TV representations managed to both uphold traditional sexual dynamics, gender representations, and heterosexism and to incorporate new feminist and gay rights‐informed discourses and sexual politics.
This is also very unfortunate that television did the same to women. How different it would be if women were in charge and making programs for millions of people to see back then. It's really sad to know how normalized sexism and sexual culture was back then.
News reports tended to focus on themes of “drugs, homicide, and crime,” while entertainment programming gave viewers a utopian world of black success that confirmed the American Dream and presented black characters inhabiting familiar TV genres (like the sitcom) likely to be comfortable to white viewers (Gray 1994: 185). Gray posits that these competing sets of images “are ideological because they are mutually reinforcing and their fractured and selective status allows them to be continuously renewed and secured …
It is really unfortunate to read that television helped to secure stereotypes and marginalize those of racial inequality. Television was such an influential medium before social media, it could have been used for a lot of good in terms of the civil rights movement, and overall helping to spread awareness about racial inequality and racism in general.
As Curtin points out, however, the networks’ forays into documentary and enhanced news and “talking head” programming were, largely, unsuccessful in the ratings arena if not with regulators and critics.
This reflects back on one of my other points on where I asked how these companies stayed popular for so long. I thought it was because they expanded into more genres of television, which they did with documentary news. However, as Michael Curtin says, these programs were largely unsuccessful.
diversity of voices essential for democratic functionin
This is an important argument as the civil rights movement was starting up around this time. I'm sure there was little to no representation or diverse voices during this period of television. I'm glad to see that there were people argued that society should make this new medium include all types of voices, and not let it become dull and critically unaware.
hrough the 1960s broad public debate raged over questions of the medium and the “national purpose.”
This is really interesting to me because it reminds of me of Newton Minnow saying that television is a vast wasteland and there is really nothing to learn from it. It's interesting to see that there was a large debate supporting his argument. This debate is rarely presented about television today, however, the conversation has moved to smartphones and if they are doing more harm than good, especially to young kids.
The Big Three’s control over production, distribution, and exhibition, and the networks’ status as the primary cultural locus for the imagination of the postwar nation – in ways both contentious and consensual – was not fundamentally challenged until the early 1980s
This is super interesting information to learn because all of these 3 broadcasting channels still dominate the industry today. I wonder how these television stations were able to stay on top for over 70 years. Most likely because the expanded into multiple genres of television, like children shows, news shows, and sitcoms.
The long association between radio and propaganda had begun.
Radios during wars are so crucial for government propaganda. With this new technology, governments were able to broadcast their propaganda through radios to captive audiences.
as crossing the Channel in a thick fog and was trying to obtain weather and landing reports from Lympne. All he could hear was a musical evening.’
This makes me think a lot more about my points before. The radio advances came orignally from war efforts, but progressed into public use and gained traction with a mass audience. However, important uses of the radio, such as military and government use, were being interfered by the public use of the radio (music braodcasting). This is so interesting to read about and learn how they worked through this issue.
He went on to describe the potential radio audience, a large number of people all receiving simultaneously from a single transmitter.
Similar to my first point, its crazy to me that this idea was so obscure to people in that time, but such a simple idea today. The way technology significantly evolved out of war times and expanded into public use is very interesting to me.
he service was neither a technical nor a business success: after twelve years of activity sounds were still distorted and there were only 600 subscribers. In its restricted way, however, it pointed to the existence not only of a potential demand for diffused entertainment but of a wide range of available ‘programmes’.
This service, while not successful, definitely opened up ideas for new ways for audiences to listen and to expand the use of radios for music listening. People discovered the ability to listen to a wide range of media and wanted more of it.
‘You are about to become the first woman ever to sing for people and continents invisible.’
Being born into a world where technology like this had been established for decades, it is so interesting to read about the people using it for the first time. I can only imagine the feeling that people had hearing singing on the radio for the first time. Its almost unfathomable to me because I remember singing songs on the radio with my mom when I was only a few years old. I wonder if people were scared of this new advancement on the radio, just like how some people today are afraid of new technology like AI.
History provides data about the emergence of national institutions, problems, and value
I know many people, who come from different parts of the country, who had a totally different curriculum than me when it came to history. This really does shape a person's morals and values, even though it does seem so small in the aspect of things. (Gun violence issues, racism, etc).
ordinary people who provide lessons in courage, diligence, or constructive protest.
There are so many "ordinary people" and names who made a difference in the world that many don't know about because of their lack of desire to study history.
History also provides a terrain for moral contemplation. Studying the stories of individuals and situations in the past allows a student of history to test his or her own moral sense, to hone it against some of the real complexities individuals have faced in difficult settings.
I think is a really important aspect about studying history and historical events. There are a lot of people throughout time that you can look up to in the moral sense. However, there are also a lot of really bad people throughout history that you can use to "test your morals." I think a lot of these bad people can serve as an example of how we don't want our society to treat people.
History well told is beautiful.
I think this is part of the reason why people are not interested in studying history. It can be boring depending on how it is told. I was lucky to have really expressive and engaging history teachers in my life, which made me really enjoy learning about history.
How can we understand genius, the influence of technological innovation, or the role that beliefs play in shaping family life, if we don't use what we know about experiences in the past?
I think this line is so simple but very true. People often look over how much information they use from past experiences, whether it be their own or someone in history, to help them make decisions today.
History is in fact very useful, actually indispensable,
I agree with this comment strongly. I feel like nowadays no one cares to learn about history or thinks everything in the past is pretty unimportant to what society is doing today. However, we can learn so much from history; what we should and shouldn't do to make ourselves and our world a better place. I think its really important to study history and personally I enjoy it a lot.