While this section may feel 'dumbed down' I found it extremely helpful to have this article written in language that I didnt feel I had to decode. This type of language is what gets the author to connect to their readers, an easy to follow narrative.

How does this play into the concept of representation via token characters or news stories?

I think this is a really great perspective on how art, especially abstract, can be received in so many different ways. These "most private experiences" that the art showcases may be different for each person.

As someone that frequently watches reality shows, typically game shows, I can confirm that it is almost a one and done kind of viewing system. Once you know who wins there is no need to go back and watch it again, rather we wait for the next show instead. This is likely why networks stagger their seasons of differing shows, such as CBS with Survivor, The Amazing Race, and Big Brother.

Does this history present a fear in modern day media employees that 'history will repeat itself' and they could be let go if their position is replaceable?

This relates to what we learned in a few of our previous articles regarding Neilson Marketing Research!

Why were they not afforded this media representation before? Was it just believed to be unprofitable?

While this may be true, it may only seem this way to far removed viewers because of their lack of belief in these systems as they have never experienced them first hand.

This sensation almost allows viewers to recognize their privilege in their own community to feel so separate from these people.

This part confused me initially but after reading the discussion posts I better understood that the author meant "we" as a collective audience that can often feel tied in to the shows we watch more easily than we can what we see at the cinema.

Why was this not embraced before by the military? Was it the dangers presented or was it unwillingness by the camera crews to put themselves in those dangerous situations?

Why is it that this was the time that got the most coverage? Was it because it was safest to report it or because it was what people most wanted to see?

The public is the one that controls what media is consumed and what is discussed throughout society- if we do not address the change we want to see then it will not be made by anyone else

Unfortunately this is still true- which is why it is part of the reason that we face so many issues with refugees and immigrants because we are known to be protected and because we feel so in our own bubble, we act entitled.

This reminded me a lot of modern day society and how currently we turn a blind eye to our problems and pretend that nothing is wrong when we arent experiencing it first hand.

I didn't really understand this sentence beyond his connection that all of the points of discovery are often connected and that ethnographers must examine a whole system to get a proper view, yet often times that is not possible.

We don't often hear about where stories like these come from or how closely they can truly be tied to the cases and stories they originate from. I think it's unfortunate that this is the first im hearing of the truthfulness of the story and the accuracy of the journalist's tale.

Exposes the cities for the secrets they hide and the history they hold. Growing up in Chicago, I am familiar with a tainted educational system as well as justice system. It was refreshing to have a show accurately portray these concepts rather than sugar coating them.

I hadn't considered the latter view of this perspective. That this show could be seen as an apology for the current oppressive systems in place. Fascinating take.

Something that I'm sure was refreshing for black audiences to see during this time period.

Very interesting analogy- made me consider how we categorize our thoughts especially when we take in so much content each day in our current technology driven society.

This is something that we see that pertains to other shows we've seen that have proper representation of women in power like Big Little Lies. It is not the language of the script but the ability for the audience to see themselves in the characters that allows them to connect.

I'm curious how this theory would be tested. While we know that the Cosby Show was one of many that gave white families some insight to how normal and similar a black family can be, how would one test that this series made that progressive changes? Reviews? Ratings?

This show normalized the black middle class experience and showed viewers that they can relate to these families and that not every family lives by the stereotype that we are presented with through news and society

This section reminded me a lot of the reasoning that people do with themselves when they are trying to critically analyze a show or movie. For example, I have also definitely considered some of the factors of "Well this is a regular actor on this show, clearly he isnt dead" and tried to reason through all of the possible twists and turns of a show. I imagine that these 3 points of view would help contribute to the writing and considerations being made when deciding what will happen in each episode given an audience perspective.

While this may have been true at the time that this article was published, this statement seems slightly outdated. Smartphones and apps seem to be the principle storytellers in our current decade. But it is important to note that television is still a prime option for someone that is looking for news or stories, which therefore still makes the statement true, just outdated.