I like how the text concluded with this. After reading, I can clearly see how television serves each of these interests. At the end of the day, these major companies and corporations just want to make a profit and will pretend to be authentic or working with the audience's best interest in mind to increase revenue. In terms of culture, the earlier programming during the television's Golden Age was becoming outdated, so I understand the need to make some programming adjustments to keep up with the times. Women entering the workforce or America's growing racial diversity comes to mind in this regard. As for politics, there probably numerous examples by now of programs subtly promoting certain political messaging or even propaganda in what's being televised in attempt to sway viewers.

Both of my parents expressed how much they loved Martin when they were younger. I haven't watched it myself yet, but I heard of some of show's criticism touched on here. Specifically, I heard of the show's problematic representations of Black women and the rather toxic relationship between Martin and Gina. Black women have consistently struggled for positive representation in mainstream television and are often constantly antagonized, not taken seriously, or simply used as a tool to push the plot forward. I believe that with shows focused on a male perspective, there is naturally bound to be instances of misogyny (or misogynior in this case) throughout the series. Sexism could also be present even if a show is female centered, but is written by men. This is why diversity both in and outside of the writer's room is essential.

This concept has already been discussed in our lectures, with the word "objectionable" replacing "offensive" in this case. Our lectures defined this type of programming as material that would prevent audiences from switching channels and keep them engaged. In this context, it is implied that anyone who wasn't straight, white, or male was "objectionable". It's not shocking that America did not care to see minorities on their TV screens. This connects to the constant struggle for positive minority representation, and how it seemingly stems from the American majority not wanting to see people of color, women, or queer people on their televisions. Addtionally, since I'm in PR, this reminds me of the concept of marketability, and how influencers of color have a harder time scoring brand deals and partnerships because mainstream audiences do not resonate with them.

Within the Black community, there has been discussion surrounding Black representation in televsion peaking in the 90s, questioning if our representation has regressed since then. Many Black family sitcoms of the time might not have been the most progressive but it granted Black audiences the chance to see themselves on screen in more dynamic roles. This discussion has arisen because there are issues with how modern shows portray their Black characters. Some of them are still relegated to supporting roles or simply used for comedic relief, colorism is allowing primarily lighter-skinned actors to play Black characters, and the "Disposable Black Girlfriend" trope is alive and well. It is also not shocking to see how Murdoch profited off Black culture for programming, as the entertainment industry at large do so without giving Black audiences genuine respect.

This is an interesting comparison, and as the remainder of the sentence puts it, truly demonstrates the contempt that TV evokes from people. It reminds me of the the common phrase "TV rots your brain". Personally, I would argue against television not being a key facilitator in social change. The role the television has played in shaping American culutre is far too signficant to downplay. The significance comes from TV's ability to relay messages in each program, with those messages informing audiences of societal values and instilling them into their minds.

This concept of media technologies as "sacred relics" is very interesting to me. My interpretation of this relates to this notion of younger generations not fully understanding or appreciating earlier media technologies that older generations are fond of since they didn't grow up with it themselves. This "different meaning" is defined by older generations' experiences with those media. This same logic could be applied to our generation as well, as we could consider things like the iPod or Nintendo DS "sacred relic" in our cultural context. It's also interesting to see how the women in the study remembered their experiences with radio more than the radio's actual content, which further supports the "sacred relics" argument and seemingly has some correlation to the concept of nostalgia.

While diversity in the media has made great strides since the 30s, 40s, and 50s, this sentiment remains signifcant when looking at the state of female representation years ago. As men once (and continue to) dominate the mainstream, women were in fact forced to consume their stories. If women did happen to be represented, it would be in miniscule or strereotypical roles. Now, we are seeing improved representation for women in several aspects of media, but there is still progress to be made. Representation for women of color in particular still requires major improvements, as they are still struggling to be taken seriously and still fighting for positive representation.

This week's lecture highlights how certain radio programs were targeted for specific members of the family. Rosemary's response here proves that true, explaining how her grandmother listened to soaps during the day. As discussed in the lecture, soap operas were played during the daytime and was catered toward women since they were doing housekeeping duties throughout the day. With FDR's fireside chats, they were meant to be heard by all family members. It's interesting to see a direct example here of how radio was used to reinforce familial roles in the home.

I believe this idea of teenage girls being a widely sought-after market remains true in present day. The beauty and fashion industries for example have always aimed to target young women. However, with the rise of social media and influencers, I believe more industries are taking steps to incorporate that demographic into their marketing strategies and messaging. Relatability is a major trend that seems to attract that young female audience, and I notice certain brands attempting to follow that trend to capture that audience through social media posts and comments (Duolingo comes to mind). On the flip side, this arguably dehumanizes women as these tactics reduce them to easily-swayed consumers.

This reminds me of the concept of intersectionality, which describes the experience of belonging to multiple, different (primarily minority) social categories. I like that the authors took this approach of refraining to define girlhood as a one specific idea that is applicable to all girls. It's significant because due to intersectionality, all women and girls won't have the same life experiences or even the same relationship to girlhood. For example, a Black disabled girl will navigate life a bit differently in comparison to a white queer girl, and so on.

It's is interesting to look at the criticism Marconi faced due to his "imagined use" strategy of marketing the wireless telegraph. This connects to one of my previous annotations about audiences getting caught up in the persona and "brand" of the man rather than the technology itself. There seems to be an aspect of ethicality when it comes to how Marconi appealed to imagination, which could also be applied to marketing techniques today. In order to get ahead like Marconi did, it was more effective to sell what could be instead of what was. This strategy allowed him to become a pioneer in the science realm despite his background, placing him in rooms and discussions that he otherwise might not be welcomed in. This concept isn't new, as many people have used questionable tactics to advance because their identity/status would never grant them the opportunity to do so.

I would say it's arguable that marginal groups were included in this "great man" narrative if they were only relegated to being a passive audience. This role of passiveness can be applied to the relationship between corporations and consumers. One could argue major corporations view consumers as a passive audience since their primary goal is profit above all else, stripping them of their agency. Addtionally, as this sentence mentions marginal groups, I am reminded of current inclusion efforts for marginalized communities in our society. If they are just present and have no power or agency, how truly included are they?

This description of essentially branding certain marketing strategies as less masculine stands out to me. Wealth plays an important role here as the previous sentence describes, implying that well-off individuals shouldn't rely on marketing techiques. This in turn implies that the status of these "leisured families" should be enough to market a product. There is a connection here that associates wealth and masulinity with one another. Yet, the paragraph also goes into the bias against "professional men" and them not rising to the ranks of authority, another implication of a lack of masculinity as well.

As a communications major who has taken a few courses in advertising/marketing, the concept of "imagined used" here is very interesting to me. I think appealing to audiences' imagination is effective in generating buzz for a new product, and Marconi shrouding himself in mystery added more to this strategy. It is definitely an interesting approach to the art of persuasion when it comes to marketing techniques. With how fast-paced the current media industry is, I wonder how effective products/campaigns that adopt this strategy end up being. Audiences could grow impatient when it comes to speculation and potentially move on to the "next big thing".

This "great man" descriptor along with the "aura of greatness" reminds me of current figures like Zuckerberg and Musk. While they have made innovative contributions to the realm of technology, the praise they recieve for them feels like it is more about their persona and what they represent rather than their actual contributions. For example, in Musk's case, he's been placed in a rather important government role under the current administration, even though he doesn't seem that qualified in the realm of politics. It appears his "great man" persona granted him that position, which seems to be the case for many men that excel in a specific industry.

I agree that this is a naive hope. This reminds me of social media and how it has become an outlet for open communication and spreading information. Although, on the flip side, those platforms can promote hateful language, misinformation, and unproductive discourse. The beginning of the paragraph also touches on the "American Dream", and how that has created more competition rather than equal opportunity. The telegraph was effective in connecting us, but human nature and soicoeconomic factors and institutions are attempting to keep us separate.

There was a course I took about three semesters ago where we read about this concept. We looked at a reading that broke down how the way one speaks can communicate their financial standing. Speaking properly and in a softer tone indicated wealth while slang and loudness indicated a lower status. Looking at how class status tend to overlap with racial identity, we can see how speech patterns that belong to specific minority communities have been criticized and villified. The use of morse code to make telegrams classless is very refreshing in that regard.

This makes me think about the idea of capitalism commodifying holiday celebrations. It's interesting to see how the telegraph played a role in that. Like the remainder of the paragraph describes, telegrams became a profitable business for both special occassions and personal communication. The telegrams rising popularity must've contrinuted to this depersonalization of occassions by making them feel less sacred and special, especially since they were being marketed for economic gain.

It's so interesting to see how telegraphy served as a catayst for these concepts. Like I alluded to in one of my previous annotations, America's quicker-paced culture plays a role in these ideas. While the first three phrases feel relatively similar to one another, I find "up with the times" to be somewhat of an outlier here based on my current understanding of it. However, reading the rest of this paragraph emphasizes the idea that time has developed into one of the most important and valued aspects of life, and that there is immense pressure that comes with being "timely" in each of these contexts.

This sentence stands out to me because it makes me think of how America is described as having a "fast-paced" culture. Especially given how work is prioritized over many other aspects of life in the U.S., the pace of life is meant to feel a bit quicker. This connects to the introduction of railroads since railroads led to the growth of many new industries. It also makes sense that a standardized time had to come about to properly connect these large cities across great distances.

It's interesting to look at the concept of the well-informed citizen in this current day. I do agree that understanding history can make someone more well-informed on certain issues. When looking at our modern day media landscape, there are a couple of obstacles pertaining to gathering information. With things like mis/disinformation spreading through social media, censorship in school curricula, and paywalls on news sites, obtaining factual information appears challenging. I just though it'd be interesting to highlight this overlap here.

This is a great point. Studying different historical contexts is great for broadening one's perspective on certain topics. I also agree that a broader perspective is helpful in different work scenarios. Different work environments call for different types and behaviors and reactions. Like the sentence states, through studying the past actions of past societies, you can be informed on how to conduct yourself in that work setting/situation.

I never considered this in the context of learning history. After thinking about it, it's true that we can shapes our morals after past events, both in the broader context of history or in our own past experiences. For me, I think of learning about war and activism throughout my education as examples of where some of moral thinking stem from.

I agree with this statement. Studying history allows us to see and make sense of the changes we see in the world. It reminds me of the phrase "Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it". Refusing to study and failing to understand history makes us unable to make sense of change, potentially leaving individuals more close-minded.

I really like this explanation. Rather than history being used to divide people based on their intelligence, it should help us come together to share and spread knowledge. Education has historically been used separate people by status and used to look down on others. Looking at the study of history in a manner that is more inclusive can allow us to move past that way of thinking.