The maps produced by Mercator's projection, his scientific way of representing a globe on a flat surface, have become part of Western common sense because they represent, not just the world, but Western power in and over it.
I definitely hadn't seen this as power, but put in these words I can definitely see how much power the europeans had in the formation of our world.
Tom Bradley, the Mayor of Los Angeles, himself an African American and a former cop, admitted that he had long known of such racism and brutality within the LAPD but, without a way of representing that knowledge to the public and thus of making it powerful, he was hamstrung.
Why didn't he use his power like those police officers did, but for a better reason? He could have stopped this. There is definitely a double standard.
It provoked a passionate nationwide debate over the ways in which the social relations between the police and minorities were embod-ied and enacted, as opposed to institutionally represented.
Which is still going on and hasn't really gotten that much better, and this is still seen with the people in power taking advantage of that power.
Cross-cultural communication which is initiated and directed by the more pow-erful of ... two cultures (for power difference is always part of cultural difference)
I wish there was an easier way of going about cross cultural communication without have power be a part of it. I feel like power ruins many things.
Yet they also may employ some amateur footage of disasters, as well as non-professional performers enacting their own rescues or crime experiences.
I feel like this kind of reality show is the closest to what really happened and isn't as exaggerated as others. The use of real footage and real civilians helps with this.
Production practices common to most of these programs include ex-tensive use of ((actuality" footage of their subjects, whether these are po-lice staking out a drug den or mom and dad yukking it up in front of the camcorder
Would documentaries also possibly fall under reality television? They do focus on reality most of the time so where is the line drawn for them in terms of reality tv or not?
such as Court TV
Honestly I am very intrigued by Court TV because does this fall under reality television? It seems more serious than many shows, but it is also a show about the public for viewers entertainment.
ordinary people (defined as non-actors) have become even more visible since the 1990s as they are turned into media content via many platforms
Although I have been somewhat negative towards reality television, it has helped bring awareness, good and bad, to people and differences that many were not aware of before the internet.
colorful” characters experience ordinary situ-ations and problems in a hilarious manner
I have never heard of this show, but like many shows about the lower class, it seems as if the show is made as a joke for middle and high class people who just want to make fun of the lower class. It definitely doesn't seem like the way to make people more aware of the lower class.
reality sitcom about the lives of a “redneck” family in rural Georgia spun off from Toddlers and Tiaras
I feel like whenever there is a reality sitcom, there is always at least one spin off from it no matter what. Such as this one from Toddlers and Tiaras, or Counting On which came from the Duggar Family show. Those are just a few examples but I feel like many of the shows that are watched today are a spin off, or have a spin off.
“inauthentic” and stage
Isn't all television staged to some extent? I don't think there is really any television show that is completely free of staging.
The world was at war, and we were in increasing peril, hut our political leaders chose not to notice.
All of these examples seem like just build ups to 9/11 and how we were not prepared for it because the government had essentially just laid back and decided that nothing bad could happen to us.
It was perhaps the first American example of patriotism in wartime being founded on skepti-cism, on criticism of the war by the press.
I am wondering how the public and the US specifically would have felt about Vietnam if it wasn't covered in the press as much as it was. How different would our response been for soldiers if we weren't as informed about it by the press?
the obfuscations and incompetence of our own government.
I feel like this hasn't gone away? It has just become more and more obvious and makes the public more and more questionable of our own government.
Nowadays, inste<Jd of using their best news judg-ment, television executives hire consultants who go from station to station peddling their version of wh<1t theY think the public wants.
I am wondering what made this change? Why did we move from "it doesn't matter what the public wants" to "what the public wants, the public gets"?
I know that there are those who think that entertain-ment is a bad word," Hewitt says. But mixing in a little show business helped draw viewers to 60 Minutes every Sunday night.
This reminds me of SNL. It's definitely more on the side of entertainment, but it also provides the viewers with news stories that matter in the world.
"Fenton you are in the news covering business, not the cost cutting business.'' Nothing mattered more than the news itself
Part of me wishes we could get back to this instead of focusing on a new, dumb thing that the president did. He does something dumb everyday so why not focus on more newsworthy stories that could benefit the public instead of reminding us who runs this country?
lo some degree, Americans have always lived as though dissociated from the world beyond.
I feel like we kind of have a reputation of really not caring about anyone else on this planet other than ourselves and honestly that is really horrible. Unless it is happening directly to us, we don't care and I hope that will change.
Of all the arts, architecture is the closest constitutively to the economic, with which, in the form of commissions and land it has a virtually nnmediated reiHtionship.
I guess this would explain why I tend to only hear the term post modernism in terms of architecture than in any other subject.
Marcel Duchamp,
This reminds me of his his work and specifically the urinal that he switched upside down and submitted to an art gallery. Pure post modernism.
to grasp postmudum-/ism not as a style but rather as a cultural dominant: a conception which 'allows for the presence and couxistence of a range of vt~rv differont. vet subordinate, featurns.
Have we ever assumed certain periods in times as a style? I feel lime style isn't a fluid enough term to be used for such a wide range of things that historical periods have.
we errusm Js thuJ!_f[edited n:£ighborhooctc:ulture
I don't know if I would call it a "destruction".. That seems like a very strong word for how traditional architecture changed with post modernism.
Cosby "is a special person. You can't really put him in a context with all of television, because he is exceptional."
I wonder if this person would say that same thing today learning what Bill Cosby has done.
It became obvious during our interviews that B_i!_L_(;;Q~Qy's presence ~...a...come.dian.is...an.lm.eQ!!!.!l.!_J?~EU>f. _ _th~ .. §h<?~~~ . popqJ\lrJ!Y:
If it wasn't Bill Cosby, would the show been as popular and influential just based on the storyline?
iiit"e-·:vre:w:ers-m-u-sroeal51e·-to appreciate, understand, an 1 ent1 · with the Huxtables without forgetting that they are actually looking at a black family. It asks white -~~~!~_!Q __ a~<:~P! .. ~.:l?IC1~~J3:miJy _a~ .. ~~g!l~ _ _o(t~em,"
But why, in order for white viewers to realize that a black family is just like a white family, does this have to be done where the black family becomes more like a white family? Why cant it also the other way around to show equality?
We also found that many viewers empathized to such a degree that they quite freely attributed flesh-and-blood feelings such as sympathy and jealousy to the characters.
Do we think it is bad or unhealthy to take up so much of our day/time trying to relate with fictional stories?Instead of focusing on real life?
Most of us find it difficult to get close enough to the news to make any form of critical judgment. A detailed analysis of TV talk suggests that most people feel more able to evaluate TV fiction because it seems much closer to their own lives and the world they live in than does TV news.
This seems different for today due to where our politics are at. I feel like more and more people are having opinions about the news such as Fox News supposedly being more republican.
than on news or current affairs
I'm not sure why I couldn't get the whole quote but this is interesting when you think about SNL. SNL makes humor out of news and affairs therefore more people talk about it.
ABC turned the series proposal down. Without Bill Cosby's track record (including, significantly, his ability to sell products on TV com-mercials), the series would probably never have made it onto the air.
I wonder if the show was to be made today, if it would also be turned down? How would this show be received today? With or without Bill Cosby?
Critics have begun to accuse the show of presenting a misleadingly cozy picture, a sugar candy world unfettered by racism, crime, and economic deprivation.
I would agree that this show does somewhat ignore the real life struggles of being a black family in New York during that time. It does create a "cozy" picture that could cause some issues in the real world.
Here was a show that not onfy''overcame'fradi:tion:tt· stereotypes l:lut; iri so doing,
I don't know if it truly, fully overcame stereotypes, but it definitely overcame them better than other shows such at The Jefferson's and Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
So the female characters created by Shonda Rhimes for Grey's Anatomy, to choose just one example, reflect a genuine desire to show women as skilled professionals in jobs previously reserved for men.
I will say that early on though there was a strong focus on women chasing after men and sexualizing women, but over the years the shows has gotten much better and transformed into a show that is proud to have female leads.
The deafening boom-boom dance-floor music was sup-. posed to convey that, dude, we were in a totally cool zone, but I always felt like I was trapped in Godzilla's left ventricle.
I do have to say that Abercrombie & Fitch does have a scary, dark vibe to it that I have always wanted to stay away from even when I was little. Although it wants to seem cool, it does have underlying tones that are very off putting.
We can believe that any woman can become a CEO (or president), that women have achieved economic, professional, and political parity with men,
In my opinion, I actually don't believe much of this. I wish I could believe it, but as of late it hasn't been that easy.
And, in the end, not a president or vice president either.
And this is still true today. Even over 10 years later.
In essence, the business of television became larger than the business of broadcasting.
I feel like no one had any idea how big television would get and how far away from just broadcasting it would get. With streaming and recording, it has changed broadcasting itself so much.
With upscale working women specifically measured by the ratings, adver-tisers could and did demand access to this attractive target audience, and networks began to program for both upscale men and women.
I'm assuming that these upscale viewers was a pretty small amount of people, so how well did they think they were going to do when their viewer numbers dropped to a lower number than before the 80's?
Powerful matriarchs, scheming vixens, clever businesswomen, and sincere beauties still populate the soaps, along with their male coun-terparts-powerful patriarchs, scheming gigolos, clever businessmen, and sincere hunks.
If soap operas are mostly directed towards house wives, then why aren't they represented in them?
What leads a single media entity, one cable channel-Lifetime-to call itself the feminine side of television?
I hate to say it but Lifetime is definitely know as the feminine program because they are infamous for making people cry. And because of that emotional piece, it is seen as feminine because women are seen as emotional.
The amateur analvst has to the lover of the heroine. His practiced distance, pseudo-reali~tically modeled after the analyst's technique, fuses with the culture industry's vulgar stereotype according to which the man must continu-ally protect himself from the woman's seductive arts and conquers her only by rejecting them.
I hadn't even made the connection that this was Freudian based but it does make sense why this would come from him and his ideas. It is an old way of thinking and writing.
Rather what is pseudo-realistic is the internal construction of the plot.
This is true that much of the plot for a seemingly normal and easy to follow story is actually a well thought out order of how things go together. The production of it isn't as easy as the ability to follow the story.
She is brought to this conversion by a young and, for once, sympathetically portrayed intellectual-a dramatist who loves her. He writes a drama in which she plays the main role, and her inner con-frontation with the role is supposed to act as a kind of psychotherapy,
There is an interesting connection between the writer of a script and the character/actor in the show. It isn't often that we as viewers connect the character's struggles with the writer's struggles
Aside from that one should not exaggerate the specific character tele-vision productions for fear of contributing to the ideology. Their similar-ity to films attests to the unity of the culture industry: it hardly makes anv difference where it is tackled.
This makes sense that no matter what the subject, it will be most likely covered in film the same way it would be covered in television. There most likely wouldn't be a huge difference.
The networks' confidence carried through to advertisers who began to test the Willers of the daytime schedule. In September of 1951, the trade journal Televiser reported that "47 big advertisers have used day-time network television during the past season or are starting this Fall."
I just made this connection between having advertisements, basically breaks from your show, and giving the house wife time to do the chores. I know that I like to do other thins while ads are playing and that seems like it could've been a good sell for house wives at the time as well since there was a worry about losing time for chores.
While CBS, NBC. and ABC had experimented with individual daytime television programs on their flagship stations, they were reluctant to feature full daytime schedules
What would be on TV if there wasn't a schedule? Was there TV on 24/7 or where there times that there was absolutely nothing playing?
fearing that their loyal ra-dio audiences would not be able to make the transition to television. The industry assumed that, unlike radio, television might require the house-wife's complete attention and thus dismpt her work in the home
This is exactly what I was speaking to earlier. It seems harder for a house wife to watch television and do chores as opposed to listening to the radio and do chores. I'm happy they touched on this.
Certainly, this model of female spectatorship was based on previous notions about radio listeners, and we can assume that women were able to adapt some of their listening habits to tele-vision viewing without much difficulty.
I feel like there could've been a level of difficulty with this change in medium because the radio really only required hearing, whereas television requires hearing and sight.
Above all highly stylized character types, like those in the dell'arte, were :>o removed from the everyday life of its public that no one could possibly succumb to the idea of conceiving their own experience in terms of the model of the masked clowns.
This makes me wonder if and how people made connections to characters like we do today. Was it a distant medium that had no connections or were there other aspects that people could connect with other than characters?
as writing, it modernity
The whole quote didn't show up, but I though this was an interesting way of looking at television. Writing is an old medium that has been done for centuries, yet television isn't even a century old yet. I liked that it was just a new way to share writing with the modern world.
Whereas certainly the sense of hearing is in manv respects more "archaic" than that of sight,
Is this due to the face that we were able to hear things before we could see things as babies? Or is there another reason for why sound is more "archaic"?
miniature format of human beings on . screen was to hinder habitual identification and heroiz,1tion.
This is interesting because I remember learning in a cinema class that in the early days of television and film, people really only went to see it because of how funny the whole idea of it was. It was a weird and different way to see people.
their strongest lure was the glimpse they provided into the culture of Hol-lywood.
This, at least fro me would have been to sole reason to even pay attention to this series. A glimpse in to Hollywood is such an intriguing thing and I am not surprised by how popular this was because of it
This tactic was based on a related aspect of ABC's programming philosophy-its atten-tion to audience demographics. Governed by the belief that "a network can't be all things to all people,"
This may be obvious, but it really seems that ABC had a huge hand in making Disney what it is today and I guess I wasn't very aware of that. I wonder how different it would be if Disney worked with a different network such as NBC or CBS.
cut back on expensive animated features, and began to concentrate on nature documentaries and live-action movies fol-lowing the success of Treasure Island (1950) and Robin Hood (1952
I had absolutely no idea that this was the reason for making the move from only animation to animation and live action. You would think that they just wanted to do live action for fun, but they actually did it because of financial reasons
With the home as its primary site of exhibition, television gave Disney unparalleled access to a family audience that he already had cultivated more effectively than any Hollywood producer in the studio era.
I guess I had a question on Disney and the amusement park. From my understanding, they wanted to build Disneyland close to LA because of its proximity to Hollywood, right? They thought it would be useful to be closer to the television scene?