The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely paved a way for television shows to stray away from the "typical" and "normal" topics that all shows had. Oprah's show talked about topics that may have been uncomfortable for some people, but it was needed to talk about because not many other people did. It also de-stigmatized some content and made it less "out of the ordinary" to talk about. I think its very important that those topics are talked about because those ideas and opinions can now be shared and more people can learn.

I think with television shows evolving and recognizing certain ideas are harmful, it's giving a space for change or a space to talk about what needs to change.

This is so harmful. It's creating a narrative that isn't true and I'm glad it's starting to change even though it should be a bigger change.

If her format wasn't in the therapy format, I don't think she would be able to have the discussions she does.

This is another reason why her show is different from other talk shows. Most talk shows are just celebrity interviews or comedy, but her show brings awareness to topics that need it.

This is something that is both amazing and scary about the media industry. Everyone has their own opinions and can put those out in many different ways if they have a platform of listeners.

It shows the strength that Oprah has to talk about topics that aren't widely talked about.

This is a very harmful outcome especially if there is anyone in the audience that is a part of the LGBTQ+ community.

This is something that is hard with raising awareness on a sensitive topic because people can take it the wrong way or get the wrong idea of what is trying to be shared.

I can see why there is injustice with this because not everyone gets a chance to share their thoughts, opinions, or arguments which is frustrating. However, I don't think it is realistic for every audience member to have a say every show.

Oprah's show is impactful and important because it's a space for people to learn and share.

It's important that this is noted because it shows what America is truly like and what needs to be fixed. It doesn't sugar coat anything and raises awareness for the need to change and improve.

Some shows are just entertainment or lighthearted, but Oprah's show showed more than just happy or positive things. It showed what many other shows didn't disclose.

This sets her show off from other celebrity talk shows. A lot is circled around these topics while other celebrity shows do a lot of interviews. This led her show to have a more influential standpoint as well, and gave reliability to Oprah too.

This is similar to the comment I made earlier about "socially responsible" education. Oprah has the power of influence on her audience because of the fact that they enjoy watching her show and believe what she says.

Having "socially responsible" education is important - shows and/or the people hosting the shows have fans who listen and in turn may have a bias toward the information they share compared to other sources.

Does public utility mean how it benefits the public? If not what does it mean then?

I think all talk shows are like this, the interviews give a depth to the person being interviewed that fans otherwise might not have known.

I definitely feel like there are a lot of "copy-cat" shows still, with even more appearing. For example some "newer" celebrity talks shows: the Drew Barrymore show and Kelly Clarkson's show too.

Even with television and social media, I think press and radio still have a strong presence in outlets of how people consume media.

During the depression people were looking for jobs but they were trying to shut down radio which gave jobs. Even though there were newspaper jobs, they had to be filled quickly so adding radio jobs could have been beneficial.

This is so interesting. This whole article, I thought the changes were based on the comments from both the sources and the audience, but it was just by the industry. I wonder how the audiences felt while all of these changes were happening. Were they informed or just left wondering?

This "outlawing" seems different to how different forms of media outlets are regulated today. If something were to be banned, I notice that it's more so content than a whole outlet.

This relates to my point before this, how with the bigger stations on "pause" smaller stations would get more attention.

I think it's interesting that at first they didn't consider adding in smaller and independent stations. If the bigger companies were closed and more closely watched, I would think listeners would go to the smaller and less restricted stations.

How would limiting supply change anything?

It's very interesting to see the widespread types of broadcast segments that were featured. How were ratings different between each segment?

I feel like competition within the media industry pushes companies to put out more and better content, as well as finding new ways to put media out.

An opposing point to this was that radio was more timely in reporting the news because it was airing live rather than having to wait to go into print.

This point confuses me - was making newspapers free?

This is really interesting to group all of the aspects of newspaper to radio. Thinking about the different media outlets today (radio, newspaper, television, music, social media, etc.) and how they still manage to work even if one is more popular than the other.

I think presidents going on radio helped radio to beat the press.

Why were they afraid of this? Wouldn't the newspapers dropping commercial references bring down revenue for the newspapers?

This reminds me of how the development and growth of streaming services made cable television decrease.

Was it a common switch for newspaper writers to go into radio broadcasting?

I think it's very interesting to see a shift in media going from more news and little entertainment to almost an equal amount of news and entertainment sources

Again, connections are important. Without them, people would be sheltered from learning about others and would only be stuck in one place in growth of learning.

In one of my other classes we are learning about stories being a mirror or window. A lot of the times they're windows but there needs to be more stories that provide mirrors so that they can look at stories that represent them, not just hear stories about representation for other people.

This relates to the earlier comment about "progress" and "improvement". While broadcast companies can give out information, it is still up to each person to understand it their way and to give their own opinions.

I feel like "power" could mean a literal conduit of power but it could also mean it in a sort of authority way. Broadcast media holds a lot of society and is where people get news from all around the world. They have the power to not only give information, but to also sway people into understanding it one way or another.

This goes back to when they mentioned that connections are important in history. It can't just be facts, but opinions and deeper conversations of the facts that are presented.

Without any connections in history, there would be no growth or change. If people didn't connect with each other and share ideas, everyone would be living in clusters of ideas, rather than working together and making a change.

The fact that the words progress and improvement are both in quotation marks show that those two words can be subjective based on the person and situation. Some people react to changes differently than others so what may be progress or improvement to one person, may not be to another which is a ongoing debate throughout history.

this is a big change to how society is now, women have the ability to work themselves and all families vary in children, not always having a "set" amount of kids

The term "things were better" is constantly used throughout generations which is interesting referring back to "when times were simpler". However, I don't think this is always true when referring to media, specifically talking about the growth of technology. media is always growing so i dont think many people want to go back to the "better" times

i think its important to recognize this

i think its cool how history is the past but still influences the present and the future

what type of evidence?

kind of confusing, i wish this term was explained differently

this is interesting, its not something you think about often but it does make sense

what are the operations? is there a wide spread one or individual ones

why? what are the reasons?

builds on the fact that history isn't just one piece of information or one-sided, there's a depth to everything

i wish America had more cultural programs that were easy to access

makes me think that if no media was ever recorded, would we know anything about the past?

this is an interesting take, would not have thought about that

the perspective from the 1950s to the 2020s has changed a lot

i cant help but wonder how different society would be if we couldn't pick the media we consumed

it will be interesting to see how different types of "power" influence and change different parts of media

i think it's interesting to see other perspectives from people with different demographic backgrounds

this point is important because the growth of media is never just a technology growth, but a societal one as well as personal ones

supporting fact for above comment

this could explain a bit why he didn't recognize his mistakes before

i think it's interesting that Henry Wilcox has to be told that his actions are hurting others