This reminds me of how imperialism in the past was justified. If a country and their people were taken over, the justification was that they were "doing the right thing" or "helping them out". In reality, it was purely expansion of their own country and showing superiority to others.

This reminds me of the show "What Would You Do?", where an actor (or actors) pretend to do something strange or egregious in order to see what surrounding people would do in response. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who respond to these actors are also actors or reenacting what they just did. The idea of these crews and actors maneuvering others into these kinds of situations definitely fits with this program.

Reading this makes me sad, as there are people that watch these kinds of shows that truly believe in what they are showing. These shows could have been the chance to show people a glimpse at accurate representations of people, breaking stereotypical and offensive misrepresentations. Unfortunately, this isn't the goal at all. Instead, it is untruthful and changes depending on what brings in the most entertainment and money, not caring about how offensive or fabricated their depictions are..

I feel like this is a similar theme that has carried on from the previous chapter. The idea of America caring more about their own country than the rest of the world is definitely still an issue.

This is an unfortunate part of our history that has repeated time and time again. In an earlier unit, we learned about how television itself was supposed to be to inform the public and connect to them easier. Shorty after, panic ensued because people wanted to find out how to make money off it. As we're reading now, the public's interest was traded in for money, just like many/most other parts of our lives.

This is definitely something I've noticed. Most of the news is about things that are happening within the U.S., with some news about other countries and events. However, they usually lack detail and are covering bigger events that have occurred. If there is significant coverage of another country, it usually involves or is closely tied to the U.S.

We've been talking about ideology a lot these past few weeks and it's nice to read this definition, as it is an good way of defining the term. Imaginary relationships that humans have formed in order to make sense of the real world around us.

I believe this means that these dominant hegemony are typically seen in texts but not all of those reading see it in the same light. I think this is very true, as some can read about the dominance of one group over the other to be normal and accepted or bad and in need of change.

While I don't agree that a dominant logic or norm is needed to see difference, I can definitely see where he is coming from. When we see something that is considered "normal" by most, that is when we can really tell when something isn't normal. If there isn't an idea of what is normal about something, we are less likely to see it as being weird or not normal.

I wonder why the author uses this kind of wording to describe culture. I understand that his stance on postmodernism isn't one that is positive, but it feels like he truly has a morbid view of the world because of what he thinks it's turning into. This may be the reason why he uses such terms but I'm not really sure.

It became really clear that this was the case as the first episode progressed. It seemed like the cops were so unorganized, reluctant and didn't take their jobs seriously. Meanwhile, the "robbers" were so much more careful and organized, even punishing their own because of the dangers his actions could have had on the group. It's common to see the robbers being portrayed in a negative light because of their actions but I was impressed with how they handled things.

I think that his experiences and gathering information, stories and insight is a major reason why he has made such great work. A lot of the time, the truth is hidden from the public. Simon spending time and effort to learn and experience these things is great journalism.

I definitely find this passage interesting, as I can see where they are coming from. In the episode we watched, Cliff had a talk with Theo about how it's important for him to do well in school and take it seriously. This is a real issue that parents have and they could have really related to it. Being able to connect to the show and be influenced through these moments could have definitely helped lead to the large, consistent audience that this show had.

I think this is one of the main reasons that the show was so popular with white audiences. The Huxtables were a black family that acted like how white audiences would expect families to act and are comfortable with. If the Huxtables were more like the Jeffersons, I think there would have been a big change in how things would have turned out.

I think we covered this in a previous unit, but television is another world that creators have tried to make as close to the real world as possible. While the events that happen in them are fictional, they are (most of the time) realistic and relates to the viewer even more. With all the violence, crimes and dangers that these shows present, it isn't too surprising that even though we know these aren't part of our world, we feel like they easily can be, In this case, some viewers start to believe that this is true in our own world as well.

This is very apparent in the way advertisements are created today. Why would we, the consumers, care about the information of these products when we all know who these famous people are? For example, in the current State Farm commercials, instead of giving useful information about why we should use their insurance, they just show us Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes in a little skit. The use of star power or crazy, over-the-top advertisements have overtaken rapid-fire information as the favorite way to catch our attention.

I have to agree that this approach can lead to a misleading image of a cozy life and world without real issues that happen in our world. At the same time, I would think this is part of why the show did so well. The lack of racism, stereotypes and economic struggles help create this ideal image and unrealistic world that people, of any race, can escape to from their own troubled lives.

I think this statement might not be surprising for us to read knowing what we know now, I think it's still important to think about. This show was so different compared to other shows on television at the time and didn't follow the usual criteria. Yet, it became so popular, successful and a big part of television history.

While I know what this means, I grew up in a household that doesn't use this kind of language or statements. Is this a common saying that is used in households or is it dependent more on the individuals in the household? I couldn't imagine saying this or thinking about saying this in my household.

This is a statement that I believe is meant to be read as incorrect, as many of us know that this is not true. We still hear of women who make less money than men with the same occupation and women who aren't taken seriously compared to men in the workplace. However, through the things we have seen in the media, we are made to believe that these success stories are vast and apply to many women when they actually haven't.

This is new information to me that I thought was interesting. Do they really expect golf players to attract more viewers with sex appeal? I understand that good looking people are an added bonus for viewership but this just seems odd to me, even if it makes sense.

I have noticed that a lot of talk shows are more geared towards women than men, as the ones I've seen have an all-female set of hosts, audience and topics. Things like sports shows are also guilty of this, as they are mainly former players (mostly men) who talk about the game and really focuses on their target audience than including other viewers.

I found this statement to be very interesting to explore. I think there are a lot of creators who know/think that what they have made is not high quality, "garbage" or not creative at all. However, they have to use it because it's what people like or what makes the most money. A lot of people wonder why hospital dramas and crime shows are commonly done or why shows don't experiment more with lesser-known topics or controversial ones. The same can be said about streamers playing the same game as everyone else or YouTubers making the same kind of video(s). All of it has to do with money and if it will be successful (aka results).

I feel like this statement is meant to say that when you have to do less and spend less, you tend to value them less. In this example, you used to have to go out to the movies and buy tickets to see films. However, by having the films be available on your TV without having to buy a ticket, you don't value the movie (or experience) as much. I think streaming has even furthered this, as you can access certain movies and series whenever you want and value it less as a result.

The way that broadcasting and advertising executives took advantage of this was both genius and a little bit sad for me to read. It is completely expected for them to cater their products and advertisements towards female home workers but at the same time it feels wrong.

It's interesting how Disney enjoyed showing people the secrets behind how his works were created, as I would think that it would ruin the "magic" that comes with them. However, I think he valued educating his audience about how these works came about, become closer to them and didn't want to hide these secrets from curious viewers.

While it isn't too surprising, I thought it was a clever idea for Walt Disney to combine the TV series with the real amusement park. By selling the product (which is Disney brand as a whole) using television, it would influence viewers to get immersed in the world.

When I read this, I was incredibly surprised and intrigued. Maybe it's because I lack a lot of information about Disney in general, but I didn't know that Disney tied this series with the famous amusement park that was being planned for construction at the time. To ask for $500,000 as well is such a risky and powerful move to make, which I think is amazing but also crazy.

I think that it's interesting to think about Disney's approach to television. While he was successful with his movies, he saw the potential of not only showing his product in theaters but directly into households with the television, further expanding his influence and reach.

I always found the widespread selling of radios (and eventually television sets) very interesting. While the goal of putting a radio into most households across the country was a major success, it didn't lead to immediate profit. Of course, people would find ways to try and make even more money off of something so useful, which I found kind of sad but expected.

I would like to add that it is not only televised programming that is like this. Videos that are posted online, like music videos, are filmed way before it actually releases. I've heard of videos being filmed 2-3 years before actually being released. At the same time, there are videos that are filmed only a few weeks (if even) before being released,

This passage reminded me of how streaming services are becoming (or have become) the next big thing. Instead of waiting for certain times where your favorite programs would air, why not figure out a way to watch it at any time! Now, we have the ability to watch our favorite series on Netflix at any time (without interruptions!) or watch a live stream of concerts or sporting events. For example, you can now watch some MLB games on Youtube live! You can even watch people play video games with streaming now, which has grown a lot in the past decade. It is interesting how the idea of televising events has evolved and taken a step further into live streaming and seeing these things unfold in real time.

I thought that this was another interesting and important thing to point out. While it isn't television, the newspaper was supposed to be for updating people on current events and happenings (shocking, I know). However, it eventually became what we see them as today, which is news mixed with advertisements for local businesses and job openings, products and a whole mess of unrelated articles that share the same space as one another. I think this is very similar to how television has developed over the years. It has become heavily commercial and lacks any flow and connection, whether it be constant commercials or advertisements that are irrelevant to each other, the program itself and the viewer's interests.

I knew this was a strategy beforehand but it's still interesting to read about it. In many different television series, they try to hook in viewers early with surprising events or sequences to keep them watching (even if there's commercials sprinkled in). After the episode ends, the viewers have probably committed and will return to watch the rest of the series, making this plan a big success.

This is something that i found interesting but also not so surprising. I feel like American television is heavily commercial and even more now than ever before. I haven't really seen British television to know what it's like, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is Type A heavy but mixed with Type B.

This is someone that I already knew from experiencing different cultures and languages but I still find it incredibly interesting. In English, the sound we think of for barking is entirely different from Japanese (wan wan), Korean (meong meong) and more! Even though we all might hear the same thing, we have found different ways of describing them in our own languages.

I have definitely experienced this as someone who uses a second language at home with my family. While I was growing up, I would learn words that sound almost the exact same as each other but they have very different meanings. For example, the words for salt, mosquito and ten are very similar in Vietnamese, but can be distinguished by how you say it!

This is a very interesting statement to me because of the horror genre I've experienced in the past. In films, television series, books or video games, it can be very interesting to think about who is telling the story and why are the viewers able to see or learn about certain experiences throughout the story. However, many disregard it and continue forward without any questioning at all.

I've seen dramas where this kind of connection between story lines take place but have never really thought of it as a way to make up for lacking suspense. For example, some dramas I've seen have love triangles which create complex issues between the characters involved and suspense for the viewers.