This is such a fascinating realization for me, I have never once thought about the fact that these experts are never once questions. On the show they would just come on say there name and get right into disecting everything about someones life, they themselves never have to answer any questions about their education how they're qualified, anything of the sort. That just goes to show that this 'expert' may not be the exact expert they're said to be, that just what the show wants you to think.

I think that all of these things that were described throughout the article present interesting theories on how it all comes together, and proves that there are definitely alternative meanings of having a Dream. I think that everyone comes and tunes in to a show like the Oprah show for their own specific reason, and maybe its just for someone that they can relate to or the show just makes them feel better. Regardless of what it is everyone has their own reasons for watching.

This is something that always fascinated me, the way that someone would willingly go on a show like this to seek "help" from a professional and then they would also televise all their problems to the entire world. Another show that reminds me of this was Dr. Phil with all the family and relationship advice and therapy sessions there, it always seemed so odd to me. However, I think it doesn't do all harm, I think it opens up the possibility for people to talk about how therapy can be helpful for people.

Honestly I never thought about it like this. I never really took into account how Oprah making personally things public, like what someone is going through with their hardships and struggles that in turn it can also be used in some way to make whatever the person saying political. I knew that things were political with the show, but never put together the way it used people's situations.

I remember how big the Oprah Winfrey show was when my mom used to watch it all the time when I was younger. There were even times when if she couldn't watch an episode she would need to record it and go back and watch as soon as possible. Now, looking back on it, it makes total sense that it can be seen as a metaphor for an imagine community with how close people were that watched it, and loved everything about her and what she did.

I find this to be so fascinating that these shows don't need to be actually good when it comes to the ratings and the product being put out, as long as they atract the proper audience they will be considered successful to the advertisers. I guess it makes sense because as long as they continue to bring in money that is all that really matters.

Overall without multi-channel transition we would not have the television that we know today. I feel like reading this article on its importance and how it helped evolve television through many ways. It gave me a new perspective on the evolution on television and who was important in the development of it, and how it became the television that we know today.

I completely agree with this claim, and I think that it still holds a lot of truths today with media and marketing. When it comes to trying to market and grab peoples attention a lot of companies or just people nowadays will do anything that they can to grab peoples attention, and often times they will target the social divisions within a nation to do so.

This merger has always been so fascinating for me because while it was a very good merger in theory, and had a plethora of upsides, I for one think in some regard it heard a lot of the parties in this merger. At the time of the initial merger, ESPN was at quite possibly its highest of popularities and has since gone downhill with ratings and viewership. While the merger definitely helped financially and grow popularity, one can argue that it didn't help the product grow.

This is something that caught my eye, because of how easily network television was just completely shifted. With the introduction of VCR, Remotes, and communication satellites network television completely changed from what it was once known as. The integration of remote controls changed television as it allowed people to have access to a plethora of channels and navigate them with ease.

This is a strong conclusion to come to and one that I agree with. If politics like the FCC had not intervened with cable and television there is not telling what could have or would have happened with those stations and networks. If politics had not intervened we may not have the television that we have today with cable, and now the up and coming streaming networks as well.

This makes so much sense to me that a channel and station centered around court and a trial with such a high profile like the O.J. Simpson one get such big ratings. It makes sense to me because people love real life drama, and for some reason can not stop watching it. People especially love to continue watching when its a popular figurehead like Simpson. People would much rather watch a real life drama field court case with a celebrity than watch a baking show. Another example of this would be the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial.

I find the FCC's involvement with everything to be so interesting, it almost feels like they didn't know what they were getting into. Originally they didn't want to regulate television and cable companies, then they over-regulated, and then they let up their regulations. It just seems so back and forth to me.

This is so fascinating to me, how a television channel would initially be commercial -free so that it could charge the station, and then the station could charge the buyer more. It kind of reminds me of the way that some of the streaming services are today. For example Hulu, it has many different tiers of subscriptions and if people want the tier without commercials they'll have to pay more, it makes me think that instances like this with Nickelodeon set the way for how subrscription tiers are today.

This is something that really caught my attention. It's so fascinating to see how much of a poineer HBO (Home Box Office) was in the early days of cable, and you can tell that their experimenting and pioneering paid off in the end. If you think about where HBO is today, and how prestigious it is when it comes to streaming services and movie making, you can tell that its early days paid dividends.