Understanding Competition and Diversity in Television Programming: Economic crisis & TV

This research examines and analyses the diversity of television content. More specifically, it provides an in-depth study of the development of television content. We attempt to study content through the concept of diversity, which is considered as being a methodological tool that records and describes trends in television programming. Through the methodological use of diversity, the rationale behind the programming structure is presented and, therefore, the structures that create and constitute the content can be shown. A detailed discussion is developed, as well as a new approach to television diversity, in light of the methodological examination.

Text Sample: CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. The television content in question
The importance of Newton Minow's (1961) classic speech on television, which was delivered at the National Association of Broadcasters convention, is still valid today, since the forming of television content, its tendencies and the parameters for its study, evaluation and assessment are still debated today. Minow's words, in the following quotation, illustrate the unrelenting significance of the matter: "...But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit down in front of the television set when your channel goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you - and keep your eyes glued to that set until the channel signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, Western bad men, Western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials - many screaming, cajoling and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you will see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, try it." (Minow, 1961).
The relevance of the above quotation of Minow's (1961) for the following research lies in the fact that forming the content of television - the issue in question in this research - is not a simple and straightforward matter. It involves various forms and levels of analysis and it cannot be addressed in a one-dimensional and simplistic way; rather, it requires a wider approach in order for the parameters that form, constitute and finally construct the content to be understood. The concept of content can refer to various notions and it can consist of both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Krippendorff, 2004).
The complexity of assessing content comes across in Minow's speech (1961), an excerpt of which is set out above. This complexity is centred upon the basic question of how television content is evaluated and assessed. For instance, the belief that television programming is of increasingly low quality - a typical opinion among viewers - is a quite straightforward conclusion, which, however, contains within it a complicated and multi-levelled methodological issue. Newcomb and Hirsch (1983) describe television as an aesthetic object, which has its nucleus within the content. Interestingly, the authors, even though they approach the matter from the cultural perspective of content, argue that its study should employ the textual levels and the various forms that constitute the content.
Within the problematic issue of studying content, the concept of diversity, which is the key concept studied in this research, holds a leading role. It is a key concept for the study of content but, at the same time, equally problematic. The challenging nature of diversity stems from the fact that it functions in a multi-levelled way and it can be applied, but not as a single-concept, to a number of parameters and matters (McDonald and Dimmick, 2003). McDonald and Dimmick (2003), in their study on the conceptualization of diversity, classified the concept on a quantitative basis, distinguishing between three dimensions according to its methodological orientation. The first dimension of diversity is the classification of data that one wishes to examine within the framework of diversity, for example, the classification of data regarding types of firms or programming. The second methodological dimension of diversity concerns data distribution within the categories; this involves, in other words, classifying subcategories. In the case of television content, for instance, this occurs when programmes are categorized into genres and subgenres. The third dimension of diversity according to McDonald and Dimmi