This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]On: 09 October 2014, At: 17:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

Packaging culture: The potential andlimitations of travel programs on globaltelevisionElfriede Fürsich aa Assistant Professor in the Communication Department , BostonCollege , Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Elfriede Fürsich (2002) Packaging culture: The potential and limitationsof travel programs on global television, Communication Quarterly, 50:2, 204-226, DOI:10.1080/01463370209385657

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385657

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Packaging Culture: The Potentialand Limitations of Travel Programson Global Television

Elfriede Fürsich

This study interrogates the representational politics of travel programs as examples ofglobal media products. It presents a textualization analysis of the three television travelshows Rough Guide, Lonely Planet, Travelers, all aired in the U.S. by the cableoutlet Travel Channel. Beyond merely highlighting the ideological assumptions of thesetexts, this type of analysis situates the texts within their conditions of production. Thestudy focuses on modern and postmodern depictions of travel and tourism, on strategiesof representing the Other and on the discourse of these shows as global media texts. Theshows' narratives tend to stress individual pleasure within untourist, post-tourist ormulticultural frameworks, but neglect broader political, social and economic problemsof contemporary tourism and international relations in general. The analysisdemonstrates the inadequacy of commercial nonfiction entertainment as a globaltelevision genre to address the difficult issue of cross-cultural contact or to develop non-essentialized strategies for representing the Other.

KEY CONCEPTS television, travel, tourism, media globalization, DiscoveryChannel

Elfriede Fürsich (Ph.D., University of Georgia, 1998) is Assistant Professor inthe Communication Department at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467.Earlier versions of this article were presented at the annual conference of theInternational Communication Association (2000) and the InternationalCrossroads in Cultural Studies Conference (2000).

One of the major dimensions of globalization is the voluntary and forcedmobility of people. Business travelers, tourists, migrants, refugees, andemployees of global corporations constitute a growing group of people on the

move. On the voluntary side, traveling both for business and for leisure has become acentral endeavor making the tourism industry one of the largest economic sectors in theworld (McDowell, 1998). The media industry has reacted to this rising audience andadvertiser interest in tourism with the intensified development of travel-related mediaproducts. For instance, most major daily newspapers in the United States carry travelsections in their Sunday editions; moreover, there is a growing market for travelmagazines (e.g., Travel and Leisure, National Geographic Traveler) and specialized travelpublications such as guide books and travel literature. In this era of narrowcasting,

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 50 No 2 Spring 2002, Pages 204-226

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

television, cable and satellite, programmers have developed special shows and entireniche cable channels (e.g., Travel Channel) devoted to the subject.

Travel media are interesting for mass communication scholars because of theirconnection to international communication research. This type of research tends toprioritize the flow of news, entertainment or advertising in a global market (Reeves,1993); when evaluating how national media cover foreigners and foreign cultures,studies normally analyze international news content in newspapers or on television.However, audience interest in "hard" international news is waning; mass mediareacting to audience losses and increased profit expectations have led many U.S. mediato decrease traditional foreign coverage and reduce their network of foreigncorrespondents (Randal, 2000). Even if traditional news media no longer focus oninternational reporting—except in international crises such as war—mediarepresentations of Others are ubiquitous in a variety of publications and programsbeyond traditional news journalism. Therefore, researchers of media globalizationshould lend their attention to evaluating other genres. Examining travel media adds toour understanding of how the intricacies of globalization play out on a day-to-daybasis.

The cable outlet Travel Channel programs Rough Guide, Lonely Planet, and Travelersprovide my evidence as I examine how issues of textualization in the media shaperepresentations of other cultures in a global television market. In this analysis, I focuson the representations of travel and tourism, on the representational politics of theseprograms and on the possibilities of these global media texts to provide new types ofopen, multi-layered representations. The guiding question for this study is if travelprograms produced for global television can negotiate international encounters,tourism and a globalizing media industry in innovative ways. This study evaluatestravel programs and media as significant sites for cultural analysis. What might appearto be an innocent form of nonfiction entertainment, producing and reproducing trivial,positive images of exotic places, can be analyzed with regard to its discourse of theforeign and the familiar as it is inflected by the material conditions of power. Thisresearch contributes to the broader goal of studying tourism as a major cultural(political, economic, social) practice of global dimensions. Travel programs also offeran important discourse for the study of the ideological dimensions of tourism and cross-cultural encounters in general. It is a site where the seemingly "private" enterprise oftourism presents its "public" face (Fürsich & Kavoori, 2001).

My analysis explains how the shows under investigation epitomize threedistinctively different versions of travel: Untourism, post-tourism and multiculturaltourism. These versions present a mix of modern and postmodern conceptions of traveland tourism. These shows provide important moments that indicate that mediarepresentation of the Other is a more complex construction than previously theorized.Yet, I conclude that global commercial television is limited in its potential to address theproblematic issues of cross-cultural contact and mass tourism. Travel and tourism arevery attractive topics for global television because of an increasing audience interestaround the world for travel-related information, the appeal to advertisers and thepotential for cross-marketing efforts. At the same time, the business model of the globaltelevision industry has led to a shift away from traditional television journalism towardnon-controversial, nonfiction entertainment. Thus, programs developed within theinstitutional constraints and the profit expectations of the globalizing cable andbroadcasting industries are likely to produce celebratory and non-critical travel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

accounts and to stifle efforts that scrutinize contemporary travel practices or criticizethe problems of mass tourism. These texts also neglect the important politicaldimension of international and intercultural contacts in a globalizing world by favoringindividualized and personalized travel accounts. Moreover, while these shows havethe potential to present open and complex representations of Otherness, they often fallback into a us/them dichotomy because of the intrinsic motivation of travel media tohighlight essentialized difference from a privileged position.

TEXTUALIZATIONTo make my case, I present what I call a textualization analysis of three television

programs. This method is a text-centered form of analysis. Like traditional textualanalysis, it highlights the cultural assumptions, ideologies and possible readings of atext, but it goes further to situate the text within its conditions of production. Thus, aftera close reading of the programs, I connect them to their production and distributionsituation within the global television industry. This type of analysis adopts thesuggestions of critics who want to overcome the division between cultural studies andpolitical economy. For example, Kellner (1997) suggests a "multiperspectival" criticalcultural studies that will "overcome the boundaries of academic disciplines and willcombine political economy, social theory and research, and cultural criticism in itsproject which aims at critique of domination and social transformation" (p. 103).Similarly, Murdoch (1997) wants to infuse critical political economy into culturalstudies: "Developing detailed, empirically grounded critiques of actually existingmarket relations, prising open the gaps between promise and performance, is one ofcritical political economy's central contributions" (p. 94). Textualization analysisavoids the pitfalls of confined types of textual analysis that arbitrarily separate the textfrom its economic context.

I examined three televised travel shows, Lonely Planet, Rough Guide and Travelers,all aired in the United States on the Travel Channel. This cable channel is owned by theBethesda, Maryland-based global cable programming provider Discovery Communi-cations Inc. I selected shows that deal with international travel and the cultural aspectsof travel as opposed to programs in which nature or sights are featured predominately.All analyzed shows concentrate on people, lifestyles and social activity. Anothermotivation for this selection was that these shows are international co-productions,which are produced and aired in many different countries, making them representativeproducts for the globalized television industry.

The analysis is based on four weeks of shows that aired and were taped betweenFebruary 8,1998, and March 8,1998. Lonely Planet and Rough Guide were shown dailyon the Travel Channel three times back to back during mornings, primetime and latenight. The analyzed shows all were taped during primetime (9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.).Travelers was shown Mondays to Fridays on Travel Channel at 2:00 p.m. and on theDiscovery Channel at 5:00 p.m. (the same episode was shown). All episodes last onehour including several commercial breaks. The pool of recorded shows presents amixture of frequent reruns of shows of the last three seasons and some new episodes,typical for the repetitive programming rhythm of cable channels that rely onaccumulated ratings and use reruns to fill airtime (Brooks, 1997). One full season ofLonely Planet, for example, consists of only 13 new episodes. The other programmingslots are filled with reruns.1

Several interrelated areas are covered in my analysis. First, I explain the production

206 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and distribution of the shows for a global media market. Second, I illuminate how thetravel shows are representing practices of contemporary travel and tourism. Usingrecent research in the sociology and culture of tourism, I illustrate the complex versionsof leisure travel portrayed in these shows. Third, I explore the politics ofrepresentations (of the travelers and the locals) in these shows. I conclude by evaluatingthese shows within the context of global television production and by highlightingimplications for media globalization research and post-colonial scholarship.

TRAVEL SHOWS AS GLOBAL MEDIA TEXTSTechnological and economic developments in the media industry have changed the

way television is produced and distributed. Globalization of the industry andfragmentation of the audience due to an increased supply of channels have increasedthe demand for programming of any kind. That in turn has stimulated a boom in whatis referred to as "nonfiction entertainment" in the global programming market. Thistype of programming is popular both with the remaining public stations, which moreaggressively search for popular quality programming, but especially with expandingcommercial cable/satellite specialty channels.

Another reason for this boom in nonfiction entertainment has been the fact thatbroadcasters realized that documentaries and other nonfictional entertainment couldgenerate "respectable ratings for a fraction of the cost of a drama or a comedy.(Documentaries cost on average $300,000 to $400,000 an hour, dramas $1.2 million andsitcoms $900,000)" (McElvogue, 1998, p. C7). These developments make travelprograms on television a sought-after commodity and have stimulated manyproduction companies and producers to pitch "travel ideas." Travel and tourism areglobally appealing topics; their very subject matter involves border crossings (exceptfor national tourism for a national audience) and different cultures. The boominginternational tourism industry makes travel shows potentially interesting for manydifferent audiences. In that sense, travel programs may even augment foreign newscoverage that has been dominated by mostly negative portrayals of other countries(natural and political catastrophes) with more friendly and optimistic coverage. Therationale behind this expectation is that extremely negative representations cannotappeal to audiences in different countries at the same time.

Because travel and tourism have changed from a Western-dominated endeavor toa more global phenomenon, the interest in travel as a global television subject hasincreased as well. Since travel shows may cater to either actual travel or vicariousdesires, programming executives stress that their programs should appeal to "armchairtravelers" with "attractive, intelligent, authentic show hosts that the viewer will wantto travel with" (Moss, 1998, p. 10). Travel shows are aired as ersatz journeys thatfacilitate the marketing of these programs even to audiences who cannot (yet) afford ordo not have time/inclination for foreign travel.

The increasing globalization of the telecommunication industry has led to a changein the economic conditions of television productions. This trend has resulted infragmentation of audiences, huge technological investments and the greater profitexpectations of the major media conglomerates which control the global market. Thisclimate favors a conservative and non-risk managerial approach when it comes tocreative ideas, and "lean" management strategies such as outsourcing and sharedfinancing. Note that none of the analyzed shows are in-house productions and thereforecan easily be sold, changed or canceled if they fail to attract audience interest or are no

Travel Programs 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

longer considered a suitable component of a network's lineup. Also, all of theseproductions are aired in many countries and mostly co-produced by severalinternational channels or production companies.

The Travel Channel should be understood as a part of an international network ofchannels. Its owner, the financially-successful Discovery Communications Inc.,promotes most of its programs and channels as global products. According to companyinformation, Discovery Communications' channels can be seen in more than 150countries; its programs are translated into 33 languages and it reaches a potentialaudience of 650 million subscribers worldwide (Discovery Communications Inc., 2001).In 1997, right after Discovery bought its majority share of the U.S. Travel Channel, italso bought Travel Channel Latin America from Landmark Communications.Moreover, Discovery has also bought or is negotiating to acquire other travel channelsin Europe. According to Discovery chairman John Hendricks, this strategy "only makessense now that we have the domestic U.S. Travel Channel, so we're committed to theniche not only in the U.S., but also worldwide" ("Discovery bits," 1997, p. 5).

The globalization of the media industry has not necessarily led to a globalization oftastes. Local, regional and national programming is often more successful than foreignimports. Moreover, local governments often try to restrict or regulate foreign mediainput (Chadha & Kavoori, 2000). Global companies have been forced to rethink theirglobal programming and advertising strategies to cater to local audiences. On the otherhand, globalization also has produced a market for shows and programming that areinternational enough to generate wide sales but also "neutral" enough (not reflecting orupsetting specific national interests, tastes or themes) to be appealing to a globalaudience. Therefore, many production and content ideas are judged by their globalaudience appeal and potential for cross-promotion (merchandising, brand extension,etc.). In industry terms, Discovery is in the process of creating a global brand thatgenerates cost-efficient synergy effects by re-purposing its content over differentplatforms and cross-promoting programs and channels internationally. This globalappeal distinguishes Discovery's strategy from other global television providers suchas AOL TimeWarner, BBC or Viacom which tend to regionalize or localize theirprogramming to compete more successfully on different continents (e.g., CNN Europe,BBC America, MTV Asia; see Shrikhande, 2001). Discovery tries to produce anddistribute programs that appeal to the largest audience possible across as many bordersas possible by choosing products that allow it to avoid the costly process of adaptingcontent to different cultural sensibilities.

For many decades, theorists of cultural imperialism have criticized the problems ofU.S. media corporations flooding other countries with their products (Reeves, 1993).However, this work often overlooks a crucial recent change in the logic of the globaltelevision market. Traditionally, foreign syndication markets especially in Third Worldcountries provided an important but secondary stream of revenue for U.S. syndicators,who used them to offset the deficit financing of productions necessary to succeed in thecompetitive U.S. market. Several factors have changed this situation: increasedeconomic globalization and deregulation has led to the media industry beingdominated by a few (no longer U.S. but) transnational conglomerates. Marketsaturation in the West and deregulation has made other markets a major source ofrevenue for all major players. In particular, the industry hopes that the growing middleclasses in Asia and Latin America will provide the necessary growth rates in marketshare that these companies need. Competition from more popular and increasingly

208 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

sophisticated local television productions has meant that the big players can no longerrely on dubbing U.S.-originated shows; rather, they must create more complexprogramming to woo global audiences.

From a cultural point of view, these global productions have the potential toprovide more equalized (i.e., less patronizing and stereotyping) media representationsthat take into account audiences beyond national (Western) interests. Producers arenow compelled to appeal to more diverse audiences. This new situation initiated thisstudy: Do television shows that are produced for a global market generaterepresentations that go beyond the traditional us/them dichotomy that has hauntedcultural production in the past, as post-colonial scholars have theorized (e.g., Said,1979)? How is the Other constructed if the producers have to take into account that theOther is also likely part of a growing global television audience and a financiallyimportant audience member. Similarly, how is the "us" defined if the producers andfinanciers of these shows very often are in different countries and continents? What arethe representational politics of the cross-cultural encounters that are a main topic ofcultural travel programs? The following analysis of three travel programs interrogatesthese dimensions of representation, then réévaluâtes them by taking into account theconditions of global media production.

REPRESENTATIONS OF TRAVEL AND TOURISMThe analysis of the travel shows probes how concepts of travel in sociology, post-

colonial theory, cultural studies and postmodern theory resonate with actual travelpractices and travel representations. This connects to Urry (1995), who asks researchersto analyze tourist practices beyond the economic principles of individual utility-maximization as a social and semiotic process. He stresses "that converting a range oftourist services into a satisfactory 'holiday' involves a great deal of 'work' [by differentgroups]" (p. 131). This symbolic and social work can be analyzed in relation to itsideologies and politics. Urry emphasizes how tourism and modern ideas about workand leisure are connected: "Tourism as a leisure activity presupposes its opposite,namely regulated and organised work" (p. 132). Therefore, an overarching theme ofcontemporary travel and its media representation is based on the drive to search outdifference (of culture, lifestyle, people or nature) (MacCannell,1976,1992).

My analysis highlights the diverse versions of travel practices constructed in theseshows by elucidating the "preferred traveler" these shows construct. The featured typeof tourism structures the text of these programs. The respective type is not openly statedbut needs to be located by interrogating the assumptions of the text. These types delimitthe texts and all aspects of these productions such as the choice of topics, locations,hosts, interviewees, perspectives and aesthetics.

TJie Predicament of Untourism: Lonely PlanetThe Lonely Planet series is aimed at "a backpack crowd seeking maximum

adventure on a shoestring budget" (C. Hall, 1998, p. 63). The Travel Channel co-produces the show with the British Channel 4, the French FR3 and the Australian SevenNetwork in collaboration with the Australian publisher of the travel guides of the samename. Lonely Planet is considered the strong promoter, if not the inventor, of backpacktourism. Many of its books have cult status among young travelers. The first book waspublished in 1973 (see Crowther, Raj, Wheeler, Finlay, & Thomas, 1993). Books are nowtranslated in 11 different languages, making Lonely Planet a "$15-million-a-year

Travel Programs 209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

publishing empire, the largest independent travel-book company in the English-speaking world" (Waters, 1997, p. 9).

Each episode lasts one hour and shows the journey of a twenty-something traveler.There are several hosts, but the two main presenters are "the slightly irreverentEnglishman Ian Wright or the more earnest American counterpart, Justine Shapiro" (C.Hall, 1998, p. 63). The show has been one of the mainstays of the Travel Channel;currently (2001/02) in its ninth season, the show was scheduled in a primetime slot foryears, even before Discovery took full ownership of the Travel Channel in 1999.2 Theshow has a very spontaneous look but is—as C. Hall explains—thoroughly planned:

Mr. Wright and Ms. Shapiro travel with a small film crew only after theproducer has researched a destination and made a three-week trip to scout forlocations. Given the unpredictable nature of travel in far-flung corners of theworld, however, much of what eventually makes it onto television isimpromptu and spontaneous, (p. 63)

Lonely Planet avoids typical mass tourist locations, and films off the beaten track,frequently in Third World countries or formerly politically unstable countries (e.g.,Ethiopia or Romania). The filmic aesthetic of this show presents the least stagedappearance of all three shows. The hand-held camera is not visible and the programoften has the look of a documentary. The voice-over commentary of the host/traveleris interspersed with spontaneous talking to the camera or to people on location. Thecommentaries give some basic introductions to the political and historical situation ofthe visited country but focus on the actual travel experience. The hosts reflect the spiritof budget traveling. The programs often feature the chosen rooms, beds and bathroomsin preferably cheap hostels. It is the only show that takes travelers (mostly Westernbackpackers) as informants. The commentary of the hosts reflects a Western, liberal,environmental perspective and advocates political activism by repeatedly referring toenvironmental problems and initiatives. Similarly, every Lonely Planet guidebookmentions that since 1986, a part of the profits is spent on environmental and aidprograms (e.g., Crowther et al., 1993).

The relationship to locals is that of attempted closeness and a classless approach.Often, the Lonely Planet host stays in private and semi-private housing (where only aroom is rented out) and follows invitations to eat or stay in private homes. Nevertheless,the locals either are not named, or the viewer only hears a first name. There are notranslations or subtitles; the show frequently features people who do not speak any ormuch English. One of the themes, in fact, is how the traveler (especially Ian Wright) hasfun without understanding the people. In a train in Bulgaria, for example, we see himwith a group of older people who eat and sing with him, and get along despite languagebarriers. The host always covers a huge area in three to four weeks (in an episode onArgentina, for example, long trips on the plane have to be made to cover the area).Sometimes this leads to programs in which the host is mostly on the road in buses,trains, and planes.

At the end of every show, the host/hostess gives a personal summary from the trip.Most of the time, this commentary stresses how different the trip was from what wasanticipated. The show's hosts very often experience arduous travel experiences (JustineShapiro, for example, is diagnosed with malaria in an Africa episode). Other typicalproblems are altitude sickness, extreme temperature difference, and stomach upsets or

210 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

traveler's diarrhea. Since they tend to spend less money on accommodations and foodthan do hosts on other shows, daily travel problems sometimes take over. Viewers donot learn a lot about the hosts' background (except the national origin from the versionof English they speak). Backpackers are often well-educated college or universitystudents from Western countries, and now increasingly also from periphery states (e.g.,Korea), Eastern European countries, or Japan. What unites them is that they do not wantto spend a lot on traveling, and they have vacations long enough to go on extended trips.They oppose mass tourism facilities and try to experience the "real" culture. Theysearch for the "difference" that Urry (1990, 1995) refers to, by downgrading theirstandards (in class and comfort). The shows do not avoid the problems of tourism(especially environmental ones) but they clearly establish that the Lonely Planet way oftourism is the best way, offering authentic experiences. These experiences are extendedto the viewers, as the Internet promotion for the show states: "Lonely Planet: Travel theworld to explore diverse cultures in an up-close-and-personal format, as the hosts go onsolo journeys to immerse themselves in their surroundings and share survival tips withviewers" (www.discovery.com).

Preferred Traveler. The Lonely Planet represents what Corrigan (1997) refers to asuntourism. It is a comparably new form of tourism growing out of the Westernalternative and environmental movements that acknowledges the problems of masstourism but actively tries to avoid them to find authentic experiences. Corrigan (1997)quotes the motto of the Australian Untourist Network:

Mass tourism is about infrastructure (big hotels, souvenir shops, garishpromotions and the fast buck) whereas untourism is about caring for people,maintaining unspoiled environments, authenticity and value-for-money...Ifuntourists won't go to places created solely to soak up the tourist dollar,preferring to see and do what the locals do...there will be less and less room tospoil what is natural, authentic and/or special about place, (p. 145)

However, as Corrigan also explains, untourists stay grounded in the modernisttravel motivation with their clear drive to find the "out-of-place" and authenticity. Thisauthenticity in Lonely Planet is not always connected to some place or sight but more toan individual temporary lifestyle involving a mixture of solitude, away from"civilization," leaving travelers focused on the basic needs (eating, sleeping, etc.). Thisform of tourism is a critique of capitalism and commercialism. Untourists (and theLonely Planet TV-hosts) are critical about touristic practices other than their own. Theirescape from consumption is normally only temporary and voluntary. Moreover, theshow's format and the Travel Channel's sponsoring and advertising contradict LonelyPlanet's preferred traveling. During the show, hosts promote not only the travel books anddictionaries of Lonely Planet but also different airlines; the commercial breaks featuremostly services who provide "McDisney" versions of travel (e.g. Disney theme parks,cruises, package tours; see Ritzer & Liska, 1997). Moreover, backpack tourism has spunoff a whole industry of outdoor gear and alternative travel equipment. Many of thefeatured untourists, including the show's hosts, often wear very expensive travel outfits(especially in mountainous areas). While they may spend less in the host country thanin their home countries, the transportation to these places is normally very expensive.Overall, the commercialized and commodified environment in which Lonely Planet airscontradicts the independent and critical perspective of its untourist perspective.

Travel Programs 211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tlie Predicament of Post-tourism: Rough GuideThe one-hour show Rough Guide is produced by BBC and co-produced by the Travel

Channel. Two reporters (always Magenta De Vine and changing co-hosts SimonO'Brian, Sankha Guha or Rajan Datar) host these tours through countries in Europe andelsewhere. Like Lonely Planet, this series is developed in collaboration with a publisher,in this case Rough Guide. This publisher, located in London, has been trying to competewith Lonely Planet since the early 1990s. Its increasingly successful line of travel bookshas recently been extended to other areas, such as publications on music to appeal to asimilarly young readership.

The show tends to concentrate on urban centers and cities rather than small townsor nature. This series has the most traditional journalistic approach of all observedshows and presents a very critical approach. Often using innuendo, irony and sarcasm,Magenta and partner criticize the political, social and economic situation in the countryfrom a left-liberal perspective stressing human rights, equal access, and environmentalcauses. This is also the only show that consistently depicts and critically evaluates thevery endeavor of tourism and the problems of mass tourism. An episode aboutPortugal, for instance, portrays the class distinctions of tourism: working-class Britonsin cheap hotel-bunkers vis-à-vis rich Western tourists on exclusive golf courses thatdrive out local golf talent, and rich Portuguese tourists in their own resorts who do notlike to mingle with foreign tourists. An episode on France depicts the problems ofcrowded beaches and an algae pest in the Mediterranean.

The main themes of the show are the traps and predicaments of contemporarytourism. The leading message is that while tourism can generate money, it can also leadto new dependencies. Overall, the relations expressed are complex. One show depictsa French farmer in Provence who takes tourists on horseback-riding tours while hisneighbors spurn his "selling out." But this income helps his family keep the farm thatunder European agricultural planning otherwise has no chance to survive. Anotherepisode on Zimbabwe presents an initiative by villagers who plan to developsustainable tourism projects by building a "traditional" but simulated village fortourists.

The main journalistic method used is the on-camera interview; the show introducesa diverse group of people from the visited country. Rough Guide often aggressivelyjuxtaposes the opinions of different social groups. The episode on Jamaica, for example,contrasts opinions of rich Jamaicans with those of poor Jamaicans, highlighting localdifference and conflict. Often, the program presents interviews with activists(especially women and social workers) or artists who bring a critical perspectivetoward the country (such as a Greek-Australian female comedian who parodies racialstereotypes against Greek immigrants). The interviewees normally use their nativelanguage and the English translation is provided in subtitles; most of the time, the fullname of the person interviewed is given.

Despite its journalistic perspective, Rough Guide's aesthetic does not resemble atypical television newsmagazine. The show's editing is very fast paced and the hostsoften use satire, even making fun of themselves. The animated opening of the showdepicts a globe that increasingly spins out of control. That mirrors the main theme ofRough Guide: a world out of control with problems and dilemmas everywhere. Theshow normally offers some historical background and many different sides to a story.However, Rough Guide does not offer a solution at the end or the moral summary thatthe other two shows provide.

212 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The show plays with postmodern themes of intertextuality and self-referentiality.Once in a while, viewers see the camera operator and sound engineer reflected in amirror. One of the show's promotional clips refers directly to the presence of thecamera. Magenta and her co-host carry a video camera that they use especially as atransition device to show their on-the-road experiences. The viewpoint of the hosts isfrom a general Western experience but reflects metropolitan life at the turn of the 21st

century. Two co-hosts are of Indian origin, but seem to have been raised in Britain. Theshow's hosts seldom refer to the fact that they are British and that the show mainly is aBritish production, excluding the scenes when they quote prices in pounds (with therespective American dollar amount in subtitles in the American version). Generally, thehosts do not compare "us" to "them" but create a general critical stance toward globalurban living. Situations in European countries (for example, racism in Marseilles) are asmuch criticized as other regions (racism in Trinidad). The smog of Mexico City ishighlighted but it is also compared to other cities of that size.

The host Magenta De Vine performs an unusual role. She does not really fit into anycategory except maybe a Western cosmopolitan style. The tall, dark-haired, whitewoman normally wears black or white clothing, fashionable but classic outfits(sometimes rather risqué for traditional societies), and never picks up any souvenirdresses on her trips. She always wears sunglasses, inside or outside, day and night (theone occasion where she is shown without them seems to have been an accident).Whereas around her the cultures are constantly changing, she stays the same. Hersseems to be an individual style picked up a long time ago that remains constant. Her co-hosts are dressed in more typical Western outfits (jeans, T-shirts and shorts, if those canbe considered Western any longer).

The shows are highly scripted and often there are scenes where locals "play a part"in staged stand-ups. This, of course, can be interpreted as taking advantage of locals,but the active engagement and the fun the "actors" seem to have in their "roles" haltprecipitate interpretation. During the interviews (the interviewer stays behind thecamera most of the time) the staging provides most interviewees with a platform thatseems to make them open up. Rough Guide's choice of a wide variety of interviewees(such as many professional women from Third World countries) is unusual forinternational reporting.

Preferred Traveler. The show's hosts (the credits list them as reporters) present apostmodern form of travel journalism and travel practice: post-tourism (Feifer, 1985).Their playful elements reflect a certain superficiality that is often ascribed topostmodern cultural forms. But the show also seems to subscribe to postmoderncultural theories which emphasize hybridity (Pieterse, 1995). Cultures are presented ashybrid and in constant flux; essentialist remarks (such as "typical" or "authentic") areused only in a satiric manner. For instance, almost all shows involve music, an areawhere hybridization becomes obvious—for example, the jazz player in South Africa'sCape Town who demonstrates on the piano how what he calls "slave rhythms,"American jazz, and African rhythms create a unique "Cape" jazz. Most shows also dealwith the situation of ethnic minorities and diasporas in different locales, further de-essentializing culture.

Thus, Rough Guide presents a vision of a thoroughly hybrid world. It usestraditional journalistic strategies by taking up critical and conflictual issues of anycountry it visits, but it does not present narrative closure. The Rough Guide offers arough ride with the unspoken message that this is a complicated world and there are

Travel Programs 213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

problems everywhere, but all people are also trying to have fun. In the final scene ofevery episode, Magenta and her co-host always "find" a street party or a communalfestival in which to participate. Another postmodern moment is the closing sequence,where the titles roll over a suitcase, which is gradually filled with typical souvenir kitschof the region. This exemplifies the active playing with inauthenticity that is typical forthe post-tourist.

This form of post-touristic irreverence also has its downside. The utilization ofcritical voices and the absence of closure, along with the successful undermining of anytraditional tourist images, often leaves the viewer with the question: if there are somany problems in the world, what is the incentive for travel? Moreover, by portrayingthe links between problems around the globe, the motivation to find the extraordinarythat Urry (1995) describes can no longer be satisfied. Rough Guide demonstrates theauthenticity trap of tourism and indicates the "end of tourism" often declared bypostmodern travel studies {Feifer, 1985; Urry, 1995). Postmodern scholars see the end oftourism because the latest communication technologies such as the Internet allowspeople to "experience simulated mobility through the incredible fluidity of multiplesigns and electronic images" (Urry, 1995, p. 148). Yet, this show stays more groundedin the actual situation. Here, tourism becomes a questionable pastime because allproblems (social, political, economic, and environmental) are related and there is novacation escape possible out of the accelerating problematic global conditions.

Nevertheless, the concentration on the interrelation and similarity of problems inmany different countries in this program suggests a need for global solidarity of adifferent sort. There may be an underlying global humanism that informs this criticalapproach.

77K Predicament of Multicultural Tourism: TravelersThe third show, Travelers, is produced by Banyan Production in Philadelphia for

the Discovery Channel. Banyan is a major supplier for Discovery and normallyspecializes in "How-To" shows. It was one of the first programs that was transferred tothe Travel Channel after the acquisition (late 1997) and was aired on both channels. Inthe 2001/02 season, the show aired at 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The Travelers are six youngAmerican hosts that travel in groups of three to different countries all over the world.The Web site promotion declares: "Accompany a diverse group of young peopletraveling around the world to visit interesting places, meet the inhabitants, andexperience the local culture" (www.discovery.com). The hosts represent a multi-cultural mix (one African-American man, one Asian-American woman, one bilingualLatina-American woman, and three seemingly Euro-Americans). They are all dressedstylishly but less provocatively than regular television actors. Their favorite travelexperiences involve active engagement with local practices; they never only observe—they are part of the scene (for example, in Spain, they try to learn a dance at a publicdance practice; in Finland they learn how to blow glass, etc.). In most of their shows,they take part in local festivals. There is always an action segment in the show wherethey learn rock climbing or similar action sports. They always try to find out about whatis "typical," what is "special." These are also generally questions they ask locals.

The show's aesthetic includes a dramatic device similar to MTV's Real World. Aftera host has had some travel experience, he/she explains it in a different location in frontof the camera to someone who is not in the frame (it is not clear whether the host istalking to another traveler or the producer). These "interviews" are filled with

214 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

expressions of excitement similar to an adventurer telling about a trip. In cutaways, theviewers see the actual event happening. The production advantage of this inserted talkis that extra information can be added and the time of the actual event compressed.Moreover, similar to MTV's strategy, it develops an atmosphere of "instant adventure."In circular logic, the hosts have experienced something that is worth talking aboutbecause it is on camera. So, even if the images of some actual events are less exciting (asmany are), the excitement of the instant comments add to the event. These commentsare always enthusiastic, stressing how fantastic, weird, great or difficult the event hasbeen.

Overall, the atmosphere of the show is always positive. Travelers avoid allproblematic issues of tourism and sites of mass tourism. Thus, in a show on Barcelona,instead of traveling to the nearby Mediterranean beaches which exemplify some of themost congested beaches in Europe, they take a bus tour to a picturesque mountainmonastery and present spiritual music of the monastery choir. Travelers does not oftenpresent other tourists. If it does, it is only done to create ambiance. Locals are often usedas informants. One of the travelers either translates to one of the friends on the spot (onehost speaks Spanish) or they interview a local who speaks English. The names of thelocal informants are displayed most of the time in on-screen titles. The hosts' attitudetowards foreigners is that they may be different, but their cultural differences are whatmakes them exciting. As one of the co-hosts tells his friends about a local practice: "Theydon't do that in my neighborhood, but that's what makes this world big and great."

Preferred Traveler. The travelers are looking for difference and they temporarilywant to be part of the other culture as much as possible. Political and historical issuesare mentioned but only on the side. This strategy is an extreme contrast to the criticalperspective of the Rough Guide. While both programs focus on cultural issues, RoughGuide explains difference and problems while Travelers avoids conflict and celebratesdifference. The opening theme song "Hello World" reflects the show's concept,emphasizing the pleasant aspects of every country and the cultural wealth of each: Theworld is a great place to explore (Discovery's theme is "Explore Your World") and wecan all learn from each other.

Travelers exhibits a multicultural form of travel journalism. The show stresses activecollective aspects of traveling and celebrates cultural difference. Yet, this strategyresults in a sanitized version of cultural distinctions that does not allow for hybrid anddynamic moments. Moreover, the multicultural cast does not play as much a role as onemight expect and the co-hosts are never defined by their ethnicity. Outside the UnitedStates, they are foremost Americans, and unifying moments in the foreign countryoverwhelms what may separate them at home. As seemingly second-generationimmigrants, they never really refer to their own ethnic history and heritage. Instead,their ethnic differences are equalized in the common participatory activism of thestaged group.

In sum, all three programs do not merely reflect certain types of tourist practices,they constitute texts that frame all cross-cultural encounters between the travelers andthe locals. Lonely Planet's untourism is critical to the problems of mass tourism andthrives on class immersion of the Western backpack tourist to the conditions of locals.But it does not question its own conflicted position as a voluntary and temporary escapefrom consumer society and the negative impact of backpack tourism on the visitedcountries. Rough Guide presents the most critical perspective on mass tourism and theunquenchable thirst for authentic difference by presenting a dynamic and hybrid form

Travel Programs 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

of culture. Yet its post-tourist irreverence often obfuscates this critique. Travelersportrays the most harmless and non-confrontational version of travel programming asa nonfiction entertainment program that celebrates instead of irritates. In the following,I further evaluate the cultural politics of the host-local encounter by examining theconstruction of pleasure for the travelers and the mediated representation of the Otherin this encounter.

Tourism and PleasureBased on their respective construction of travel and tourism, the three shows have

distinctively different ways of showing fun and enjoyment when traveling. LonelyPlanet normally does not unnecessarily glorify difficult experiences during tours. Inone show, for example, we see how the host Ian Wright is disappointed and exhaustedafter a very difficult mountain climb despite the fact that all passing tourists hadensured him how wonderful the experience is and how important it is "to have done it."In another episode, Justine Shapiro is disappointed to learn that she is not the only onewho made it to the southern most tip of Chile; the place has become an integrated stopon package tours through the country. What leads to moments of pleasure on LonelyPlanet is the excitement of "having made it" to a certain place despite the adversities onthe way. The pleasure in survival has to be seen in a metaphorical sense since, after all,the problems are normally self-inflicted (a difficult mountain climb, an exhausting busride) and voluntarily encountered.

Rough Guide, with the most critical outlook on tourism, has the most difficultiesshowing the enjoyment of traveling. The show presents a mixture of individual,intellectual and postmodern fun. The co-hosts with their continuous sense of parodyand satire seem to enjoy their tours despite the problems in many countries. They takean aloof ironic position that is directed not against the people in the country but moreagainst systemic dilemmas. The co-anchors do not try to become part of another culture;they seem to have the most fun on the road from one place to another and, in the finalscene, celebrating with locals.

There is also a post-tourist element to their pleasure. They actively play with touristsigns and images (e.g., souvenirs in the suitcase). The co-hosts are never disappointedby failed expectations (as Lonely Planet hosts often are) because they were not lookingfor authenticity. Often they seem to have a good time despite the excesses of masstourism. For example, in a show on northern Italy, Magenta De Vine introduces Venicewhile standing on the famous Piazza San Marco: "You have read the book, seen themovie, and bought the T-shirt, but it still excites your expectations—Venice —even ifyou have to share it with thousands of tourists and pigeons."

The show Travelers constructs pleasure through friendship shared by all co-hostsand their excitement to tell each other about their adventures. Problems encounteredare much less severe compared to Lonely Planet and are mostly personal challenges thatcan quickly be overcome. Travelers resonate a common strategy of the tourism industryto provide "adventures" that are controlled and seemingly risk-free. This connects towhat Ritzer and Liska (1997) call the "McDisneyization" of tourism, acknowledging theclose relationship between commodification, consumerism and tourism, and the searchfor highly predictable, efficient and controlled vacations such as to Disney theme parksand on cruises. These safe vacation setups give "us, as tourist (and more generally), achoice of goods and services to consume (although they are goods and services of a verylimited type), but what they seek to limit, if not eliminate, is our ability not to consume"

216 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

(p. 104; see also Barber, 1995). Another pleasure for the Travelers is to become temporaryinsiders of another culture, to take part in communal events and learn about differentcultures. The show creates pleasure as communal experience based on "instantmemoirs" through individual on-camera recollections of travel experiences. The areasvisited are of problem-free, essentialized and sanitized difference not unlike the'foreign' exhibitions in a theme park or a world fair.

All three shows construct pleasure as an active and individual concept. WhileLonely Planet finds modern pleasure away from mass tourism in mastering individualchallenges, it hides the privileged position of its hosts. Travelers presents pleasure morecollectively (between the co-hosts) but often also advances individual accounts ofadventures and immersion in cultural events. Rough Guide finds postmodern pleasuredespite mass tourism in aloof satire or play with inauthenticities. In all shows, pleasureinvolves the active engagement of the hosts. They create pleasure and are not passivelyentertained. This construction, however, clashes with the standard situation ofcontemporary mass tourism and the commercial environment of the Travel Channel,where a majority of advertisers promotes organized McDisneyization and packagedtours.

By constructing a narrative that emphasizes individuality and personalizedperspectives of travelers, these shows tremendously narrow the scope of possibletopics. These narratives (esp. Travelers and Lonely Planet) preempt opportunities tofocus on the wider political, economic and social contexts of tourism such asenvironmental problems, economic dependencies and worker exploitation. If personalpleasure is foregrounded, public and systemic issues become silenced.

STRATEGIES OF REPRESENTING THE OTHERThe problematic situation of representing the Other has been given central

attention in cultural studies and post-colonial theory since its beginnings (e.g., Bhabha,1994; Said, 1979; Spivak, 1987). Pratt (1992) and Spurr (1993), for example, providecritical analyses of the representational politics of historic and contemporary travelaccounts and travel practices. To represent Others (within national boundaries or inanother country) is, of course, constitutive to travel journalism and the here examinedtravel shows. In fact, processes of representation are inherent to any tourist experience.However, while reviewing the current cultural theorizing in this area, several issueslimited the smooth transfer of these concepts to the analysis of these shows.

Exoticizing emerged as a powerful discursive strategy of "othering" in theseprograms. All shows stress at some point the difference and distinctiveness of thevisited cultures and places, mostly in a positive manner since the search for differenceis one of the main motivations for tourism and travel journalism. The dominantaspiration of the text is to find, highlight and celebrate the Other. But the strategy ofexoticizing proceeds beyond that by actively searching out unusual topics forpresentation; what is presented is not only the "typical" but the unusual. Thisexoticizing is employed not only in very distinctly different countries but becomes thenarrative principle of many travel programs to seemingly "similar" cultures. Forexample, Rough Guide portrays the habit of rich Frenchmen on the Rivera to spend afortune on the wellbeing of their dogs (including five-star dinners). Travelers in instantinterviews constantly exoticizes the locals by highlighting "authentic" and "typical"behavior to add excitement. Lonely Planet likes to have the hosts taste different foodsalong the road and prominently features the reactions of the hosts to unusual food.

Travel Programs 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Thus, exoticizing helps to create the anticipated out-of-the-ordinary effect even orespecially when the covered events are not that "different" after all.

This strategy of exoticizing is a revival of the modernist travel motivation of"escaping the ordinary" and is used to create eccentricity as an escape from therationalized predictability of Western society (Ritzer & Liska, 1997). This exoticizingstrategy remains "friendly"; people are portrayed as "strange" but they are notthreatening or dangerous. One should not overlook the power asymmetry of thisconstruction. The perspective of the production teams defines what is consideredeccentric and exotic, and tacitly confirms the opposite as normal and common sense.The Western television teams decide on the boundaries of exoticism. Another aspect of"othering" in these programs relates to how tourism workers are portrayed. Thetourism boom has led to a growth in employment in this sector (especially for women)but, as Craik (1997) points out, "most of the available jobs are unskilled, part time,casual, poorly paid, and involve long or unsociable working hours" (p. 133). In contrast,Lonely Planet and Travelers mostly romanticize or ignore the situation of tourist workers.Travelers features mainly independent tourist employees and entrepreneurs (such asrestaurant owners and personal guides). They are represented as examples of "typicallocals" and informants of cultural practices, not as active creators or performers of aconstructed tourist image. On Lonely Planet, tourism workers are only featuredperipherally as hostel owners, bar waiters or sales people; they normally are not namedand often only speak broken English.

Solely Rough Guide problematizes tourism employment. Almost all episodespresent tourism workers and the influence of tourism on their lives. Rough Guidehighlights the ambiguous relations between tourist workers and tourists. They alsodepict how tourism restricts the freedom of locals; for example, in the Bahamas, a youngwoman explains that locals are not allowed into tourist nightclubs. We see her imitatingan American-English accent to finally get admission to the nightclub. In Montego Bay,Jamaica, the episode illustrates how all-inclusive resorts are guarded. Magenta De Vinecalls them "open prisons" and comments that "it is not clear whether to keep locals outor residents in." She stresses that 70 percent of tourists never leave these resorts to seeJamaica, "the place at the other side of the fence." But then, we also see some attemptsby tourists to leave the resort; they are quickly overwhelmed by local hustlers andreturn to the gated resort. Tourism employment involves special and difficultperformative aspects. As Crang (1997) argues:

Employees' selves become part of the product being worked at and sold.Products may be personalised, and personhood is commodified. This processcan be highly problematic for employees, in that their senses of self have to dealwith the constructed identities being sold and produced by tourisminstitutions, (p. 153)

Rough Guide, however, shows that tourist workers are not always trapped in thisperformance but can use it to carve out a flexible form of employment. For instance, inan interview a nightclub waitress in Rhodes, Greece, explains how tourismemployment in Rhodes is strenuous and strictly seasonal but most people do not mindthat because tourism provides locals with enough money to take off every winter.

Post-colonial concepts often see the practice of representation as a dichotomybetween the Western and other countries and allow the Other only a passive role of

218 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

reaction and not action. As Suren (1995) warns: "Adhering too closely to the logic ofbinarism for understanding the representation of cultural and racial differencedangerously pivots toward a static essentializing of difference" (p. 263). Identity workin modern tourism is accomplished by many contributors: the tourists, the hosts, thetravel industry, the media, etc. This identity work is not only reactive. For example,tourism boards even from non-Western countries spend a significant amount of moneyto create and sustain a certain version of authenticity, identity and image. Today, travelis no longer restrained to movements of the rich "West" to the poor "rest"; powerrelationships are no longer one-sided and linear.3 And there has always been Westerntourism and travel journalism about other Western countries, which makes powerrelations of representations less clear. Rough Guide, for example, visits the United Statesin an extremely critical and satirical show that (to add to the complexity) is also shownto American audiences (amongst others). Here it is much more difficult to discern whois the Other and whose representation is more powerful.

The concept of representing the Other tends to create monolithic blocs of the sinisterimperialistic West and the good (post)colonized rest. If we understand tourism as aninstitutionalized apparatus to represent and market the Other, this dichotomy has to beadjusted. In many Third World countries which successfully started tourism industries,internal elites profit from the influx of mass tourism, and are directly or indirectlyimplicated in the destruction of the environment and exploitation of cultures for profit.Some post-colonial writers have given the lower classes and minority groups(including women, e.g., Grewal, 1996) in the colonizing nations somewhat of anabsolution from colonial guilt because theses groups are not considered as powerful.But the class and gender distinctions work only to some degree when it comes to thedestructive effects of mass tourism and the problematic representations involved. Someof the most disturbing tourism problems actually result from inexpensive packagetours. For example, Rough Guide in Portugal shows how British working class touristsappropriate certain Portuguese beach towns and recreate a second "warm and sunny"Britain without any consideration for local customs and cultures (other exampleswould be Germans in Mallorca or Americans in Jamaica). It also shows how local andforeign tourism providers actively support this exploitation by providing a second"homeland" abroad. Therefore, one learns from analyzing these shows that power overrepresenting the Other should not be theorized as a linear one-way transfer. Not onlyis this power dispersed and countered with resistance (as Foucault emphasized allalong), but it is actively created and shaped by many different agents in tourism acrossnationalities and classes. The image to be sold to tourists depends on the influence,money and image-work of many different parties (Chang & Holt, 1991).

Representations are considered important strategies to establish ideologicaldominance (i.e., hegemony, see S. Hall, 1997). However, as my analysis of travel showsindicates, strategies of representations may operate on many sides disregarding actualhegemonic situations. The Others also give a representation of "Us." Here the argumentcould be raised that the Other's representation will never be as successful and powerfulbecause it lacks influence on the global discourse. This is in part true; the global mediadiscourse is definitely not based on equal access. However, changing economic andinformational technologies are challenging the rigid dichotomy between powerful andpowerless representations based on national origin.

Of course, representations are always created in a structured field of power, not the"free marketplace of ideas." Influence and access to means of communication define

Travel Programs 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

which representations are more authoritative. But the representations provided by aglobal cable programming provider such as Discovery, which tries to sell its programsworldwide have to be vigilantly produced. One-sided representations may potentiallyupset audiences and governments in other countries. These shows exemplify that thestatic concept of representation of the Other should be changed to a dynamic continuumof representations. Different dimensions of tourist and "native" representationsoperate and are negotiated in complex combinations.

Many critics of tourism disapprove of the way tourists objectify exploited locals orthrive on staged local authenticity (e.g., MacCannell, 1976). This criticism assumes thatthe construction of tourist images only works from the tourist toward the locals or therespective tourist site. However, normally this construction is enforced and supportedby a complex system of image work by tourism PR, tourists and locals. Essentializingstrategies are used to represent the Other but also to construct self-identities. Forexample, an episode of Travelers in Barcelona finds many locals essentializing their ownculture. Several interviewees emphasize how "special" people in Barcelona are andwhat is "typical" about them. On the other hand, Rough Guide often tries to countercreated images of the tourism industry. In Hawaii, for example, the hosts present apicture of a "typical Hawaiian beauty" and then ask local women to criticize thedistortion of that image. Thus, Rough Guide adds another complex dimension to thepotential of transcoding fixed "authentic" images. Later in the same episode, youngethnic Hawaiians are shown how they play and dance to Hula music that was fordecades only used for tourist performances; now they use this music to construct anidentity against non-Hawaiian influence. Ethnic Hula music is re-appropriated fromthe tourism sphere and explored in its traditional meaning in the absence of the touristgaze. This complex reflection on tourist images echoes Macdonald's analysis (1997):

To see local people as merely passive recipients of an external world whichimpinges upon them is rather like the conceit of tourists who assign localpeople only the role of object of the tourist gaze... [However,] not only may theybe well aware of external images of them, they may also attempt actively tocounter those images and to construct alternative visions of their history andculture, (p. 175)

Often, as Tomaselli (1999) shows, actual tourist experience can even be theperformance of a negotiated authenticity by all involved parties (hosts and guests) thatis accepted despite its obvious staged character. Another version of active identity workis shown in a Lonely Planet episode on South Africa in which host Justine Shapiro visitsthe former prison where Nelson Mandela was held. The scenes show its popularity asa tourist site; yet, in an interview the director of the museum and former prison mate ofMandela explains how this tourist site also helps to create a "new history" for SouthAfrica. Similarly, Mcdonald (1997) challenges MacCannell's (1976) idea of "stagedauthenticity" or the notion of heritage sites as artificial "bogus history" (Hewison 1987,p. 144). Her analysis of a Gaelic cultural heritage center in Scotland finds a morecomplex example of identity work, arguing that the creators'

understandings of authenticity and their notions of local identity and culture,in relation to a wider system which impinges upon it, are a good deal moresophisticated than many of the models for interpreting heritage and touristic

220 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

performance would allow, (p. 157)

In general, the analyzed shows feature representation work on all sides (tourists andlocals), but only Rough Guide features local struggles over dominant (internal andexternal) representations as a topic.

Despite the often-voiced potential of travel to shape transcultural understanding,the subjects of travel and tourism as media content emphasize difference and tend toessentialize that difference. As the analysis demonstrates, Travelers and Lonely Planetare based on the underlying theme of a search for difference. The modern desire to "getaway from it all," and to seek out the extraordinary are established through emphasizingdifferences in customs, lifestyle, or through exoticization. But the "violence ofrepresentation" (Armstrong & Tennenhouse, 1989) in travel journalism is mollified in apositive package emphasizing pleasure rather than "demonizing" the Other.

The packaging of culture is done differently in every program. Travelers activelycelebrates the "typical" and difference; Lonely Planet exploits the individual desire fordifference. Both shows thereby reaffirm essentialist representational politics close toSpurr's (1993) colonial categories of surveillance, aestheticization, and idealization.Rough Guide's version of difference stresses hybridity and the dynamic process ofcultural development. In this show standards of difference are more ambiguous. Theimage of difference in this show is closer to a non-binary postmodern celebration. Yet,its themes of hybridity and chaos contradict the concept of travel as a meaningful(enlightening) enterprise that has been one of the major motivations of tourism inmodernity.

The shows rarely directly address how locals are implicated in the process ofrepresentation by ignoring the performance character of the tourist-host encounter. Yet,more accidentally, the shows at least start to blur the post-colonial idea thatrepresentation of the Other are generated in a linear construction from the West to the"rest." By showing active image work of the local tourism industry (esp. Rough Guide)or self-exoticizing remarks of locals (as in the Travelers example of locals in Barcelonacommenting on their own authenticity) these shows at least hint at a more complexprocess. The next step for tourism research and post-colonial studies would be toanalyze how locals construct the tourists (or the television production teams) as theOther, as much as tourists construct locals as Others for an authentic experience.

CONCLUSIONHow global are these programs? The texts of these travel programs are linked to

their position within the global culture industry. All these shows are produced either asinternational co-productions (Lonely Planet and Rough Guide) or with the intention ofglobal distribution (Travelers). Also, all shows tend to erase markers of their nationalorigin. Nevertheless, they do all reflect a Western perspective. Even the Indian-Britishco-anchors in Rough Guide and the non-Euro-Americans on Travelers present a generalWestern gaze because they do not actively refer to their particular ethnic lifeexperiences and position within the Western world. None of the co-anchors are definedby cultural idiosyncrasies (beyond their appearance and language) and difference isalways located within the visited cultures. Thus, by keeping the anchors ethnically"neutral," maybe to ensure the journalistic value of "objectivity," the shows miss theopportunity to construct a more multi-layered (and multi-ethnical) and less monolithicdiscourse of travel experiences and international encounters. Global production

Travel Programs 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

conditions only lead to a slightly more global perspective. While they are less bound bynational categories, their versions of transnationality still maintain a general Westernperspective (United Kingdom, Australia, United States) with different English accentsserving as the main category of distinction.

Globalization with its integral commodification and commercialization of mediasystems (see Nordenstreng & Schiller, 1993) has shifted the demand away fromcontroversial investigative ("hard") television journalism to non-controversialcelebratory ("soft") fiction and nonfiction entertainment. The most notable example isMurdoch's News Corp.'s decision to drop BBC World from its Star satellite system inorder to appease the Chinese government.

This means that as a global television genre travel shows cannot be overly critical.Criticizing political issues in different countries or the enterprise of tourism itself maybe considered too risky because tourism and policy decisions are often stronglyinterrelated. Also, criticism of mass tourism is likely to collide with advertisers'interests. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the most critical show in this study, RoughGuide, was canceled as soon as Discovery held a majority stake in the Travel Channel byearly 1999. Several years ago, an executive at Discovery International explained somechanges in their global strategy. So far, Discovery had used

what has worked domestically then chisel[ed]... away to what works in aparticular region... .The goal [now] is for Discovery as a whole to create originalprogramming that's able to travel globally and co-productions that can carryover into other regions yet be aware of the sensitivities in various parts of theworld (an executive quoted in Brooks, 1997, p. 298).

Of all shows investigated here, Travelers offers the type of programming that is mostlikely to be sold successfully to a global market. The show mirrors Discovery's risk-averse strategy of cross-cultural "awareness." Travelers is mostly devoid of any politicaland critical content that might challenge "sensitivities in various parts of the world."With the entertainment factor as important branding strategy, some traditional(national) principles of news-oriented television journalism such as criticalinvestigation become obsolete. A new global journalism could establish a forum thathighlights and criticizes international and cross-cultural issues and problems; instead,Travelers celebrates a static and innocuous version of cultural diversity.

Within the institutional constraints and the marketing strategies of the global cableand broadcasting industries, critical journalism about tourism (based on nationaldifferentiation) is likely to decline in favor of negotiated celebratory accounts ofindividualistic travel and exploration. For a travel program to be commerciallyprofitable on a global stage, it has to avoid referring back to one country (such as theU.S.). Audiences in other countries are likely to define "us" differently. This has thepotential to open up representations, but it also makes criticism and other traditionaljournalistic investigative practices difficult and even unwelcome. Discovery needs toensure access to its programs and potential commercial success in many differentcountries. The most effective strategy, then, is to present programs that cover the latesttrends of tourism and fashionable destinations (to appeal to advertisers), to targetaudiences across cultures, and to present credible and trustworthy information (to keepthe Discovery brand of "quality television" intact). This type of programming ispackaged as nonfiction entertainment that does not challenge local political situations

222 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

or the problematic endeavor of contemporary mass tourism.Situating these three shows within their textualization context of production and

distribution demonstrates the limitations of this type of programming. As global mediaproducts they present a culturally ambivalent text beyond the discursive dilemmas ofuntourism, post-tourism and multicultural tourism outlined above. As shows that needto work for an international audience, these shows can widen narrow representationsof the Other and counter the reliance of traditional television news journalism onnarrow demarcations of national(istic) distinction. These shows could break theproblematic narrative of traditional foreign reporting, which has concentrated on crisesand catastrophes, by presenting a more positive image of the Other. Because theseshows focus on travel, they could exemplify the complex representation work on eitherside of the tourism exchange; thus, they could challenge cultural dichotomies in therepresentation of the Other. Yet, only Rough Guide actively defies what Barthes (1957/1972) calls "the disease of thinking in essences" (p. 75) by favoring hybridity andillustrating the problematic race and class politics of mass tourism. Yet Rough Guide'sapproach pushes the program to the epistemological limits of travel programs. Byemphasizing hybridity and the connectedness of global issues the show negates themotive of other travel programs. This genre is fundamentally structured by the searchfor difference (as the ultimate motivation of tourism in general), which results in theperpetual replay of manufacturing, celebrating and exoticizing difference. Thisdiscursive strategy relies on essentializing cultural constructs. In the worst case, thisleaves locals (as tourism workers and interviewed "representatives" of a country) onlyas essentialized types: nameless, voiceless or poorly translated.

As successful nonfiction entertainment for a global programmer, especially LonelyPlanet and Travelers narrow the text to a dominant reading that celebrates Utopiancultural encounters but hides the puzzling contingencies: the problematic colonialhistory of travel (Spurr, 1993), the collective struggles for identity along the dimensionsof race and ethnicity in a globalizing world (Barber, 1995), and the economicdependencies created by a reliance on tourism as a main source of gross nationalproduct in the Third World and other countries (Britton, 1982). To be attractive to manyinternational audiences all shows tend to avoid references to the hosts' origin, ethnicposition and cultural situation by dissolving in an amalgamated Western perspective.This strategy misses the chance for more open and complex media representations thatasks for destabilizing the power position of the producers of these representations. Allshows ultimately hide the privileged and problematic situation of all tourists, travel showproducers and the tourism industry in general when packaging culture as a commodity.Their narratives, which stress individual pleasure and personalized travel withinuntourist, post-tourist or multicultural frameworks, neglect broader political, social andeconomic problems of contemporary tourism and international relations in general.

This study has implications for post-colonial scholarship and media globalizationresearch. By connecting these shows to their textualization within the global mediaindustry, I extend traditional post-colonial work. Post-colonial theorists tend to analyzecultural production through textual deconstruction, but overlook the materialcondition of the creation of the texts. The here developed textualization analysisallowed me to evaluate the representational potential of the shows with regard to openrepresentational frameworks and destabilized us/them dichotomies. Only theprograms' production conditions with their appeal to a global audience initiated suchan interrogation. Travel journalism and writing in its traditional form would not lead

Travel Programs 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

us to expect new representational politics because it is mostly based on constructingdifference; only the changed conditions of productions as global media products madethis a worthwhile inquiry.

As the analysis demonstrated, most of the time these programs do not use theirpotential to create a new standard for multiple representations. It is up to post-colonialscholars and researchers of media globalization to move beyond only critiquing mediarepresentations to actively develop media strategies that, given the new globalizedmedia structure, assure new approaches to represent cross-cultural encounters(Fürsich, 2002).

What limits the representational politics of the analyzed shows are less historictextual contingencies (as post-colonial scholars would argue) but their situations ascommercial media products in a profit-driven global economy. Rough Guide, whichpresents the most critical and destabilized representational approach, is a product ofpublic service television (BBC) and thrived only on the Travel Channel as a small fringechannel as long as Discovery did not own a majority. The logic of the global televisionmarket driven by the profit motive has global programming providers such asDiscovery favor risk-averse cultural production. This situation results in theproduction of travel programs that reduce the complexity of intercultural encounters toa harmless celebration of difference devoid of any critical context. The currentinternational political situation reminds us that representations of cultural differenceare not just a harmless play but can have detrimental consequences. Thus, it should notbe left to global media conglomerates and their financial considerations to define andcontrol the representational imaginary of "us" and the Other.

NOTES1 This reflects the program schedule of the 1997/1998 season. During the 2001/02 season,

Lonely Planet is aired weekdays at 4:00 p.m. and Travelers weekdays at 9:00 and 2:00 p.m..Rough Guide has been canceled, but now airs on selected PBS stations.

2 The Travel Channel was founded in 1987 as a promotional channel by Trans World Airlines(TWA) who soon sold it to Norfolk, VA-based Landmark Communications, the companythat owns the Weather Channel (C. Hall, 1998). In 1997, Landmark Communications sold itsU.S. Travel Channel to Florida-based media tycoon Lowell "Bud" Paxson (Johnson, 1996), theformer owner and co-founder of the Home Shopping Network and a major operator of localbroadcast television stations in the United States (Cheshire, 1997, 3). Within four months,Paxson sold 70 percent of the network to Discovery channel for only $20 million in September1997. Discovery took creative and scheduling control and used its influence and brand strengthto catapult the so far fledging channel onto many more cable line-ups. In February 1999,Paxson Communications sold the remaining—now higher valued-30 percent stake in theTravel Channel to Discovery Communications for over $55 million ("Paxson," 1999).

3 As can be expected, tourists from Germany, the United States, and Japan are the highesttourism spenders in the world; combined they spent almost 40 percent of tourism dollarsdispensed worldwide (in 1995). However, the changing face of tourism is illustrated by thefact that Taiwan, South Korea and Mexico in the list of top 15 tourism spenders place 10, 13,and 15 respectively. Travelers are no longer always people from industrialized countries. Agrowing middle and upper class in all so-called periphery states is also becoming part ofinternational tourism. (Waters, 1997).

224 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

REFERENCESArmstrong, N., & Tennenhouse, L. (Eds.). (1989). The violence of representation: Literature and the

history of violence. London: Routledge.Barber, B. R. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times Books.Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. (Original work

published 1957).Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.Britton, S. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Re-

search, 9, 331-358.Brooks, D. E. (1997). Basic cable network programming. In S. Tyler Eastman, & D. A. Ferguson

(Eds.), Broadcast/cable programming: Strategies and practices (pp. 274-307). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Chadha K., & Kavoori, A. (2000). Media imperialism revisited: Some findings from the Asiancase. Media, Culture & Society, 22(4), 415-432.

Chang, H., & Holt, G. R. (1991). Tourism as consciousness of struggle: Cultural representationsof Taiwan. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 102-118.

Cheshire, M. (1997, September 11). Travel Channel getting new owner, Discovery Communica-tions wins 70 percent stake. The Daily Record (Baltimore, MD), p. 3.

Corrigan, P. (1997). The sociology of consumption: An introduction. London: Sage.Craik, J. (1997). The culture of tourism. In C. Rojek, & J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures: Transforma-

tions of travel and theory (pp. 113-136). London: Routledge.Crang, P. (1997). Performing the tourist product. In C. Rojek, & J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures:

Transformations of travel and theory (pp. 137-154). London: Routledge.Crowther, G., Raj, P.A., Wheeler, T., Finlay, H., & Thomas, B. (1993). India: A travel survival kit.

Hawthorn, Australia: Lonely Planet.Discovery bids to take travel. (1997, October 9). Cable and Satellite Express, no volume, 5.Discovery Communications Inc. (2001). Connecting with a global audience. Retrieved June 18, 2002,

from http://www.discovery.com/corporate/brands/intl_networks/intl_networks.html.Feifer, M. (1985). Going places. London: Macmillan.Fürsich, E. (2002). How can global journalists represent the 'Other'? A critical assessment of the

cultural studies concept for media practice. Journalism, 3(1), 57-84.Fürsich, E., & Kavoori, A.P. (2001). Mapping a critical framework for the study of travel journal-

ism. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 4, 149-171.Grewal, I. (1996). Home and harem. Nation, gender, empire, and cultures of travel. Durham: Duke

University Press.Hall, C. (1998, February 1). Have armchair, will travel. The New York Times, Sec. 13, p. 63.Hall, S. (Ed.) (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.Hewison, R.(1987). The heritage industry. London: Methuen.Johnson, D. (1996, August 12). Discovery pulls Travel bid: Discovery Communications Inc. can-

cels offer for Travel Channel. Broadcasting & Cable, 26, 62.Kellner, D. (1997). Overcoming the divide: Cultural studies and political economy. In M. Ferguson,

& P. Golding (Eds.), Cultural Studies in Question (pp. 102-120). London: Sage.MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York: Schocken.MacCannell, D. (1992). Empty meeting grounds: The tourist papers. London: Routledge.Macdonald, S. (1997). A people's story: heritage, identity and autheticity. In Rojek, C., & Urry, J.

(Eds.), Touring cultures: Transformation of travel and theory, pp.155-175, London: Routledge.McDowell, E. (1998, May 6). Jumping on America's hospitality bandwagon: Foreign students

choose U.S. for studying tourism. The New York Times, pp. C1, C3.

Travel Programs 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

McElvogue, L. (1998, April 13). Tough documentaries are tough to sell on TV. New York Times, p.C7

Moss, L. (1998). Discovery names CBS vet to run Travel. Multichannel News, 17, 10Murdoch, G. (1997). Base notes: The conditions of cultural practice. In M. Ferguson, & P. Golding

(Eds.), Cultural Studies in Question (pp. 86-98). London: Sage.Nordenstreng, K., & Schiller, H.I. (Eds.). (1993). Beyond national sovereignty: International commu-

nication in the 1990s. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Paxson Communications. (1999, February 19). Miami Herald, p. C3.Pieterse, J. Nederveen. (1995). Globalization as hybridization. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R.

Robertson (Eds.). Global modernities (pp. 45-68). London: Sage.Pratt, M. L. (1992). Imperial Eyes: Travel writing and transculturation. London: Routledge.Randal J. (2000) The Decline, But Not Yet Total Fall, of Foreign News in the U.S. Media (Joan

Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Working Paper Series #2000-2).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Reeves, G. (1993). Communications and the "Third World'. London: Routledge.Ritzer, G., & Liska, A. (1997). 'McDisneyization' and 'Post-Tourism': Complementary perspec-

tives on contemporary tourism. In C. Rojek, & J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures: Transformationsof travel and theory (pp. 96-109). London: Routledge.

Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Shrikhande, S. (2001). Competitive strategies in the internationalization of television: CNNI and

BBC World in Asia. Journal of Media Economics, 14(3), 147-168.Spivak, G. Chakravorty (1987). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics. New York: Methuen.Spurr, D. (1993). The rhetoric of empire: Colonial discourse in journalism, travel writing, and imperial

administration. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Suren, L. (1995). Consuming the exotic other. Critical Studies In Mass Communication, 12, 263-286.Tomaselli, K. G. (1999) Psychospiritual ecoscience: The Ju/'hoansi and cultural tourism. Visual

Anthropology, 12, 185-95.Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Urry, J. (1995). Consuming places. London: Routledge.Waters, S.R. (1997) (Ed.). Travel industry world yearbook: The big picture -1996-1997, Volume 40.

New York: Child &Waters.

226 Fürsich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

17:

50 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014