The idea that a TV programs can be treated like a book or album, hold significant value to viewers was a huge development. It’s not is just watching anymore but also collecting, comparing, and studying older shows, which now changes the way people experience TV but also influence how its made.

This explains how and why watching a show live is different from watching recorded content. For example, sports fans now can watch highlights on games YouTube, but instead of live games, the experience lacks the immediate excitement but allows flexibility and repeated access.

Both news and soap operas use the same structure to hold the audience’s attention, relying on repeated characters, ongoing situations, and suspense. Today, this is even more obvious with streaming services and 24 hour news, with constant updates. It makes me think that the way a story is presented can be just as important as the story itself.

This makes sense because TV scenes often feel like their own little worlds, even when parts of a bigger story. I notice it in shows today too, for example Stranger Things. Each scene or episode ends clearly, but you don’t always feel the full story until later. It feels different from old movies where everything connects tightly.

TV tends to blurs fiction and non-fiction a lot. The news sometimes feels dramatic, and reality shows clearly script “real life.” Now with streaming, true crime shows feel like dramas, so the difference is more about content rather than storytelling.

I agree with this statement and it just goes to show how flow depends on us, the users. Platforms like TikTok or YouTube only exist because we create content, watch, and interact, making us both the source and the audience, which blurs the line between entertainment and participation.

This shows that today’s flow isn’t just passive like TV. Social media targets us personally, demanding responses. It makes us part of the system, blurring boundaries between consumption and participation, like pressuring people to get the newest phone or app, which challenges how freely we choose where to focus our attention online.

It’s true that once we start watching, it’s hard to stop. This happens with social media too, where feeds and algorithm keep us scrolling. It makes you wonder how much we’re actually choosing what to watch, and how much we’re just getting pulled along by a flow that’s designed to keep us glued to the screen.

Williams emphasizes that much of TV’s impact comes from viewers simply sitting and watching. Flow isn’t just a theory, it’s created by actual habits, showing how attention and cultural experience are shaped through continuous viewing.

Williams argues that television’s “real programme” isn’t any single show but the sequence itself. This changes how we think and view TV, since what matters isn’t just each show on its own, but how all the shows, ads, and promos flow together to create the overall experience.

This shows that even though Murphy Brown updates the Mary Tyler Moore formula, it still fits the same sitcom genre. It makes me think that genres can limit how we see a show, because labeling it a sitcom can make people overlook how it actually comments on social issues.

This makes me think about how easy it is to assume that all shows in a genre are the same, but I don’t agree. For example the movie Sinners is generally labeled as horror, but it also represents a metaphor for racism. It feels unfair to simply call it a horror movie when it explores such deep rooted controversial topics.

When it comes to productions, directors and actors often communicate to decide how certain feelings and scenes should be portrayed, but who interprets it (different social, religious, or racial groups) can view them differently, which shows that genre isn’t always fixed but shaped by the audience's perspective.

From a viewer’s standpoint, I agree with some critics that genres can be limiting. For example, Brooklyn Nine-Nine fits into the police procedural category because of its crime solving plots, but is also considered a sitcom because of the humor.

It’s interesting that shows get stuck in categories and are considered to not be unique, but the actual aspects of a production, which including the writing, acting, and directing, can be far more unique than other productions in that genre.

This reminds me of how most movies/shows are/were based on fictional stories, and how these films often inspire(d) new movies or rewrites, just like how earlier TV comedy borrowed from older forms of humor from the radio.

Who decided these people were affiliated with communist views or influence, despite it being only alleged?

This makes me think about modern platforms like social media or AI, which also is used control what users see. Today’s platforms are far more developed can use algorithms to decide in real time what content reaches who. This means they can influence opinions, trends, and behaviors.

It's interesting to see how TV was once considered essential for national unity, but now many news stations tend to be more in support of different political parties. Which often leads to information being heavily censored, misleading information, and disunity.

This statistic seems realistic because when most people go to bars it’s to relieve stress or have fun, and the news isn’t typically considered a source of entertainment compared to sports.

Back then, TV was promoted as a way to help control “problem” kids, but today, although the internet isn’t exactly TV, things like online videos are a more developed version of television and are often blamed for influencing children’s juvenile behavior. It’s interesting how views on television have somewhat changed since then.

As technology has developed, access to television has become easier to access on multiple devices, whereas back then homes usually aimed to have just a single TV that everyone shared.

Compared to the 1950s, women’s roles no longer follow the same standards. Today it’s less common to expect women to only focus on the home and family. Single mothers or working women are more normalized and in some areas even encouraged.

It’s interesting because although there was entertainment before the television, it’s surprising how magazines served as a vital source for entertainment back then, where as we don’t really use them as much in this day.

Watching TV is one of the few times my family will come together and spend time as a group, similar to families in the 1950s. We also have to unanimously agree on what to watch so everyone is satisfied and not complaining. This is similar to how families back then had to make sure TV was controlled to keep everyone happy and "harmonized".