To refer to this article use this url: http://www.quotidian.nl/vol01/nr01/a04
TV preferences
A first finding worth mentioning is that television does remain an important everyday medium and shared experience in the age of internet, all participants living in multi-set households and often having their own set in their rooms. Cable TV is widespread in Belgium, which explains why no Flemish or Dutch participants have access to satellite television, as opposed to most ethnic minority viewers who do. As indicated by earlier research (e.g. Devroe et al. 2005) and confirmed in our focus groups, Turks in particular use it to watch channels from their country of origin. The Moroccan respondents are less interested in satellite TV, in part because Berber is often the native tongue of their parents and they do not have sufficient knowledge of Arabic. It is mostly their parents who watch satellite TV for language reasons or to keep in touch with the country of origin, as do Jewish parents with Israeli TV. The African interviewees are generally more firmly integrated in Belgium and do not belong to a clear diasporic community, so they less often take recourse to satellite TV.
Clearly, in terms of viewing habits, ‘allochthones’ are not as homogeneous as is often assumed. Language skills and the strength of the connections to the country of origin cause varied patterns of media use. Despite this variation, when asked about their favourite channel, most respondents refer to the same Flemish channels, such as the youth-oriented commercial channels VT4 and Kanaal2 (now 2Be) and music channels such as TMF. Only Turkish respondents consistently watch channels from their country of origin, which is also reflected in their program preferences. They are the only ethnic group to rate their ‘native’ fiction equally high as American fiction, whereas almost all other respondents have a preference for American fiction. Across all groups, favourite programs include American action series such as Prison Break, CSI and Lost, and comedies such as Friends and My wife and kids. This makes for a striking similarity in the overall viewing patterns of these groups, who share more ‘global’ cultural reference points than is often assumed. This is consistent with findings of earlier research on ethnic minorities (e.g. Elias and Lemish 2008; Tufte 2001; Dhoest 2009) and with the often observed orientation of younger generations towards global culture (Straubhaar 2007, 205). The focus on entertainment and fiction in this research seems justified, as it is an important source of shared culture among youngsters of different ethnic backgrounds.
Although Flemish channels are preferred, Flemish programs are not. While more popular in the overall population, Flemish fiction does not seem to appeal to these young viewers. Overall, they think American fiction is better because it has higher production values, better (more realistic) performances, more professionality etc. Most participants think Flemish fiction is boring while American fiction is funnier or more action-packed: quicker, bigger, more spectacular etc. Flemish fiction is often oriented on everyday life, which appeals less to many viewers:
Thomas: ‘In America it is more about murder, sex, drugs. Looking at it that way, I think I prefer American to Flemish [series] because these [the latter] are too much about daily life.’ (Flemish boys) [3]
Because of its focus on action and spectacle, American fiction is often regarded as less realistic than Flemish fiction, but the participants do not mind: they want to be entertained, which is consistent with our findings in earlier research on Flemish, Moroccan and Turkish youngsters (Dhoest 2009). For instance, after having watched a clip from CSI, the Turkish boys explain why they think this is so much better than Flemish fiction:
Mehmet: ‘Because it’s so thrilling. Take the bit we just saw, that camera movement, those locations, those police uniforms, it all looks more real and exciting.’
Murat: ‘I wouldn’t really call it more real. It’s much better TV, and you can watch it for 40 minutes, but it’s not more realistic I think.’
Mehmet: ‘OK, that’s true, but it doesn’t really matter, right? You don’t watch TV to see how boring life can be; you just want to see the exciting or hilarious things. That’s much better in American series.’
What is interesting, so far, is that similar responses keep appearing in the different groups, so ethnicity is not a distinctive or salient factor in many respects.
Upon first view, the fact that Flemish fiction does not appeal to ethnic minority viewers could be attributed to its limited representation of ethnic minorities, but it doesn’t appeal to young Flemish viewers either. Based on the broader literature on domestic fiction, we could expect that recognition (because of cultural proximity) would be important (e.g. Straubhaar 2007), but at least for this age group this is hardly an issue. The ‘cultural discount’ of American fiction seems to be minimal, which to Buonanno (2008) is due to its great familiarity or ‘domesticated otherness’.
For these youngsters, watching fiction is all about entertainment and even escape from the drudgery of everyday life. Only the Turkish groups form a clear exception, since they like Turkish fiction because it is more recognisable to them and they feel more connected to it:
Ahmet: ‘You just don’t watch Belgian series because they are boring and don’t come across as real. Turkish series are good because you feel connected to them and because they are less boring, and American series are OK because they are not boring at all, they contain enough action to keep it interesting.’ (Turkish boys)
Language is also part of the equation, whereas it is not for Flemish viewers:
Q: ‘Why do you watch more Turkish television?’
Elif: ‘For example, because that’s our own language.’
Hadise: ‘So we feel more at home.’
Elif: ‘You also recognise more, all the things that happen there. In Turkish series you see yourself more, as in “oh yes, that also happened to me”.’ (Turkish girls)
The viewers of Turkish origin are the only group with such a strong connection to the country and culture of origin, as they admit themselves, even calling themselves ‘nationalists’. For them, cultural proximity is important, but other ethnic minority groups comment less on recognition. This may indicate that ethnicity is less central to their identity but might very well be due in part to the fact that they do not have as much access to fiction from their own culture. The Flemish viewers, on the contrary, do have access to a lot of ‘own’ fiction, but their ethnicity is so self-evident that it does not seem to be much of an issue either.