I agree with this statement. The whole purpose of America is that we are supposed to be a melting pot of experiences, voices, and different kinds of people. The American Dream should not have standards or prerequisites for what qualifies. Every person's narrative is different, and that should be what is celebrated. Diversity is key, and claiming certain values or trying to meet standards should not measure what is true and what is real.

As the reading states, this is very contradictory to the whole purpose of trying to provide therapy and helping people. By only explaining and not questioning, people are being set up to fail and not do the "real" work. The entire expertise only being of a certain demographic also reinforces that people want to constantly assimilate, rather than critique and learn from new perspectives. This also alienates a large portion of the audience.

I have personally always found the "American Dream" to be misleading and difficult to understand. A lot of the "do it yourself" mindset is very difficult for many people. My paternal great grandparents immigrated to America in the 20th century from Europe to escape religious persecution but had a very hard time adjusting from the trauma they endured back in Europe. The affect and generational trauma that came from it has even affected me to a certain extent, and I find that "The American Dream" they were searching for to be a lot trickier of a concept than what is advertised to people.

I really appreciate the author calling out these appeals and how its perceived vs how it really is. A lot of these misleading ideologies can actually do more harm than good to someone who is seeking or needing therapy. Although the do it yourself approach looks easy, it is actually much harder to do than working with someone or having others holding you accountable.

I always found it interesting that the Oprah Winfrey show had these kinds of formats and frameworks mixed into the show. The author explaining the format being a "confessional mode that typifies some kinds of therapy" is eye opening because the viewer is supposed to think the people participating will feel better once this is over. In hindsight, thats not really how that works, and the sad reality is that whatever their addressing will likely persist after the production is wrapped.

I honestly had no idea Canada did this before the United States, but I guess that makes sense. A lot of the time, the U.S. does tend to fall behind and do what other countries do, at least in media and entertainment. It's shocking to see the Canadian numbers still, and the stats behind it.

These prices are honestly so cheap compared to today, but I guess thats without taking inflation into consideration. I do find it interesting though that many people used to be okay with paying for subscriptions and now refuse to do that. My parents have Verizon TV but are always shocked by how much money it is and keep talking about getting rid of it. Maybe this is because the companies charge a ton now, on top of other streaming platform costs.

I knew Nickelodeon dated back this much, but I had no idea about their commercial and subscription history. It makes sense they would charge because they deemed themselves socially valuable and also was one of the only children channels around at the time. Now, they have commercials, and is not a part of basic cable.

This is very different than how most people get their television today. Back then, everyone had basic cable package and paid a fee. If you wanted more channels, you had to pay. Now, many people have gotten rid of their packages and have subscriptions to streaming platforms, and get all their entertainment that way. It's interesting to see how far technology has come.

I find this interesting because my grandfather owned multiple record stores for most of his working adult life. He finally closed his businesses down in the 1990's when more and more chain stores opened and he lost all his customers to places like Walmart and Target. He also sold electrical appliances at his stores, so this statement highlighted is very true and has personal meaning to me and my family.

This makes a lot of sense actually. Only focusing on whats popular and socially "normal" would create a ton of issues within viewer demographics. It's hard to appeal to everyone, but only focusing on one specific thing will alienate more people than it will appeal to. Turow arguing and writing about exploited social divisions is vast reading, but deeply important, and still relevant today. The strategies used by various brands and advertisers do lead to discrimination. Although progress has been made, these points are still very much relevant to media consumer's in the present day.

This section is hard to read, but once I broke it down into smaller chunks, I understood it more and more. It's no secret that Disney's empire has been on top for a long time, and that it would only grow throughout the years and as media developed. In 2023, we've seen this firsthand. But Kunz writing about the diversity of these empires and the affect mergers may have or not have on it raises many points. His quote about a rise in numbers not having a correlation to diversity is such a strong and powerful message to people in the media industry. This then brought in more ideologies about ownership and how that affects others in certain demographics. This all ties into various deregulation acts.

The media becoming more mainstream and prominent also starts affecting everything in it's path at this point in time. If everyone has media and is using it, its going to have an affect on everyone in a similar way. Connecting politics and the role of the government to media and television was only a matter of time in my opinion. Reagan and Fowler having such a profound take on this would also only further fuel the conversation. I also imagine the pushback and differing opinions would come in strong too, especially from the younger generations who grew up in the world where media wasn't always good.

I find it so interesting that it was the 1980's that media and television in particular was finally started to shift away from being as something that served the public good. In the early days, the radio and television was seen as a way to educate the public and bring families together in a home. I remember learning about FDR's radio broadcasts in high school and how that was many people's luxuries and way of connecting with the president through the Great Depression. I have also heard stories from my grandparents about having a radio and how exciting that was at the time. Now, so much content it seen as not a public good, and it's interesting that it dates back to the 1980s. I suppose thats when media became more mainstream, if one can conclude that.

I remember reading and learning about this in a Media and Children class I took. During the 1980's and 1990's, television as a whole took a big jump into multiple channels and made many other dramatic changes. The creation of the VCR and other recording devices also affected what was being watched live and what media was being consumed in one's home. Network television also came to an end during this time period, which affected a ton of various networks, shows, and channels. Advertisement styles shifted as well, and more people at this point in time had televisions in their homes. It finally led to the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which led to many more dramatic changes into the twenty first century.