This whole analysis has been quite eye opening to the nature of the show. While the intentions of themes were positive, the reality is that in the process of trying to achieve great, it failed to do good. I think there is no doubt that Oprah Winfrey meant well, however, the way topics were addressed and tackled ended up reinforcing the core problems rather than helping solve them.

This is interesting to read after also watching the "Talk Show Murder" episode. Despite ethics always being a hot point in media, its interesting to see that ethics can technically be violated without much repercussions when the "violation" is done within the perspective of "helping others". It's another case where media can be too intrusive on someone's life and causes people to forget that the people on the show are human too.

I feel like this is a double-edged sword. I think it is a fantastic window for people to view therapy in a less stigmatized way, however, on that same token, it can easily be viewed as a substitute for professional help. On top of that, comparing this version of "therapy" to professional therapy, the cost difference also leans into this idea of "why pay a lot of money for a therapist, when I could get some therapy through my television?"

This is also something I haven't thought about a lot but it intrigues me. Obviously, the intent is to say that discrimination is bad. But the way it is addressed doesn't account for the complexity of the subject. Maybe this is a choice made due to the nature of it being a talk show, and it doesn't have the time to necessarily dive deeper. But I feel like a subject like this would require more than just a "solution" conversation rooted in an incomplete definition.

I feel like this is a good example as to why something like the Fairness Doctrine was revoked. Just because you offer an open voice and free speech for two sides of a conversation, doesn't mean that the overall effects from said conversation couldn't be skewed. Just because two sides can converse, doesn't mean people will agree to either side in a 50/50 manner, so in some cases its better to not say anything rather than to give some air time only to belittle a niche audience.

Including the text highlighted around this annotation, its interesting to see how the Oprah Winfrey Show would push certain social subjects, but then contradict itself by obscuring what contributes to these problems in the first place. I'm wonder if this show were to air today, would this problem be addressed since the vision of the "American Dream" has shifted, or if the same problems would be in place.

This is an interesting statement I never really thought about. But as many of these talk shows strive to represent the "American experience" there are bound to be different interpretations, especially during a time where this concept is changing rapidly.

It's interesting to see how contested freedom of speech relating to radio was when it was first created.

This was something I was curious about. It was pretty clear that the navy was putting a lot of trust in something that had been publicly used and known to be not secure. So I think it's a fair argument for the amateurs to bring up.

I find it ironic how this is what current media outlets strive for, yet the origin of radio generated something like this so effectively.

This reminds me how much we take current media for granted. There are so many outlets to receive current events and understand what is happening all around the world. Before this global connection was established, I can only imagine the absolute sensation of having knowledge of the globe in the palm of your hand.

It's amazing how much change can come from a shift in mindset. The yearning for tinkering and experimenting with gadgets gave people a whole new lens to look at everything. It was clear that technology had no limits, and while not everyone is able to create a whole new invention, they can figure out clever ways to repurpose already existing things .

This also demonstrates how influential the expanding reach of communication could get. Radio is still a new invention at this point, and now the popularity of new technologies keep rebounding off of each other.

Even more emphasis on the American Dream, except updated to match the times.

Brain vs. Brawn. With the way society was starting to lean, brain would triumph.

Ok I just got to this line after my previous annotation. This makes me feel like it wasn't as far of a stretch. There seems to be a lot more emphasis on "coming of age" for boys during this time period. And this evolves in numerous ways through "differing definitions of masculinity" as the text states. Whether its through physicality, or mentality, the definition of manliness was being defined.

This is a bit of a stretch, but this feels similar to the "young athlete hero" culture archetype that is present modern day. During this time, boys are inspired to pursue instructive hobbies. With my analogy, children are inspired to pursue athletic feats on a global scale.

Ok after reading this text, my initial concerns for how these boys would end up being in regards to health and pay no longer exist --as long as the boy is doing his work within expectations. In a sense it reminds me a lot of current jobs like landscaping or construction. A very physical job with a lot of benefits that align, and similarly don't offer as much in regards to academia, but still develops skills that can carry people forward.

Once again, I am developing massive respect for these boys. I am geographically challenged so I would be a horrible candidate for this job.

I was going to ask if there was some kind of training for this role. If there are too many variations of duty for these boys, I wonder how training really works. Does it train only the most common ones? Similar to lifeguard training, for example. Where you are taught fundamentals to First-Aid, but also could encounter an infinite number of problems.

This is a cool tidbit, when I initially heard the work process I really thought that there might not have been consideration for the boys, but something like this shows a lot of consideration for working around the common situation these boys were in.

Ok this answers my question from before, but it blows my mind how long these days are. In regards to working condition, I haven't seen if this negatively affects delivery boys, so do the breaks when waiting for their next telegraph provide them with enough time to recover? Also, how are mealtimes taken care of? I know I'd be super hungry after a few hours.

I didn't think about this at all, but it is a good point. I'm curious to see the explanation on how this is managed.

It says average messages deliveredItalic** is thirty-five, but I'm assuming that this doesn't include messages brought back. I'm assuming their routes aren't necessarily short either, so how long are their workdays usually? And how is that monitored?

This makes a lot of sense from a business perspective. Telegraphing use changes per season depending on what's happening. In regards to competition, it mentioned before that a lot of companies were more specialized in what they telegraph, so did this reduce the intensity for competition? Or was it created BECAUSE there was so much competition?

It's intriguing to learn about the division within the telegraph industry in New York City, with one class of companies focused on long-distance communication and another dedicated solely to city operations. I honestly have no knowledge on telegraph boys or the system itself, so I wonder what factors influenced the development of these distinct branches and how they collaborate or compete within the city's telegraph network.

In current events, anytime there is any significant event or change that occurs, I always see some kind of comparison the the past. I agree that assessing past examples of change is essential to understanding how our current society works and adapts.

This is a good point. The only way to compare and contrast a nation with itself is through analyzing its history. It is the only way to view how something has grown, or changed, over time.

I view this similarly to the previous paragraphs message. By nature, we learn by experiencing or example. Historical studies provide us with a way to see how certain morals have worked, or in some cases, not worked in different eras. Idealistically, this allows us to adapt our own morals to fit today's standards.

Very true. Everything we do relies on the foundations of the past. If we ignore what has happened historically, we are essentially restarting from square one. Why go through that trouble when so many answers can be found in our past?

Generally speaking, in order to "plan and worry about the future" we must understand what has happened in our past to either continue what has worked, or adjust what hasn't. In regards to electronic media, the same thing applies, especially because it is such a relatively new medium.