I have never heard this term before but I really enjoy it. It's true... There's a McDonald's anywhere you go.

I can see what they mean here. What good is a public sphere if the public is not getting involved?

Sometimes I think it's absurd that people record these bad situations rather than jumping in or something but at the same time these videos end up having so much power when they're spread.

Interesting way to put it. It gives "a colonizer's meaning to the colonized." It's like the "first" world is creating the problem and at the same time defining what it means to the world.

This is a great way to think about it. Reality as a concept exists, but there is no way to define what it really is. It's personal to everyone no matter what.

I think this is solid advice for real life too. Even if you feel like you are in a lower position, you should speak up for yourself and be confident that people will listen.

I wonder if there is some sort of balance between hiring low-cost talent and making pretty good money vs. hiring high-cost talent but making much better money.

It's always sad to see that the first people to go are the ones who are working for the least money.

I said this in the other reading for this week too, but true reality TV would not be entertaining without some sort of staging or acting. They still need to bring in revenue somehow.

I had a family friend who was on MTV's "Are You The One?" When I watch that show I notice that everyone is young, fit, outgoing, and basically look like models. I think this fits what MTV advertises itself as especially in terms of this being a dating competition show.

It's sad to see this sort of exploitation. Especially as under represented groups if all we see is TLC's representation of them, it doesn't give the viewer a fair look into who they really are. The shows also always feel a bit shallow and lack a lot of what can humanize these groups.

I think it's always important to remember that no reality TV is truly reality. It would be so boring if some of the drama wasn't staged or encouraged.

Maybe it's an 'ignorance is bliss situation'? I feel like I want to know when we are in danger.

It it unnerving knowing that the media does not have the people's best interest in mind and that they still treat it like a profit maker. I do feel like many big stories don't get covered if they are not useful in pushing a companies agenda.

This is so sad. I think it's the most important to get these types of stories out because they make us aware of what is actually happening in the world. If we ignore it then we are only making the problem bigger.

I guess I am fortunate enough to have never really considered the media as a warning system for war. It's scary to think about this and as a journalism major it makes it even more something to think about.

I feel like it's a little scary that news is used as a profit machine, because then there is some sort of bias from whoever is broadcasting it. If they have competition in sharing current events then they need something to pull viewers and I feel like that could get disingenuous.

I think people have this impression that when a brand pushes its agenda that it is usually negative. I think it does not always need to be rejected and can even be more insightful and thought provoking.

I get this. People seem to think they don't have a voice in particular subjects and that things just are the way they are. This can be a really toxic mindset.

Sometimes I feel as though even though you know something bad is happening, it's hard to fully understand unless you were to experience it. I think that for a lot of current issues people aren't as worried as they should be.

I wanted to highlight "blank irony" but I couldn't. I like this term, and it really helped me understand what he means with the term pastiche. It's like a parody without purpose.

I'm confused by the weird type of gatekeeping that this chapter has. I can't tell if he means Andy Warhol's work means nothing in a post modernist lens or in general. Either way, I think it's unfair to say that Warhol's work is inherently worse than Van Gogh's, as it is all subjective anyway.

Every new generation kind of rejects the culture of the last one in the way that it is "old" or "dated." In the sense of modernism or post-modernism, what would we call it now?

When I think of something modern I think: clean, sleek, neutral, designs and architecture. Then, it seems like post modern is a rejection of the cleanliness and organization of modernity and leaning toward avant-garde or outlandish kitsch art and design.

I think the Weisman is a good example of this. The decoration is less functional and more of an aesthetic statement.

I think it had been mentioned in the module that this is viewed as one of the most realistic crime show on television. It makes a lot of sense to have received that title, since so much work was put into understanding the lives and problems surrounded the two communities that the show surrounds.

Of course, no one could ever have enough knowledge to understand the world as a whole.

Is this not safe to assume anyway? I don't think anything really exists without a larger influence existing above it.

I can imagine that this took so much work and dedication and it's admirable that someone was willing to put in that effort to give light to these kinds of issues.

I think TV is good in handling complexities in stories. The visual aspect of television makes it easy to take in and also can highlight subtleties that may be harder to write into a story without being obvious about trying to make a point.

I think this is really true. The news never seems like its within your reach. You never think you will be involved with something that will end up on the news.

Maybe it's easier to criticize fiction because there are less consequences dealing with real life. However, I think this is really interesting and a good point.

TV has a tendency to dramatize events and situations for entertainment purposes, so it makes sense that while you are watching that it can make you believe that these things are normal - since it is normal everywhere on TV.

I feel like there are so many subtleties in television that we are constantly taking in that we don't even realize. It's so easy to just sit in front of the screen and zone out, but even then you are still taking in what you are seeing and connecting to it.

I was considering this while I was watching it. Perhaps, talking about issues could be an important aspect of a show, but it also takes away the universalness of it and would reduce the audience to only those who can relate.

The subtlety or ease of putting black figures into the show is nice because it opens the audiences mind whether they think it is or not. Just by mentioning them makes the audience consider them more.

I feel like a lot of TV shows are better about racial stereotypes these days, so it's interesting to think about the progression of that stemming from this show.

I think this is true. Based on the pilot episode we saw, there weren't any big stereotypes I noticed that were race related. This is probably why it reached so many people, because they were just a family like everyone else.

This makes me wonder if there are any TV shows featuring lower class or working class families that still don't just focus on their work or economic life and rather just their personal relationships.

I like the phrasing of the show as "airbrushed." i think a lot of sitcom type television could be considered airbrushed - things always seem to be pretty nice.

I definitely picked up on this vibe while I was watching the show. It wasn't about race or trying to prove anything, it was just normal, everyday life.

It's still important and interesting to think about how recent this is in the scope of things.

The way that mom's and daughters are pitted against each other for men's approval is shocking.

Two TV shows got banned in my whole life at home: Ed, Edd n Eddy and Jersey Shore. My parents thought they were bad influences, and also told me to "shut that crap off."

I like the movie Legally Blonde, but it always bugged me how she was so smart, but still almost ruined her case because she had to keep a promise (like a girl would do?). And the way that she won was because she knew that the girl had her perm done. She was smart enough to get into Harvard Law School, but they didn't actually show her being smart or being able to use it when they were in court. It just seems so backhanded and sexist, even though they were showing her in a powerful position.

This made me think about something kind of unrelated, but I've noticed how female celebrities can't be caught dead wearing the same dress to any two events... but men, pretty much every single time, wear the same black suit. Why do people care so much that the women have to get something new every time they attend something but men get to wear the same thing over and over?

It blows my mind that women exist that aren't happy to see other women succeed and go to school or do well in their jobs.

I didn't realize the Spice Girls were vocal advocates of feminism. It's cool that a mainstream group used their platform for something serious like this while maintaining their girly, poppy, and fun image.

I think many channels choose to follow this model. I always noticed how when I was younger and would be home from school, the TV shows that played were different than what I normally watched. For example, Nickelodeon would play TV shows for little kids between the morning and afternoon, and when I'd get home from school around 3, Spongebob or Fairly Odd Parents would come on. Then late at night, the more adultish TV shows came on. This catered to little kids who stayed home during the daytime, then to kids who would come home from school, then teenagers or adults when the kids went to bed.

You'd think this would always be the case - wanting to maximize your audience. I wonder how targeted shows do compared to widely generalized shows. If people tend to like the show that caters them, or the generic show that caters many people.

I wonder which had more benefit for the companies - CBS and NBC's advertisers paying for production or ABC's experiments with the genre.

What does it mean, then, to be the feminine side of television but not feminist?

I know this writing is old, but I'm still really surprised to see how sexist it all is. It's crazy to think about how different the world is now compared to our parent's or grandparent's times.

I'm wondering if soap operas were very different in the 50's than they are now. I don't really consider (from what I've seen) to be a good representation to every day life at all.

As much as we want our leisure time to be completely separated from our work life, there's always some sort of routine that makes it.. not leisure. A lot of times when I have free time I'm still thinking about my next responsibility.

This reminds me of those new "smart fridges" that have a screen installed on the front. The integration of the TV into the kitchen seems like a repeatedly tried idea.

Intending to highlight from "nothing" to "do." It seems like he really has a problem with presentation of life on TV. That everything is so fake and scripted, it could not come close to representing real life.

It really is that predictable sometimes. This makes me think of how every crime show pretty much follows the same story line. I feel like they just recycle the same story over and over with different people.

So they want to conform the viewer by showing them images and ideals of what is "normal"?

I wonder what he considered a drama for children. I don't think I would consider many children's shows "dramas" but at the same time I'm not sure where they fit at all other than in their own category.

I'm trying to understand this in the context of TV and this passage but I don't think I'm following, can anyone reword this to how they interpret it?

I'm trying to understand this in the context of TV and this passage but I don't think I'm following, can anyone reword this to how they interpret it?

It sounds like he is describing a sitcom. Its interesting that he used the word funnies.

Does what we watch on television only further our own personal stereotypes of ourselves? When we watch TV and choose which channel we want to watch, would it be considered as individualizing ourselves? Or can we attribute our TV preferences to our personality?

Here, I believe he is talking about the TV as a medium for propaganda. The phrasing of "duplicate world" stuck out to me, as TV really is a creation of what we want to see.

Radio, as opposed to TV or movies is much more open to interpretation. Even if they describe visuals, what you perceive will be different than what someone else perceives.

I wonder what would happen if somehow they hadn't taken control of the air yet and decided to this year, for example. Would people care or would it still be not much of a worry for most?

I was just talking to my dad about this TV show and what made it so popular. He said said it was the type of show you "wouldn't want to miss" and it was something that so many people looked forward to when it aired. Cable can take away this feeling of everyone tuning in to see these brand new artists and performers all at once. In this digital age, it seems like artists always have a following before they make it to TV.

Leaders use these mediums as ways of talking to the people, or their "audience." Watching influential people make addresses on TV almost makes it seem like they are talking to you directly.

The more freedom people had to broadcast their shows, the less thoughtful they became? Or it just became more of a common technology so it wasn't as special anymore?

I feel that this still stands true (of course not for Disney himself). A while ago, the science museum had a "Science of Pixar" exhibit that - now that I'm thinking of it - seemed to do the same thing. So many workers go into each of those hugely popular movies and I'm sure the money does not get allocated evenly.

I had no idea that Fantasia did poorly, it seems like nowadays everybody knows what it is. I even remember watching it in school.

I wonder if this idea was considered radical at the time. I'm surprised that there weren't many people working towards normalizing series on TV all at once.

Disney was truly a multifaceted person when it came to his production and ideas. We can see the way that he changed the world so much in the fact that he is a household name so many years later.

I'm glad they said this. There's a huge difference between live TV and a live broadcast.

I find that TV has a lot of critics, often saying which TV show is the best. But of course, we all have our favorites. It's easy to judge someone on their taste or favorite TV show. The genre or "style," as they say here, can say a lot about a person.

I've never really felt the illusion of watching something as taking place while I'm watching it. But I find buffering and glitching to be so annoying - I think it comes hand in hand with the idea of instant validation that so many people our age feel.

Literally, yes, it's right in front of us. But I think it means we are seeing something happening that's not actually there in range of our eyes.

Does this remain true today? What aspects of it are they comparing to the cinema?

It's interesting to think that the modern TV didn't have its own sort of debut; that it was an evolution and morphing of technology that had existed before it, and it kind of started from the beginning of electricity.

Here, he means that the technology is a symptom of how culture and modernity is already shaping itself. As opposed to it itself shaping the modern culture.

I like how all of the notes begin with this sentence, then add the effects that arose independently. I wonder if the inventors intended all of these things or if they created it simply on the idea of having a technology like this.

This really makes me think about the way breaks come in our modern TV shows. They definitely take advantage of when shows have natural pauses or even dramatic cliffhangers to insert some advertising. The way it was intended to be was when a program came to an end or when there was an actual reason to take a break (i.e. the end of one song to the next).

I agree, these terms are very broad. Even so, something like a category for comedies could range from dark, to crude, to ironic, and so on.

I'm a big fan of data. It's cool to think about what kind of channels they are/might be based on their run times of different genres.

I'm questioning this because I just read Amanda's annotation right above mine. They made a strange separation between children's and regular programming and now made a separation between educational and children's educational. I suppose it's the formality, but I'm not sure it constitutes a separation.

I'm surprised to see mention of Cecelia Condit. I ran across her work this summer by chance because a few audio clips from her Possibly in Michigan video gained popularity on Tik Tok. The fact that her videos are meant to raise questions to femininity and relations of the sexes, but ended up becoming a watered down version of itself on a super popular lip-syncing app is very telling of our pop culture today.

Wow, this sentence really made me think. Does anyone have any examples of something like this?

I see this in the way that marginalized or less represented people are continuously fighting for equal representation on TV. However, it seems like they can never get it quite right, and they continue to use minorities to portray stereotypes rather than a "normal" character.

This is an interesting technique in the way that they have someone who does not really know about the product telling you that it's the best one to get. But, in breaking a sort of fourth wall in which humor is added, he is also (I'm assuming) a familiar face that people like. For these reasons, it seems like people tend to trust him more than someone random telling you to buy the product. It's similar to online influencers selling products. If you've been following them forever, you might be more inclined to trust their judgement in what they are promoting.

Television and movies scores are incredible and so useful for creating the moods and feelings that we get out of the shows. It's cool that composers are able to portray any emotion just with music.

Not necessarily techniques, but the way TV shows cast "high school" students with 20+ year old actors change the perception of what real high schoolers really look like.

So indexical=physical signs. Photographs or images are considered iconic because they can show something but still hold the chance that they have been altered.

It's hard to imagine life without any sort of complex language but it's interesting to think about. It's like dogs or cats, they have some simple sounds but they can't even think complex thoughts or have conversations (as far as we know, I guess).

I think about this a lot. While groups of humans were developing languages separately there were infinite possibilities to what one thing would be called. It's amazing to see what one culture calls something compared to a different one. And at the end of the day, nothing about a physical object calls for it to be named the way it is; language is just completely made up.

Interesting to think about how commercials and shows/movies both follow an intro to conclusion arc but are under different time constraints.

As someone who has experience working with ceramics, this is a comparison that resonates for me. My teachers valued the handprints and finger marks that were left on their pottery and our own as it leaves a trace of individuality. The potter, like the storyteller, leave their own personal touch in what they do.

I always feel like this is what holds me back from watching TV series. Especially long ones with 5+ seasons. I like how movies focus on one story for a couple hours rather than many stories for a few seasons.

I remember hearing about this when I was younger. It's interesting to think that, although there are infinite stories to be told, there are limited arcs that a story can follow, and a lot of stories follow the same type of structure. It's just the details and characters that change.

This kind of made me laugh. It seems uncommon but still completely legitimate to view a regular sports game as a story or narrative of triumph and defeat.

I love the metaphor of American television being like a sponge in a swimming pool. The genres that are outlined as narrative texts make me rethink how I watch TV, considering these are the type of shows I regularly watch. The phrase "narrative text" is new to me and is especially interesting to think about now knowing that I've been involved with it my whole life.