{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0245074483421432, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0004805382027871216, 'mean_word_length': 5.290030211480363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
TAKING STOCK OF TV AND TELEVISION STUDIES

Lynn Spigel and Jan Olsson undertake a precarious balancing act in their new anthology, Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. They present a collection of essays looking at television’s present and future in light of its past. The book as a whole considers this living, changing, slippery medium without downplaying its ongoing transformation or getting lost in the hype of each new technological development. Such is the challenge of television scholarship. However, Spigel and Olsson add to the complexity of their task when they include some reflection on the purpose of that scholarship and its role in the academy. Approaching this challenge head on, they are mostly successful at maintaining the necessary balance, and, in doing so, they have produced a quality, comprehensive investigation into the current state of television and television studies. The book’s title begs the question: what is this distinction between television and TV? Spigel addresses the matter in her introduction when she explains why she and Olsson are interested in television after TV, and what they mean by this pithy phrase. ‘Indeed, if TV refers to the technologies, industrial formations, government policies, and practices of looking that were associated with the medium in its classical public service and three-network age, it appears that we are now entering a new phase of television the phase that comes after ‘‘TV’’’ (p. 2). This particular quote hints at the international scope of the collection, referring to both the American context in which television was dominated by three networks for several decades, and the European public broadcasting context. In light of the shifting modes of sponsorship, increasing distribution channels, intensified narrowcasting, and introduction of reality television programs that are changing the television landscape across geographic boundaries, Spigel makes a strong case for the need for historically situated scholarship. She explains, ‘[i]n order to understand the changes afoot, we