here are certainly media that are concerned to address issues on a global scale, but their audiences are too small, too rich, and too English-speaking to be considered inclusive.
What would be an example of this? It would be extremely hard to do a show that would be considered inclusive because of the language barrier.
The obvious candidate for the role of embodiment of the global public sphere is CNN, and this is regularly cited as having transformed viewing habits. There are strong arguments that would say that this is essentially a US, rather than a global, news channel, but let us leave those aside
When I watch CNN, it is mainly United States politics. Personally, I wouldn't consider this a global sphere because there really isn't much information outside the United States. As someone living in a different country, I would have no interest in watching CNN.
If there is indeed a global public sphere coming into being, then we should be able to find concrete television and radio channels, or newspapers and magazines, that embody that sphere. S
Is there really one show that would capture the global sphere? If so, what would it be?
thers, like the USA, do very much better on the axis of freedom and censorship, but perhaps worse on the other two axes.
Censorship is something that has always scared me. I couldn't imagine living in a country where the media is censored and being fed only part of an important story. It is something that I take for granted living in the United States.
The "third" world also exists within US cities. And suddenly, early in 1991, a representation in which it spoke, or rather screamed, for itself was widely circulated by the media. On 3 March, LA cops stopped an African American driver, Rodney King, for a motoring offense, pulled him out of his car and beat him so severely that the fillings were knocked out of his teeth. He survived.
This is a problem that is still going on today. I feel that this is now being widely shown on the news and within television shows. I wonder what other countries would think of the United States if they were to watch this?
One of the key representational strategies is "othering." The "other" is always a product of representation and, as such, whatever form it may be given, always applies the discursive and material power of the representing social order upon that part of the world it has made into its other.
One example of film I thought of while reading this passage was Crazy Rich Asians. Rachel is treated like an "other" or outcast because she is not the same as them. She isn't full Asian or from a rich family. Rachel's boyfriends family treats her poorly and doesn't want her to marry into their "perfect" family.
for intercultural communication is be-coming more, not less, necessary for a peaceful planet, but rather to warn that the weaker of the two cultures must always exert a satisfactory (to it) degree of control over the communicative relationship.
I think that this relates back to when we learned about the news and how American viewers only really cared about American news and not global news, unless it affected us. If we learned more about other cultures, it would bring a more peaceful planet. It is an interesting thought to consider.
Production practices common to most of these programs include ex-tensive use of ((actuality" footage of their subjects, whether these are po-lice staking out a drug den or mom and dad yukking it up in front of the camcorder; reenactments of events, performed by professional actors, or by the people who experienced them, or a mix of both;
Sometimes this makes me question the authenticity of reality television. If this is really happening, how is the camera crew around just at the right time? How do these people do this in front of an audience? The whole concept of reality TV is just so intriguing to me. I would love to be behind the scenes of a taping of a show to understand the whole process.
The second wave of Reali-TV programming, ushered in by the ratings success of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' in 1999 and Sur-vivor in 2000,
I never thought of game shows as being reality television. I don't think people look down at Who Wants To Be a Millionaire as much as they do shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Is it because people want to participate in the game shows and can't relate to the Kardashians?
From the sea change in American television in the 19~os emerged a pro-gramming trend variously described as "infotainment;' "reality-based television;' "tabloid TV:' "crime-time television;' "trash TV:' and "on -scene shows:'
I was introduced at a young age to reality television with the Bachelor. I have always associated it with being "trash TV" because of the reputation it has with other people. Although I personally enjoy it, sometimes I feel that it is embarrassing to admit that I like it. This passage makes me wonder what the early versions of reality television would be.
While it may seem as if television is now bursting with ordinary people “speaking for themselves,” they are following the roles, conventions and “scripts” that popular reality formats require of them.
This is one thing that throws me off about reality television. One show that I immediately think of is The Bachelor. It all seems very real until one of the contestants comes out and says "the producers made us". They are known for creating their own villiain which can really hurt the contestant in the long run. I believe this is a really toxic side of reality television.
broader debates about the influx of ordinary people in the media, the role of performance in identity and reality TV production, and the circulation of race, class and other social differences as commodities, lifestyles and brands.
Although reality TV shows are supposed to portray differences in class, are any of the stars really considered to be low class? Since they make a lot of money from the show, I feel that this is not an accurate representation in reality television.
noting that at least one lead character doesn’t live at the trailer park and that producers spiced up the setting by adding an above-ground plastic swimming pool (perfect for skinny dipping) and a beauty shop (perfect for gossiping) that weren’t there before the cameras arrived.
I used to watch this television show when I was younger and was not aware that it was at all "fake". I assumed that everyone had lived there and the beauty salon was there before the show. This really goes to show that viewers, like myself, can be blindsided by the show. If this was known before, I'm sure not as many people would have watched.
We were told that it was a great story. However, despite his fulminations and successful terror attacks, bin Laden still couldn't get much attention from our navel-gazing executives.
I can't pinpoint why but this statement really troubled me. "We were told that it was a great story". The network was really concerned with the story and ratings rather than taking into account how truly horrible this man was. I don't think that they should have given him any airtime.
No rising crescendo of alarm reached the public's ears. The gatekeepers of national news turned down one foreign story after another because "foreign news doesn't sell."
This statement worries me. We are at risk for not learning about foreign news because it "won't sell"? This just seems very unethical.
You might equally argue that the news media should he out in front leading the charge, priming the public
As big as a industry that journalism and news broadcasting is, I would imagine that it would be difficult to change the way they do it overnight. Although, the news is also the first thing that people turn to in a tragedy so it is necessary that they are "in front".
Because the audience-especially the con-servatives-say we are doing a had joh covering Iraq, and they are right. They are absolutely right. We are not doing a good job covering Iraq."
This brings me back to the beginning to the article. It stated that Americans don't know much about what is going on outside of the United States. If we are not concerned, how do they know the broadcasters are doing a bad job?
Once you get past the first half of the show, the rest tends to consist of features aimed at delivering viewers to ad-vertisers.
This is very interesting to me. As a viewer, I guess I never really pay much attention to how much advertising is involved. Wouldn't this drop ratings? I would assume people switch the channel when advertisements come on.
The networks didn't even bother trying to save money. We hired Lear jets and zoomed around the world as if covering the news was the only thing that counted.
I've always questioned whether news stations are truly concerned with delivering the most accurate news stories for their viewers. Sometimes I feel that they just want to beat out the competition or make the most profit, rather than giving the viewers 100% accurate information.
Andy Warhol's Dinmond Dust Shoes evidently no longer speaks to us with any of the immediacy of Van Gogh's footgear; indeed. I am tempted to say that it does not really speak to us at all.
I personally find Andy Warhol's art extremely interesting, even more than some pieces of early art. I am drawn to them because of their bright colors and simplicity. I don't have to think much about them and can just enjoy what I am looking at.
and one tPnds to feel. that for 1\nwricans at least. tlw UJ50s rem.ain the privil.:ged lost object of desin:
I think that the nostalgia film and television really fulfills a desire that we all have. We are always wanting to relive the past and this helps fill our memories, even if we weren't even alive. I feel that it is a "grass is always greener on the other side" example.
ear a strong family resemblance to all those more ambitious sociological gen-eralization
I think that ambitious is a great word to describe postmodernism. It was something unlike we have ever seen before and looked at everything in a different way. Artists had to be ambitious to achieve this.
Notice the connection in this last comment: "certainly not like in real life . . . but she's fun to watch.
I think that the Cosby Show was typically viewed as "relatable" so this comment was interesting to me. Although the show is not real and is a fiction series, there were many real issues that were brought up. I think some people understood that but some people missed the mark.
t became obvious during our interviews that B_i!_L_(;;Q~Qy's presence ~...a...come.dian.is...an.lm.eQ!!!.!l.!_J?~EU>f. _ _th~ .. §h<?~~~ . popqJ\lrJ!Y:.
Did people just watch because it was Bill Cosby? Or were they genuinely interested in the series?
he fact that the show breaks from the normal narrative mold of television drama, in which the bizarre and the dramatic become the norm was regarded with relief and pleasure by many white viewers:
I do agree that it can be exhausting watching a show that something is always happening. Sometimes it is nice just to watch and not having to worry or think about what is happening next.
An alien researching life on Earth would certainly learn a great deal by scrutinizing satellite broadcasts of television from the United States.
It would be interesting to watch television from an outsiders perspective. I wonder what it would be like if it was just started now?
A detailed analysis of TV talk suggests that most people feel more able to evaluate TV fiction because it seems much closer to their own lives and the world they live in than does TV news.
This statement was interesting to me. Why is that? Is it because television shows are typically made to relate to viewers? Is the news not relevant enough for the viewers to relate to? I know that I prefer watching fiction television but don't find myself dismissing the contents of the news.
At the heart of this televisual bounty of mixed messages is our ambivalence toward their reality. Many of us know that most television is fiction, yet we see television as a key source of information about the world we live in. It is simultaneously real and unreal.
I think that this can be a scary side of television. Some people can't separate fiction from reality and build their opinions off that. This can include race, gender, or class stereotypes that viewers aren't familiar with. Instead of actually understanding a world they aren't a part of, they take stereotypes off television and form opinions off that.
In much the same way, we may feel good about our country because we associate it with a set of selective but positive images.
I feel that this statement is very true, especially in film/television. In most series, our country is represented very positively and we are rooting for our success. What are some examples of series that don't follow this?
The period that produced The Co~y Show has also produced, the show's critics argue, a deterioration in the 'social conditions of most black Americans.
This statement made me wonder why this aspect of race wasn't included within the show. If it would have been included, would it have been more successful or driven viewers away? I personally feel that it wouldn't have been as successful because it was a "family friendly" show and would have caused more families not to watch it.
The show frequently uses humor to expose the inadequacy of the sexist or machismo attitudes of some members of its male cast.
Why did they have to include sexism within the show? Did it have to do with the time it was aired at? Or did they want to just focus on racism and not confront other social issues?
Without Bill Cosby's track record (including, significantly, his ability to sell products on TV com-mercials), the series would probably never have made it onto the air.
This made me wonder if the show would have been as successful with another male lead? Or was Bill Cosby the make or break of the series?
The contrasting pro-cedures of cops and robbers are thus established, from this moment on inthe first season, as the first two fundamental central sites of the series.
I am definitely interested how these sites play a role in the rest of the series rather than just the beginning episodes. It is intriguing to me when something that is presented so early on makes a major impact on the show until the end of the series.
Unlike most tradi-tional genres, in which cops are posited as either morally better (or singlebad apples) in relation to the robbers they police, both sites are equallycaught up in the procedures and codes of their work.
At the start of the episode I was expecting it to be a good guy, bad guy type of show. Throughout the progression of the episode, I realized that it was a different type of show. Everyone was given the chance to be the good guys of the show, or at least a chance to show they aren't as bad as you would typically think.
to give dramaticresonance to a wide range of interconnected social strata, their differentbehaviors, and their speech over long swathes of time.
The first thing I noticed in this show was how different the groups were portrayed, especially the difference in how people spoke. If I were to watch the rest of the season/series, I wonder if that would change?
Where melodramatic talk shows have been profitable and unrespect-able, soaps have retained their profitability and gained new respect-ability within the television industry
I know that soaps used to be very popular years ago, are they still as popular today? If not, is it because of more woman going into the daily workplace? What are some modern examples of a popular soap?
The script's victimization of Alicia and its reliance on a "white knight" to save her presented serious departures from Lifetime's formula. However, within the constraints of the story, Lifetime's re-make constructed Alicia as a more capable, more active, less victimized character
Did people find this as interesting? Or do viewers prefer the woman to get saved by a male hero? Does it make for a less engaging plot or one that will catch viewers by surprise?
In film and television studies, we too have followed the industrial practice of sorting genres by genders, treating
I guess I have never really thought about sorting specific genres by genders. Now that I am thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense. Girls are supposed to like certain types of shows (Chick Flicks) and boys are supposed to like the other shows (Action Movies). When did this divide start?
When the Homeric excursion was mercifully over, my daughter would be in possession of various items that would turn her into a walking billboard for Abercrom-bie & Fitch, and carrying shopping bags with bare-naked, sushi-grade torsos
This made me laugh because when I was a child I loved wearing clothes with "A&F" plastered on them. Abercrombie was a "cool zone" and I was always wanting to go in there. Not realizing much about culture then I didn't pay attention to the dark sides of Abercrombie.
Remember when Ellen DeGeneres came out in 1997, supposedly scandalizing a nation and then having her sitcom can-celed?
As a huge fan of Ellen, I had no idea that her show got cancelled! Ellen is such a huge television figure and it would be hard to imagine a television screen without her on it. I wonder how she made her comeback?
This was the Spice Girls moment, and debate: Were these girly, frosted cupcakes really a vehicle for feminism?
I never viewed the Spice Girls as a topic of debate. They were really the pioneers for "girl power" music. Today, there are so many power anthems for girls and artists that empower all women. It's weird to think of a time without this kind of music.
which he claims is ordered according to the logic of the workday of both men and women.
I would never think that television networks would order their schedule by gender. I wonder if they still do that today since the workday is typically the same? Was it that impactful?
hus, television is the source of a dispute between the couple, a disrute that arises from the housewife's inability to rerform her productive function while enjoying an afternoon program.
I feel like I see this more in television now with men, especially with sports. The woman will ask him to do some chores and comes back to find him still glued to the television. They absolutely have to watch the game and not be expected to do anything during that time.
As Gwendolyn Wright has observed. women were now cut off from the family group as they worked in kitchens designed to resemble scientific laboratories, far removed from the family activities in the central areas of the home. Architects did little to rL"ipond to the problem of isolation. but continued instead to build kitchens fully sepa-rated from communal living spaces
I see this act highlighted in many television shows, especially if there is a party going on. The husband is in the home entertaining, laughing and drinking with guests. Then the camera will find the lonely wife who is in the kitchen by herself, preparing a meal for all of the guests. The only visitors she seems to get throughout the party are other women. It is also interesting to learn about the connection that it had with architecture.
e oven included a w indow through which the housewife could watch her chi cken roast
I have never heard of this creation before and honestly it is a great idea, really impractical, but very unique. Of course it is geared toward the "housewife" who spends her day looking through the oven window.
ogy creates its own ideologues, discussion, points. view: in it has a good chance staying alive.
Does he only find this true for television? Or does he also think this of radio and film?
in one Wild West show, for instance, a character says: when a large inheritance is at stake, villainy is not far behind.
Why is this such a popular narrative? Has this happened many times in reality? I have seen this in so many television shows and films throughout the years, but never get the appeal.
Meanwhile, in New York the volume of television dramas climbed to 47 percent of the entire pro-duction
Dramas are still a very popular genre in television. A lot of the most well known modern television shows are dramas. I wonder what the percent is now? Why are we so attracted to drama when there is more carefree viewing like a comedy show?
The culture indus-try can insist all the more convincingly that it is not the murderer but the victim who is guilty: that it simply helps bring to light what lies within human beings anyway
I do think that the media industry can be very convincing. It can make us think of things we would never without their guidance. This can be within fiction shows or even on the news, which can be scary. Has media ever gone too far?
That awkward "intimacy" of television which allegedly engenders a community through the effect of the televi sion set around which familv members nnd friends sit
I personally find watching television with my family and friends very enjoyable and not "awkward" at all. It can be a time to bond and unwind. It confuses me why he uses this as a negative example.
They are hardly in the same way that characters in film are.
I have never thought about this concept before. I view characters on television just as powerful as those on a film screen. I wonder if this is because of the time I grew up in. These days television screens can be incredibly large, so I don't perceive characters as that small.
In contrast to broadcasting's intrinsic catholicism, narrowcasting is structurally biased toward sectarianism
I wonder what the best modern example of narrowcasting is? Is it more prominent now than ever before?
It is already a cliche to mention that what we have come to call The News was created in print during the nineteenth century as the telegraph allowed newspapers to gather information instantaneously from distant points without having to transport it.
When reading this sentence, I realized that I now only think of the news as an electronic source. The nightly television news first comes to my mind. Of course I know that newspapers and magazines are influential news sources, but they are never the first thing to come to mind.
Like the national debt, the homeless population, gun ownership, and job insecurity, television grew prodigiously in the 1980s.
I find it very interesting that this article put television in the same category as big issues like gun ownership and the homeless population. We may not think of it as a huge deal now but years ago it was a big topic.
Whatever the audience is not watching at any given time makes for new possibilities," Goldenson noted. "We are not trying to take away audiences from CBS and NBC. ... We are trying to carve our own network character, to create new audiences
ABC is still crazy popular and I do think that is because it is geared toward so many viewers. They have many different types of shows that can satisfy just about every viewer. This definitely continues to help them stand out from their competitors.
enhancing his audience's pl~asure-and anticipation-by offering precious glimpses of the filmmaking process.
One thing that Disney has always been focused on is "keeping the magic". When you go to a theme park nobody breaks character and everything seems so real. Did these shows break the magic or were there still secrets that were kept? I wonder how a show like that would do today?
In uniting the TV prqgram and the amusement park under a single name, Disney made.one of the most influential commercial decisions in post-war' American culture.
Most of Walt Disney's entertainment ventures are very well known. I wonder what would a world be like without Walt Disney? I feel that he was so influential on entertainment so I am curious how it would be without that influence.
Disney later admitted that he was "never much interested" in radio, but television, with its ability to display the visual appeal of Disney products, was another matter entirely.
I understand why Disney was never interested in radio. The things that he created wouldn't have been the same without the amazing visuals. I wonder if others would have used television instead of radio, would they they have been as big as Disney?
Walt Disney, whose premiere television series, Dis-neyland, entered ABC's regular Wednesday-night schedule on the twenty-seventh of October. Disney had forged a reputation as the cinema's maes-tro of family entertai
Before this week I had never heard of the series Disneyland. I thought this was interesting since I felt like i knew most of the things that Disney had done.
Even if television elsewhere has been moving towards more similar forms of organization, with commercials within and/or between programmes, increasing use of channel promos, etc., US network television still has a more pronounced flow quality than that of many other countries.
My question is why was American television so different than other countries? Did the US have a different approach or more research behind it? Did we prove to be successful?
European television was differently constructed
Do you think that the Europeans were aware how different the television/radio was? Or were we aware how different theirs was?
It says that ~elevision is the 'transmission and reproduction of images by a device that converts light waves into radio waves and then converts these back into visible ligh~ rays
When I think of the definition of television, this is the last thing that comes to mind. I think of what it's about rather than the technical side. To me, television is about so much that it is more than one definition.
y the end of the 1920s tlie raclio industry had become a major sector of industrial production, within a rapid general expansion of the new kinds of machines which were eventually to be c.alled "consumer durables."
As of now I would say that television has taken over the radio industry. Most people have a television in their home, but not as many people have a radio in their home. They get their news/information/entertainment from the television. Will another technology take over and make television less popular?
It is never quite true to say that in modern societies. when a social n eed has been demonstrated, its appropriate technology will be found.
Will we ever be so technologically advanced that this statement will be true? Will we ever get to the point that we will have all of our social needs met by technology? Right now, I would say a lot of our needs are met by technology, mostly entertainment and communication needs. I would think that television keeps us very entertained, satisfying that need.
By the 1880s the idea of a ·photographed reality"-stiJJ more for record than for observation-was familia
Without the early advancement of photography, would television have become what it is today? Would it even exist? Also, how much did technologies such as the telephone have an effect on the invention of television? I wonder if the ability to communicate and get information quickly started a spark to continue to explore these technologies.
Thus we often discuss, with animation, this or that "effect" of television, or the ki:lds of social behaviour. the cultural and psychological conditions, which television has 1ed to
Before watching the lecture/reading this article I hadn’t thought very deeply about how society can effect television. Television shows that were popular fifty years ago, wouldn’t necessarily be as popular today. Some of the problems in that show would be confusing, not relevant, or inexistent, especially to the younger generations. Television shows have to know what is going on in today’s society and play into that.
In (d) there is an evident sequence -in effect a flow -from to Io.o
The sequence d is something that I still see often today. It includes the typical news times, game shows, and popular television series. The different types of shows could keep a viewer interested for hours, not having to change the channel. Since this type of sequence is still popular today, do you think that it will ever change or will we find a better way?
Of course the films were not made to be 'intermpted' in this way. But this flow is planned: not only in itself, but at an early stage in all original television production for commercial systems
I found this to be very interesting. I really have never thought that television shows plan their natural breaks. I am curious about the process behind this planning. How difficult is it to plan? Do they do it before or after shooting for the show?
A 'i!l:ltural b.~eak' became any moment of convenient insertion.
I never have really thought about the logic of when commercial breaks come in a show. It is always at the "worst time" to have a commercial because you need to find out what happens! I wonder if this helps keep viewers interested? Would people enjoy television as much without the commercial breaks? Although they can be annoying, they are the perfect opportunity to make a snack or do a quick task. Without these natural breaks, we wouldn't be able to do these things, making us become stressed because we are missing the show!
this separable category is significant. It is sub-divided into programmes composed mainly of cartoons and puppet-shows; other kinds of entertainment programme, usually 'live' stories and plays; and educational programmes.
Children's television has always been a substantial category. Some of the most memorable shows and characters are from children's shows. Williams mentions that the programs are mainly cartoons, puppet shows, live stories/plays, and educational. This makes me question how much children's television has changed over time. I think that more subdivisions have been added, diving deeper into the shows. I wonder if this is because of the rise of technology and being able to access these shows anywhere at anytime? Does this put more of a pressure on television shows to create unique children's shows?
The Home Shopping Club and its parent network, HSN, represent the pleasures of buying in the very process of selling their merchandise. The program constantly reconfirms the value of staying home and watching televisio
Television shopping's popularity has dramatically decreased over the years, due to the rise of online shopping. My grandmother orders things occasionally from television but I have personally never. I definitely think that it is a generational practice and wonder that as new generations come, will networks like HSN survive with the ease of online retailing?
o that viewers can be as involved or disaffected as they like and still continue to watch.
Do all game shows follow this format? I have been watching game shows recently and haven't thought of needing both "luck" and skill. I always assumed these people were very smart, but now I will look at them as needing some great luck along with their smarts!
ln_9ther words, ideology is not a "mes~ sage" hidden within a text or system of representation, it is the very -system of representation itself and the commonsense principles that endow -the system with meaning for those who participate in it
How is this represented in television? Is it different than symbols? I am curious how viewers catch this ideology when watching a show.
his product is one version of a range of similar products, differentiated by brand name and by the tactics of a particular campaign.
Marketing can be a very helpful tool, but it can also hurt a company. Since medicine is what is being talked about in this article, I wonder if ethics is being taken into consideration when making these television ads? Do they just want to market better than their competitors or really help their viewers?
The reason children are fascinated by cartoons is not because they have been turned into television zombies but because they are under-standably engaged by the complex blend of aesthetic, narrative, visual, verbal, and ideological codes at work in them.
I have always wondered why young children are always so interested in the television. I question if this is only true with children, or are adults interested in the same things?
Many TV actors are women whose hair is light blond. On a connotative level, shades of hair color (the first level of sig-nification) are used to produce signifieds such as "glamorous," "beautiful," "youthful;' "dumb;' or "sexy" on the second level of signification.
I have seen this in many television shows, both fiction and nonfiction. People can quickly jump to the assumption that women with blonde hair are not smart or are soft and sweet. Hair color can definitely be a denotation. I have also seen in many times when characters are changing who they are, like going from a sweet, quiet blonde to a dark, mischievous brunette.
but the on-camera talking head of a known television personality is still one of the more difficult aspects of the image to fake.
Why is a television personality one of the most difficult aspects to fake? Well known television personalities are easy to connect with and understand, so wouldn't it be easier to "fake"? Maybe I am misunderstanding the content, but I believe that these people/characters have such a different personality that it is easy to distinguish them from others.
Con temporary television criticism derives much of its vocabulary from semiotics and structuralism.
Since this article is from the 1990’s, is this still true? Is contemporary television the same as it was twenty years ago? I personally feel that television isn’t the same as it was even five years, let alone twenty years ago. Is semiotics and structuralism still as relevant or is there new methods of television?
The series format has several consequences for television narratives ' some of which have been mentioned above. For one thing, because the characters must continue from week to week, suspense is diluted; the viewer knows that the hero is never in mortal danger
Is there a better way to produce television other than doing a series? I know that fans have a love/hate relationship with the suspense that comes between the episodes of a series. That is what keeps them coming back and wanting more. I just wonder if people would enjoy television as much if it wasn’t in a series format, would they keep interested or would they get bored easily?
Similarly, reporters in the field address their stories not straight to the audience at home but rather to the network anchor. The talk show hosts and the news anchor fulfill identical functions-they listen eagerly and sympathetically and ask intelligent questions. Their interest and attention serves as a model for the viewer eavesdropping in on this conversation at home.
This paragraph brings me to wonder how viewers would like it if the news anchor/talk show host and the interviewee were more engaging with the television audience. Would it interest people more or do viewers like being the “eavesdropper”? Do different types of shows take different approaches to connect with their viewers?
harmony must be restored at the end of each sitcom; detectives will solve the crime; investigative reporters will uncover a scandal, and so on.
I feel that this is continuously changing. Television shows are no longer guaranteeing a happy ending or giving the viewers what they want. There are a few modern examples I can think of; the first is Grey’s Anatomy, one of the beloved main character dies unexpectedly. Fans were absolutely devastated and it is the last thing anybody expected to happen. Another one is the last season/episode of Game of Thrones. With a huge following, the viewers were expecting the last season to be amazing, but many were let down and called for a “redo” of the season. Yes everything was solved, but the viewers were not left with the feeling of harmony. My last thought is how this ties in with reality television. It is unpredictable and doesn’t always end in harmony. For instance, this last season of the Bachelorette, the beloved Hannah B did not find her happy ending. Do people crave this more because it is less predictable? Is reality tv the new preferred television?
Television is the principal storyteller in contemporary American society.
I am curious if this is still true today? With so many different forms of media that are being brought onto market everyday, it makes me question if television is as prominent as it was years ago. The rise of social media, especially Twitter and Facebook, is a modern way that people can quickly and easily get their news and entertainment. I wonder if television will always be around, at least in our lifetime?