This caught my eye because this democratic culture has done so well, it's actually surpassed what cable television could even offer it. While public access is a great resource for independent content creators, the internet and modern technologies have afforded much more opportunities for success. There are certain aspects to this that make me believe that audiences always will follow this democratic culture, if it can satiate their entertainment needs.

It's interesting that the reading touched on this possibility because the death of broadcast television seems to be a result of tech manufactures inaction in supporting the evolution of the medium. Currently, broadcasters are preparing to transition into ATSC 3.0 which would give viewers access to over-the-air television with 4k quality and added feature. The problem is that many television manufacturers are saying they would build units with the tuners needed to receive the signal. Personally, I feel like this exposes streamers' fear of losing viewers to a completely subscription-free medium.

I am pretty sure everyone has stumbled upon the thought that the average cable viewer usually only watches 3-5 channels. I remember being a kid thinking this, and it led me to considered what the cost would be if I could only pay for the channels I watched; since there were roughly 80 channels, the comparative cost would change from $50 to $4. While we never got to this level of cable pricing, this is basically what steaming services are trying to facilitate today.

While this may be true, there was one aspect of early cable television that was completely different than anything broadcast television was offering at the time; This being "interstitial programming," which was something that made cable television more appealing than traditional television. This was because it added a layer of the humanity that TV could offer. It was almost like you were watching TV with someone else. While this sounds crazy, I would like to point out that, after this type of programming was phased out, audiences gravitated to sources of similar emulation; today this would be equivalent to watching a twitch streamer, or a YouTube movie watch-along.

A huge element left out of this information was Turner's creation of Cartoon Network, based of the acquisition of the Hanna Barbera video library. While this may have been a small part of his career, I believe this achievement is what most of my generation would appreciate him for. With that, he was also know because of he owned World Championship Wrestling during the height of what was know as the "Monday Night Wars" in professional wrestling.

This feels like something that is on the cusp of changing. With corporations like Viacom fighting for digital supremacy through services such as their Paramount+ and Pluto TV, traditional television is becoming extremely antiquated. By giving the audience what they want, Viacom has successfully claimed the eyes of many audience members. Something that will continue to happen until U.S. companies adapt to the needs of modern audiences' interests.

I think when looking back at these series, we need to view them as a best case scenario of how people of the era could have potentially lived, while keeping in mind that it was probably not true. Mostly because these families were created to promote something. That something being things like the American way of life or everyday home essentials. With this in mind, it's the audience's job to accept it or not. I believe that this is why a series like "Roseanne" decorated their set with older appliances, because audiences didn't want to stare at things they potentially couldn't afford.

This proves a lot; Especially if you have ever heard the advice "know your audience." With this in mind, it makes total sense that this era of content focused on being appealing to this demographic. In turn, once the TVs used by suburban homeowners ended up in second-hand stores, the audience immediately changed. Now content had to fit the likes of lower income Americans, which is why series like "All in the Family," and "Married with Children" exist. While the premiere episodes of these series were fairly far a part, there conception and success was built on the fact that the audience's appetite for entertainment was changing from the "Strong families" image.

The way this was being programmed allows history to expose the level of control that television was being utilized to gain. Mainly, there were those in power trying to send the message that American consisted primarily of "Strong families," which was probably less true that we'd like to believe; I personally find it hard to accept that a majority of Americans were able to fully bounce back from the great depression by the 1950's. On top of that, someone probably had the idea to use television as a platform for created-role models to inspire those who needed inspiration to guide them.

This is something quite interesting when you consider this is a fairly new development in history. While I don't have the data, I often hear many people from the generations before mine talk about how the industrial sector has changed so much over their lifespans. My own father recently commented on how realtors are converting old warehouses to apartments, which is leaving little space for factories to create gainful employment opportunities. With that, if another country overtakes the U.S. in this sector, what will the U.S. be left with?

This made me think of the quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, "History is written by the victors." While this quote is too simple to be outright true, I think we all can understand the sentiment behind it; That History is usually viewed in a way that favors those in power. For example, if the Jan. 6th insurrectionists were successful, then those anti-American criminals would have been declared national heroes by Donald Trump. Thankfully, democracy prevailed that day and now those insurrectionists will go down in history as a bunch of clowns, face paint included.

This is true when you start to consider how being knowledgeable on a given topic could lead to you being hired over another individual who just didn't know the same amount as you. To the employer, I'd have to imagine that the more you know, the more you probably care. Something which is probably harder to come by in a generation with the shortest attention span in history.

The key in situations like this is to see how conflicting interpretations might benefit certain political interests, and how can the historical data be swayed to fit either political agenda. Once it becomes apparent that there might be blatant human manipulation of facts, there should be repercussions that meet the level of malicious intent that the was associated with said agenda.

Imagine you were a character of "Game of Thrones" who showed up in the seventh season, knowing nothing about what led the story to that point. You would be Ed Sheeran in the most pointless cameo of all time. Jokes aside, if you're going to fight for something, you should at least know what you're fighting for; Otherwise, you're fighting for nothing.

I feel like this is a major component of "The Hero's Journey," as it helps the audience put themselves in the position of hero. As an audience, we can often see the potential mistakes a hero might make, before they even reach the moment of opportunity. As we learn these patterns, we can learn to better navigate the obstacles in our own paths, and the paths of systems much great than us.

Sometimes, I think about how films based on historical events are a great way of taking in history but it is also important to remember that the narrative of the films are not held to the same standards as historical contexts. An example of this can be seen in the film/book "The Blind Side." The film and book put the privileged white family in the role of saviors, when in reality they were capitalizing on the suffering of a young black man. With this all in mind, it is important to point out how film narrative seeks to gain support and appreciation for it's characters, but only to fit the purposes of the story.

As someone who grew up right at the beginning of widely available internet connectivity, I have witnessed something like this first hand. Before we all could search google from the palm of our hand, you would see so many people pass off incorrect information because it made they appear intelligent or knowledgeable. This led many to turn to the internet in an attempt to fact check the information we were being given. The instance I recall involves a disagreement with a friend, where he was demanding that he knew a fact, which I had direct information that proved him wrong. While we did not have smart phones, I later found the information on my home computer and printed it out to show him my evidence. While it was not directly important for me to be seen as right, I was worried because of our friends that actually almost believed him. Without the internet, and direct access to specific information, he would have fooled these people into believing something that was completely wrong. It would be great to stay this type of mindset no longer exists but thankfully we are learning how to present information in a more credible manner.

This is something that stood out to me because I used to live right next to I-95 in the Bridesburg section of Philadelphia. While that is not interesting on it's own, I specifically lived in the same area an old ammunition and weapons depot from the Civil War, known as the Arsenal; Where my high school was also located. With that in mind, I would often think about how the building of I-95 was designed around this historical site; Where family homes were knocked down to build the highway and protect the "History." In turn, I don't think historians would have wanted to see these houses demolished but, regardless, that impact could still be felt. Especially, when today the arsenal is used more for capitalist gains rather than historical purposes. I know I went a round-a-bout way to get here, but I believe historians understand where they stand in-time; Even if they wanted to, they can't go back and change the past, but they can still use it.

This is very true when you consider how individuals pursue new information that aligns to their personal interests. A good example of this is the history of sports, which many people who are not into sports would probably not consider historical. Regardless, these moments in sports history are as important as any other moments in history because they are all a part of what led us to today.