas L., Geoffrey N. Dick, and Craig Van Slyke. "Expediting Personalized Just-in-Time Training with E Learning Management Systems." In Encyclopedia of Human Resources Information Systems, 378–85. IGI Global, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-883-3.ch056.

"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.

"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.

Başaran, Meltem. "An Investigation on the Netflix Platform in the Context of Flow Theory." In COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY CONGRESS. ISTANBUL AYDIN UNIVERSITY, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.17932/ctcspc.21/ctc21.025.

Clary, Kelly Lynn, Hyojung Kang, Laura Quintero Silva, and Julie Bobitt. "Weeding out the Stigma: Experiences Shared by Older Veterans." In 2021 Virtual Scientific Meeting of the Research Society on Marijuana. Research Society on Marijuana, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.26828/cannabis.2022.01.000.37.