From the long view, we can see that the comic book is a form that is always in conversation with a range of other forms and media economies
Comics definitely don't exist on their own. They're shaped by other industries like film, TV, online media, etc. Creators pull ideas from everywhere, and comics influence those other media, too. This makes sense to me, considering that media today overlaps constantly, and audiences move between platforms without even thinking about it.
Whereas the original comic books sold for a dime for almost thirty years, the median price of a comic book in 2019 is over four dollars.
This shows how much comics have changed in price and accessibility. What used to be a super cheap, everyday thing is now more expensive, which affects who buys them and how the fandom works. As far as I've seen, comics aren't as popular or purchased nowadays. But the medium has evolved from simple entertainment and moved towards a bigger, commercialized industry.
ince the 1940s, comic book has been used to encompass all that an observer might find puerile, simplistic, soulless, bombastic, and/or lazy in popular culture.
People have treated the term "comic book" like an insult for decades. Society looks down on comics and uses the word to say that something is childish or low-quality. Comics never got taken seriously, even though they became a huge part of culture.
Everyone will survive if everyone works together. (Unfortunately,that was the one thing nobody knew how to do.)
For media convergence to work, everyone, including companies, creators, and technology, needs to cooperate. However, the truth is that it's really hard. Everyone has their own goals and timelines, so even though teamwork could fix a lot of problems, no one really knows how to pull it off. Convergence isn't about new tech, it's about people figuring out how to work together as well.
Convergence doesnot mean ultimate stability or unity. It operates as a constant force forunification but always in dynamic tension with change.
Convergence isn't about everything becoming stable or perfectly unified. It's always pushing media and culture together, but change is still happening at the same time. Things are always shifting, so convergence is more about an ongoing movement and tension than a final, fixed outcome.
Each of us constructs our own personal mythology from bits and frag-ments of information extracted from the media flow and transformed
We all take pieces of media from TV, the internet, and other sources to make sense of our own lives. It's like everyone builds their own understanding from the information around them. This shows that media isn't something that we just passively watch. It actually shapes how we understand the world and communicate with others.
There is really no choice of whether to readinto a film or not; audiences always do.
Watching a movie always requires interpretation. Audiences automatically fill in gaps and connect details. It's a part of understanding the film. If we see a character get into a car and then later the car arrives at another location, we get that they drove there even though the movie doesn't show the whole trip.
Films, plays, and novels, however, are not telegrams; they are infinitely morecomplicated.
Films don't have a single message. Viewers interpret them based on their own experiences. meaning comes from both the filmmaker's choices and how the audience sees it.
A Hollywood film is one of the most highly scrutinized, carefully constructed,least random works imaginable
Every part of a film is planned. Costumes, props, lighting, and shots are chosen deliberately. Even things that look spontaneous are controlled. This shows how precise filmmaking is and how much thought goes into every detail.
The Hollywood studio system established the collaborative mode of production that dominated American filmmaking during its golden age while influencingthe mode of film production worldwide.
Filmmaking has always depended on teamwork. Even under strict studio control, movies required many departments working together. The system created a structure where each role contributed to the final product.
By the late 1920s, the film industry had come to seethat the central producer system encouraged quantityover quality and that less than stellar movies did notdraw audiences into theaters.
This highlights how the studio system's focus on efficiency caused films to become repetitive. With producers pushing for quick, standardized output, creativity suffered. The industry had to recognize that prioritizing speed and control made the movies themselves weaker.
By 1915, more than60 percent of the American film industry, employing approximately 15,000 workers, was located in Hollywood.
This shows how fast Hollywood became the center of filmmaking. It wasn't even about the glamour we hear of now, but rather about the practicality. The weather, space, and lower costs made it easier and cheaper to produce movies, which brought most of the industry to one place.
movies have been carried forward through the years by teamwork. From themoment the raw film stock is purchased through its exposure, processing, editing, and projection, filmmakersdepend on a variety of artists, technologies, technicians,and craftspeople.
It's so interesting how, even though directors usually get the spotlight, movies are never just one person's work. Every stage of a film requires a large crew and a team of specialists, each with their own expertise. There are so many crews, from photographers, production designers, composers, casting directors, to camera operators, cinematographers, VFX artists, and more. What we see on the screen is really the combination of all of these people's efforts and not just the director's vision. The final film only comes together through collaboration across so many different skills. Credits now make sure everyone who contributes is acknowledged, but they can go on for thousands of names that most of us don't even notice or stay to watch, which is kind of insane when you think about it.
preproduction, consists of planning andpreparation. It takes as long as necessary to get the jobdone—on average, a year or two
Making a movie isn't just about creativity. There's so much planning and problem-solving involved. Preproduction is like laying the foundation for the entire film, including everything from setting budgets to deciding locations and rehearsals. Without it, the production could easily fall apart. Even though it might sound boring and time-consuming, careful preplanning actually gives directors and crews more freedom to be creative later because they have an idea of their options and limits. It's interesting to see how significant strategy and logistics are and how they must be considered beforehand for success.
Film production is complicated by the cost effective,standard practice of shooting movies out of chronological order. This means that the production crew shootsthe film not in the order of what we see on the screen,but in an order that allows the most efficient use of human and financial resources.
It's so interesting how films are usually shot out of chronological order. This really shows why the preproduction stage is so important. Everything has to be carefully planned for efficiency. When scenes are filmed out of order, every detail — from actors' performances to props and costumes — has to remain consistent, which seems like a huge challenge. Sometimes, as viewers, we even notice mistakes, like an actor's hair being different or a glass of water disappearing between shots. Noticing this makes me appreciate the work of script supervisors and crew members who track these small but crucial details. There are so many considerations that go into filmmaking.
Meanwhile, women were given a highly constraining solution to theanging roles of gender and sexual identity. Although middle- andworking-class women had been encouraged by popular media to entertraditionally male occupations during the war, they were now told to returnto their homes where they could have babies and make color-coordinatedmeals
Television reinforced traditional gender roles in everyday life. Mothers were expected to focus on home and children, while fathers were positioned as the family's financial providers. Media didn't just reflect these roles in popular TV shows; it also taught viewers how men, women, and families were supposed to behave. What people watched on TV set a standard for normal family life, now known as the nuclear family structure.
ne.”30Typically also, television was considered a remedy for problem ildren.
This line is interesting because it shows that television was seen as more than entertainment. It was treated as a tool for shaping children's behavior. Parents relied on it to keep kids occupied, curb misbehavior, and even prevent delinquency. I find this fascinating because it reveals how society projected real-world responsibilities onto technology, expecting a machine to help manage family life. Media was trusted to influence not just culture at large, but individual behavior in the home.
Even families that were not welcomed into the middle-class melting potof postwar suburbia were promised that the dream of domestic bliss wouldcome true through the purase of a television set.
Advertisers weren't just selling a television. They were selling an idea of the "ideal life." Something as simple as a product promised inclusion, even to families who were excluded from postwar suburbia. Television didn't just reflect society. It actively shaped expectations of what a family should look like and became a necessity to own to belong. It became a symbol of what life could be rather than what life was. Even today, consumer trends still influence how belonging; if people have or don't have trending items, they might feel included or left out.
In the 1950s, most television entertainment programs ignored current events and political issues.
Television in the 1950s mirrored the dominant cultural values of the time by focusing on idealized portrayals of white, middle class suburban families. TV avoided addressing pressing social and political issues, instead creating a comfortable, sanitized version of American life for viewers. This reflects the public's desire for stability and normalcy following World War II, but it also emphasizes how television both shaped and reinforced narrow societal expectations, sending subtle but powerful messages about what "normal" American life is supposed to look like and who was included or excluded from that vision.
. During times of national crises, television news broadcasts have galvanized the country by providing real-time coverage of major events.
TV used to create a shared experience during major, intense moments. For example, every year on 9/11, some of my teachers talk about what they were doing that day and what they felt. Many of them mention that everyone watched the same coverage and felt connected through that shared experience. Everyone showed the same updates and shared the same emotions at the same time. When huge events happened, it felt like the whole country had tuned in together. Today, it's different. Even though there are still major events/problems, people rarely turn on the news together. Instead, we get information from apps, social media, and streaming sources. Not everyone sees the same coverage, or even the same version of events, which makes it harder to have those "everyone is watching together" moments. It makes me realize how TV used to unite people in ways that are harder to replicate now, even though we have way more access to information.
Business magazine editor Chris Anderson explains, “We’re leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content. And we’re entering the microculture era, when we are all into different things.”
This caught my attention because it shows how different media consumption is today compared to the past. I like the idea of the "watercooler era": everyone used to watch the same shows, read the same news, and share the same cultural reference points, so that you could talk about it with almost anyone. Now, it's completely different. We all follow different shows, influencers, apps, or YouTube channels based on our own interests. It makes sense that people can find communities that feel personal, but it also means that we don't have as many shared cultural moments anymore. I think this really explains why social media feels so fragmented, people are literally living in different microcultures" online, just like Chris Anderson says. It's fascinating to think about how this shift changes the way that we connect over media. It relates to some of the ideas discussed in the previous reading on Television Through Time.
Thus, we are transitioning from a time of a shared “TV culture” to a time of various digital content cultures.
This really stood out to me because it captures how much the way that we watch and talk about shows has changed. Before streaming, everyone used to watch the same few shows and sitcoms on TV, and big moments like season finales were something that everyone talked about together. It created this shared experience that connected people. Now, it's completely different. We all have different streaming subscriptions, like Netflix, Prime, Hulu, etc., giving us access to so many show options. It's nice that there's something for everyone, but it also means that we don't have as many shared moments now. Everyone's kind of watching their own thing now, based on what they like, instead of all tuning in to the same show at the same time.
Television content generally strives to be popular and profitable first, entertaining second, and informational third, if at all.
This line explains how the television industry is driven by profit and popularity. Most shows are made to attract the largest audiences possible so networks can sell advertising, which means that entertainment comes before meaningful or educational content. I notice this with many streaming shows today. They're easy to binge and fun to watch, but they rarely teach anything significant or make me think about the world in a new way.
It is difficult to underestimate television’s cultural impac
Television shapes the way that we understand the world so significantly. The way that lifestyles, relationships, and social behaviors are portrayed on TV affects how viewers think about their own lives. For example, seeing characters interact in certain ways can influence ideas about friendship, dating, or family life. TV also sets cultural standards. When celebrities on shows wear certain styles, those often create trends for the audience. Product placement in shows can encourage viewers to buy certain items. Television also creates shared experiences that bring people together. For instance, I used to watch The Summer I Turned Pretty, a famous TV show, weekly at midnight when the episode released, so that my friends and I could discuss the episodes the next day. In this way, television isn't just something that we watch for fun. It also influences how we think/act and even connect with others.
We were born for more than just to be groomed into consumers who don't care about other human beings.
This line is a reminder of how easy it is to forget that so much of digital media is designed to keep us consuming. The algorithm constantly pushes new products, trends, and advertisements our way. People can be so hateful online. There's cyberbullying, judgment, unrealistic beauty standards, and idealized lives that create insecurities and comparisons. It's a reality check, reminding us that we were meant for more than just falling into the trap of algorithms. We need to stay aware, compassionate, and human. Using technology responsibly means not letting it define our values or dull our empathy.
you are already primed to believe that what you're getting is true.
This captures how easy it is to trust what we see online without questioning it. Algorithms present information in a way that looks confident and authoritative, which makes us assume that it's factual, even when it might be misleading or incomplete. I've noticed this especially on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and even Google searches, where misinformation spreads quickly but feels believable because it's packaged so convincingly. It's dangerous because it shapes our beliefs and decisions without us realizing it, and it shows how much power these systems have over our understanding of the world. Technology doesn't just give us information; it also guides what we think is true.
AI makes it possible for machines to learn from experience, that means AI is susceptible to the same bias of the humans it's simulating.
I found it really interesting how AI isn't truly neutral or objective. It learns directly from us, which means that it also absorbs our biases. The data that trains AI often reflects existing social inequalities like racism, sexism, etc. so those same patterns end up built into the technology itself. AI systems are constantly trained from the information we give them, and that training shapes how they make decisions. This reminds me of how social media algorithms or facial recognition systems sometimes produce unfair outcomes. It's not because the technology is evil, but because it's mirroring the biases it's been taught.
This research is responding to current notions of the digital publicsphere as having become infected with ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’, as socialmedia and search engines feed users information tailored to what the algorithms say aretheir individual needs.
The mention of echo chambers and filter bubbles really stood out to me because it shows how algorithms don't just reflect our interests, they shape them. On my own feeds, I've noticed that I mostly see content that I already like or agree with, rarely encountering perspectives that challenge me. Ytreberg points out that this isn't accidental. Instead it's a result of platforms optimizing for engagement and profit. This makes me think about how digital media can fragment public conversation, making it harder for people to connect over shared issues or understand different viewpoints. The internet nowadays feels less like a democratic space for discussion and more like a reflection of what we already think.
A major change then came with the rise of social media, which forced the two into closercontact. Journalists were now compelled to let their news stories be distributed onnetworks like Twitter and Facebook, which meant being shared or ignored by users whowere now ‘curating’ their news diet via their news feeds. It also meant being promotedor marginalized by whatever algorithms the social media corporations were using.
This section resonates with me because it captures a reality I've noticed firsthand as a student journalist. Ytreberg describes how journalists today are expected to constantly produce content across multiple platforms while working with fewer resources. Journalism isn't just about writing strong, thoughtful pieces anymore. It's about staying visible online, adapting to trends, and keeping up with social media's nonstop pace. During my high school I've been a part of the journalism program. While we do take time to write quality articles for print, most of our topics are driven by what's trending, and what's happening on social media. Furthering my experience. I recently started writing for publications outside of school, where I've seen this pessure even more clearly. There's a constant push to publish short, quick articles and write stories that will perform well and get views, rather than focusing purely on depth. Technology has definitely profoundly reshaped the field. While it has made news more accessible than ever, it has also made it more competitive and attention-driven. Journalism today feels like a careful balancing act between keeping people informed and keeping up with the pace of digital media.
Crucially for Facebook’s reformed business model, algorithmically generated user datawere the basis of targeted adverts, so that, for instance, some hobby listed by a user inthe profile might lead to ads for matching products in that user’s news feed.
This highlights how platforms like Facebook turn our everyday activity into a commercial resource, often without us even noticing. I've used social media to log into apps and websites countless times, rarely stopping to think about how much of my personal information is being collected or shared behind the scenes. Ytreberg makes it clear that the convenience and connectivity we enjoy often mask the company's priorities, revealing that our data is systematically mined and monetized. Reading this made me rethink the sense of control I thought I had over my digital life, and it's unsettling to realize how normalized this kind of surveillance has become.
Web 2.0 discourse demonstrates what is called “digitalexceptionalism,” the idea that the internet is different from otherforms of communication and therefore not bound by the same legaland market forces.
I like how this line challenges the idea that the internet is completely separate from the real world. Even though in reality, websites and social media are shaped by money, politics, and people in power, just like any other industry. The internet was never truly equal. It has always reflected the same power structures as the real world, where a small number of companies or individuals hold most of the control.
Web2.0 ideology is the child of both Silicon Valley entrepreneurialcapitalism and activist subcultures like independent publishing, anti-globalization activism, Burning Man, cyberdelic rave culture, andFOSS.
I think this line really captures why Silicon Valley is so confusing. There's this mix of idealism and business that doesn't quite fit together. As someone who's grown up here and become more interested in business, I've seen this firsthand. People talk about changing the world and making things better for everyone, but at the same tmie they're constantly chasing investors and profits. They want to seem different from traditional corporations, but in the end, they still just want money. It's visible everywhere today. AI companies claim to be ethical while competing to dominate the market. Startups talk about helping people but really just want funding and profit. Marwick's point about Web 2.0 being born out of activism and capitalism explains that contradiction so well. It's what makes Silicon Valley interesting but also kind of fake. It's built on a constant clash between wanting to do good and wanting to make money.
. The new web is a very differentthing. It’s a tool for bringing together the small contributions ofmillions of people and making them matter.
I found it interesting how this line really captures the optimism that surrounded social media in its early days. Everyone genuinely believed it could change the world, especially the way that we communicate. It's wild to think about how sincere that excitement was compared to now. Even though platforms like TikTok and Instagram still connect to millions of people and let them share their lives, the focus has shifted. What used to feel like a happy place for community has turned into something more performative and sometimes even toxic. People's attitudes toward social media have gone from excitement about connection to serious concerns about mental health, misinformation, and negativity. It's often seen now as one of the biggest causes of anxiety, depression, and even suicide, especially among teens. I think the way that Marwick includes this quote really sets the tone for her critique. It reminds readers of what social media was supposed to be before showing what it's actually become.
It is about old media and new media, about books and mobile phones
This made me realize that media literacy covers so much more than just the social media or news that we see on our phones every day. Older forms of media, like books, newspapers, and magazines, also shape the way that we think and understand the world. Media surrounds us in countless ways, and noticing across all formats shows how important it is to develop the skills to analyze and critically engage with everything we consume.
ifferent People Experience the Same Media Message Differently
The interpretation of media isn't universal. What I might find funny, obvious, or harmless in a video might be confusing, unfunny, or even offensive to someone else. I regularly see this in my daily life. Sometimes I show my parents a TikTok that I found really funny, and they give me a confused expression. They don't share the same feeling. However, understanding perspectives and recognizing that people's backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints shape how they see the world is a key aspect of media literacy. It's not all about spotting bias and errors.
Media literacy learning provides an open environment in which both students and the teacher canconverse and respectfully give divergent opinions.
I like how this frames media literacy as a conversation instead of just a lecture. It emphasizes collaboration and the value of multiple perspectives. Even though De Abreu is speaking to teachers, I can imagine how powerful this would feel if students heard it directly. I believe they might feel more confident sharing their own ideas and questioning what they see. It reminds me that learning media literacy is as much about dialogue and understanding others' viewpoints as it is about facts.
Schools are obligated to help students learn and understand their media-saturated world.
This line effectively highlights the significant influence the media has over our daily lives, often without our even being aware of it. De Abreu's call to action pushes teachers to take responsibility. However, it makes me wonder how students themselves could take a more active role in questioning what they see. Media literacy is truly about building the skills to navigate, challenge, and understand the messages that surround us every day.