chool boards, the major map and atlas publishers, the TV news networks and the federal government. CBS news could hardly backdrop its account of the US military in the Gulf or in the Kurdish refugee camp with Peters's way of representing the world.
Shows impact our news media can have.
ajor agencies, and divided the world up so that each could have its own colony of knowledge. Reuters of London controlled the knowledge of the British Empire and the Far East, Wolff of Berlin that of Northern Europe and Russia, and Havas of Paris that of France, Spain, Portugal, Italy an
This is interesting.
some definitional work.
I appreciate this as I feel like it is important to have a good grasp of what a term means when diving deep into it as a concept.
estern, trends.
Not surprise, I feel like this is really common.
ublic opinion is what is formed as a result of discussion in the public sphere.
What does public opinion really mean?
the global and the local’ occurs everywhere in books and articles on communication.
I would agree I feel like I see this a lot.
Nonetheless, Reali-TV is still with us and is not likely to go away.
I agree, if anything it will grow in popularity in the US.
Reali-TV,
Interesting how many shows and sub-genres are under this title.
ll factual televi-sion, from documentaries to the gritty images of true crime programs, ismediated—reality is never captured “in the raw.”
I think this is an important concept to note, especially with documentaries. They are meant to inform, but often times persuade and have an agenda too.
While Trailer Park: Welcome to Myrtle Manor hinges on a claim to the real, it is cast, produced, filmed, edited and marketed as ratings-driven entertain-ment.
This is why the name "reality" television is so misleading. I think this is a concept people are starting to grasp more and more as this type of entertainment becomes more popular and outlandish.
TLC’s evolution as a cable channel mirrors the broader development of reality and lifestyle television in recent decades.
I like the distinction between reality and lifestyle television, I think usually these are grouped together as one thing. Even though they are similar, there are distinct differences.
noting that at least one lead character doesn’t live at the trailer park and that producers spiced up the setting by adding an above-ground plastic swimming pool (perfect for skinny dipping) and a beauty shop (perfect for gossiping) that weren’t there before the cameras arrived.
This raises the question, is this type of visibility (which is inauthentic) better than no visibility? Or does this perpetuate more negative stereotypes?
As President Clinton did, they too hoped the world would go away if they ignored it long enough
How do we see our society still repeating this? I think the current Trump administration does this as well - but as we have seen it will never go away.
And the news media followed suit. Sure, they reported all those disasters, but they never consistently connected the dots. No rising crescendo of alarm reached the public's ears. The gatekeepers of national news turned down one foreign story after another because "foreign news doesn't sell."
The fact that "foreign news doesn't sell" is problematic, especially when that foreign news comes to effect the USA and no one has any idea about it.
Perhaps the most charitable way to understand why our in-dustry is failing us so badly is to understand the difference be-tween the role of news in peacetime and in wartime.
How is is different during these two times? Is the ultimate goal the same (informing the public) but just shifts in how and what?
Instead, during the Afghan war for example, Fox News of-fered us Geraldo Rivera and an array of intrepid, inexperienced blondes to cover the combat zone firsthand. \XThat's wrong vvith that? Don't get me started. You can imagine how veteran for-eign correspondents, and veteran Afghanistan experts in the field, felt when that army of clueless jmmws started stamped-ing all over the war zone.
I can see why this could be really frustrating, and doesn't make sense for the stories being reported on.
Vhat was missing was a more independent, and thus credible, voice.
Independence within journalism is, understandably, often seen as more credible. Can a journalist ever truly be independent though?
Conscious' thought may represent itself as a unity coincident with the individual
Difference between subject and individual.
Hirst describes two ways of posing the concept of "subject" in ways quite differ ent from Althusser's. T
Interesting how one word can have so many definitions.
choanalytic theory helps us to understand the dynamics of desire and looking and their relation to the constitution of the subject, it also reduces the social to the personal. Th
What is this psychoanalytic theory? How does it relate to the subject-text relation or give more insights into it?
emselves, discourses that exist in social, historical, normative,
These contexts shape the subject, and are the different contexts in which it exists.
he end. for example, of style, in the sense of the unique and the t!Ud.ll.f.the.distinctive individual bmsh stroke (as the f)mergent primacv of mechanical reproduction)
Is he saying postmodernism brings out less individuality? On what scale?
l.!l~1~;:',~~ll~£,2L§tUl~IfiCi i3,lit y i 11. the. fT}O§t .1 it era l sei~§-~1
This reminds me of social media and how it is very surface level. Even though this wasn't in existence even yet when this was written, it is a modern parallel that connects to this.
then we fall back into a view of present : history as sheer heterogeneity, random difference, a coexistence of a \host of distinct forces whose effectivity is undecidable.
Is this necessarily a problem? What is the "distinct force" or effectivity of postmodernism as a cultural dominant?
!~!modernism in arcbitpcture
Interesting how postmodernism is identifiable through things like architecture and art. This is an interesting topic to cover as I have been to museums with postmodern exhibits but never knew what that truly meant.
whole system
Nothing is as simple as it seems to be. Taking into account context etc. is extremely important.
“most serious and ambitious fictiona
This statement makes me think of the contrast of this show to the other three we had to watch for this week. Although very different in many ways, the biggest difference is the eagerness to talk about/bring to light complex things where in shows like The Jeffersons etc. they point of them were to actually make light of things/humor.
When we see Bill Cosby in concert, I don't look at a black person. I see Bill Cosby up there. . . . If he was white, I think I would still enjoy his humor as much
This comment rubs me the wrong way a little bit. It almost reminds me of when people say "color blind" or that "they don't see color."
Yet within the middle class world of television, the Huxtables are no longer privileged but normal, "basically a regular family."
Provides a false idea that this is normal because thats what television/the media says.
He's so likable, and I get the feeling if he were your neighbor or your relative, you'd love to see him come in. I do, anyway. I think he's just a real nice guy.
This is a good example of the blurred lines of the reality of television.
At the heart of this televisual bounty of mixed messages is our ambivalence toward their reality.
This makes me think of representation as well. Are representations of different races and classes an accurate representation of society? Does the representation of the Cosby show help or hurt?
nd if you want to live like they do, and you're willing to work, the opportunity is there."
This doesn't take into account systematic pressures but on African-Americans and makes it seem much easier than it actually is.
To have confronted the audience with the uncomfortable realities of racism would have been commercial suicide.
This idea of ignoring hard issues/topics for the sake of money and appealing to the masses is still, unfortunately very common.
hus girls-white middle-class girls, white rich girls-became a media fixation,
This reminds me of the Kardashians and their whole empire - what it glorifies and stands for.
Feminism? Who needs feminism anymore?
I hear this narrative all the time - something along the lines of since we have come so far there isn't a need or reason to complain about the current issues. If this is what women had done in the past, we wouldn't be where we are today. So important to be proud of the progress made, but keep pushing for more!
he three most obvious "masculine" story elements are the absence of strong, female protagonists; fairly explicit violence, often against women; and the objectification of women.
This narrative is so detrimental. No wonder this still continues to be such an issue not just on television, but with real women in their real lives.
The new status is due, at least in part, to the economic impact of second wave feminism in the 1970s, multiple recessions starting in 1975, changes in the working life of middle-class women, changes in the television industry itself, and changes in technology.
We see that these are the impacts of the second wave of feminism which primarily tried to empower white, middle class women. This makes me wonder how the third wave has empowered different ethnicities and sexualities and how? Or has it at all?
In contrast with such innocuous personalities were the personae of Phil Donahue, Sally Jessy Raphael, Oprah Winfrey, and Geraldo Rivera, who reinvented the talk show in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The "big four" of talk shows cultivated reputations as socially concerned individuals and tough interviewers.
How have talk shows even since these ones evolved? The first one that comes to my mind is Ellen. Are women still the primary audience? How can we know?
While denying that it is "feminist," Lifetime lays claim to the "femi-nine" side of television and in its advertising defines "feminine" tele-vision as strong-willed, smart, funny, compassionate, passionate-and only on cable.
This narrative is extremely common in how the media portrays females. How is this detrimental? What kinds of characteristics are we missing about women?
By awakening representing in the form of images what slumbers pre-
It wouldn't let me highlight the rest of the sentence, but when it says "it also shows them how they should behave" stood out to me because I think this is where a lot of Adorno's fear of television and its impacts come from. This could be a scary concept.
The sociaL technical, and artistic aspects of television cannot be treated in isolation.
Television was and is impactful because of all these things working together.
The hidden message lies wholly in th script's view of people, which the audience into assuming th same attitude without realizing it.
I think this sentence really sums up what Adorno sees television as, a way to get the audience to think a certain way without them realizing.
The plot attempts to show how the famous and successful young woman is cured of her nar-cissism, becomes a real person, and learns to do what she could not do before: love
This connects to the reading "Women's Work" because it shows that if a women is young and successful, there is something wrong with her. Instead, she should be in the house. It also shows that if the women doesn't fit this stereotype she can't love, which is completely untrue.
The gendcred division of domestic lahor aml the complex relations of power entJiled by it were thus shown to org<mize the experience of W<ltching television.
How has this changed overtime? Do gender and power still impact the experience of watching television, but just in a different way?
Moreover, their segmented storylines (usually two a day), as well as their repetition and constant explanation of previous plots, allowed women to divide their attention between viewing and household work."
This is so interesting, I knew that soup operas were targeted towards women but they are so thoughtfully targeted to women at home.
It was in 1951 that CBS, NBC. and, to a lesser extent. ABC first ag-gressively attempted to colonize the housewife's workday with regularly scheduled network programs.
What programs are on at certain points in the day is no coincidence, this goes to show this. I wonder how this has changed as the ideal of the "housewife" is becoming less and less popular.
he narrowcaster seeks not all, but a rightly constituted group: a subculture, a segregated element, a gang, or an affinity center of some sort which contains its own variations on right and wrong, which has its own interests to pursue and to protect and its own acknowledgment that its principle of organization is a fundamental asset.
This is a much more effective way to target people, even if the number of people impacted is less. Advertisers do this all the time - researching the subcultures, demographics, psychographics, etc. in order to most effectively reach people.
Broadcasting by its nature is an evan-gelic~ activity, whether it is used to preach the gospel of consumerism (com-~e:cial TV) or the gospel of ethical culture (PBS). A broadcast typically mv1tes everyone who can receive its messages to sympathize, empathize, learn the creed, buy the products, and join the fold.
When reading this the first thing that comes to mind for me is the example of the fireside chats by FDR. Even though this was radio, not television it represents this idea of a broadcast that invites everyone in.
TV characters such as Cronkite, Reagan, and Oprah.
These are legendary names when it comes to television. With the downturn in popularity of television in a younger demographic, will there be names like this in the future? Or well it be in a different context of a different growing platform?
Disney also used behind-the-scenes footage to demonstrate the elaborate process of filmmaking, particularly the intricacies of animation. Although one might think that a filmmaker like Disney would be afraid of ruining the mystery of animation by revealing how its effects are achieved,
This is so interesting! I performed in Disneyland for marching band a couple years ago and when we were backstage getting ready/behind the amusement park nobody could have their phones out or we would be in legal trouble. They said this was so it didn't take the magic out of it for people. Looks like Disney had a different view when it came to his animated films, though.
ABC's programming strategy was built on the belief that television's fundamental appeal was less its ability to deliver exotic events, than its promise of a familiar cultural experience.
This could be a huge part of ABC's success, as I believe they hit consumer's wants very accurately. Also smart to find a way to differentiate themselves to their competitors, because at some point its just going to be everybody offering the same exact thing.
independent producer Walt Disney, whose premiere television series, Dis-neyland, entered ABC's regular Wednesday-night schedule on the twenty-seventh of October.
Interesting to see where Walt Disney came from, as most of us only think of him/Disney as a legendary media franchise.
ritual
I just read an article by James W. Carey for a different class that talks about communication as a ritual. We used social media as an example, but this statement shows it can be broad as well.
It was of course no coincidence that it was while visiting the USA that Raymond Williams created the flow metaphor. His own description of the syntactic orga-nization of US network television, and anyone else's experience of the same thing, explains why he at that time had to leave Britain in order to think of such a term.
This cultural context is interesting and the differences in society is notable, even though you wouldn't think about them being very different.
Television wants this, and more: not just 'this really happened', but 'this really happens, right now!'. In other words, not just the documentary's 'photo effect', but also television's own effect of immediacy, simultaneity, 'liveness'.
Our culture has become one of wanting things "right now," maybe in turn because of things like the television that have provided this for us.
The word 'television' literally means 'distant sight'. But, as we all know, when watching television we are actually just seeing something a few feet away -an image on the glass front of the box we call a TV set. 'Television' is in other words a metaphor, intended to describe what this box, this experience, this form of communication, is all about.
This is so interesting! I had never thought to look up what television means, this gives a cool insight into the history of it.
hen there has been such heavy investment in a particular model of social communications, there is a restraining <.Outplex of financial institutions. of cultural expectations and of specific technical developments, which though it can be seen. superficially. as the effect of a technology is in fact a social complex of a new and central kind.
I found this reading to fascinating, walking through the history of technology and its impact on society. I knew of course it did have an impact, but diving deeper and seeing the significance that Williams pulls out was very cool. Although very theoretical sometimes, I was able to see the point he was making.
The centralisation of political power led to a need for messages from that centre along other than official lines.
How politics shapes communication and vice versa is really interesting. Often times I don't think of the printing press as a technology, but it truly is and shaped society and politics.
Its power as a medium of news and entertainment was then so great that it altered aJI preceding media of news and entertainment.
I think this applies to other aspects of technology in society too, most of the time it is created for a different purpose than it ends of being for. For example, Facebook was originally created for college students and you had to have a .edu email to sign up. We now see how much Facebook as expanded, beyond just those who use it.
Most of us know what is generally implied when such things are said. But this may be the central clifficulty: that we have got so used to statements of this general kind, in our most orclinary cliscussions, that we can fail to realise their specific meanings.
This is so accurate, and applies to much more than television. Now with the implementation of social media this statement is said in regards to that as well. What does this actually mean? A thought provoking question by Williams.
l and miscellaneous flow operates, culturally, following a structure
What does William's mean by the structure of feeling? How can feeling be a structure - and is he talking about structure as in the structure of the flow?
he implicit meanings and values of the commercials require a brief final comment.
I will be paying much more attention to the commercials in shows and analyzing how they fit in. Obviously there is a reason they are there because advertisers and company's pay a lot of money, so you would want the commercial to make sense in the show. An example I have heard of this not working well is a cruise commercial being put during a showing of the Titanic - this would not make sense within the flow.
which is at this stage still, from one point of within a particular evening's programmes.
I have never thought of analyzing the flow of programing, usually I am just concerned with the show I am watching and don't pay attention to the shows before or after unless there are advertisements for them within the show I am watching. I can see how this sequencing could and is intentional.
u
This whole section (was having trouble highlighting) would be extremely different now. People consume news in completely different ways with the age of social media. Interesting to think about how this impacts distribution and flow.
The viewer-as-consumer is thus abstracted into an object of exchange value that the network or station offers to a commercial sponsor-literally sold to ad-vertisers in lots of one thousand.
This makes me think of privacy/autonomy issues that arise because of advertising. More recently this is in the form of synched advertising, or where your phone can listen to you and what you are saying and tailor ads specifically to that.
television does seem to allow for the expression of a range of beliefs and ideas.
This is an interesting statement. Is it exactly true? I think it is getting better absolutely, but diversity in the media, including television, could be better still.
Marxist theories of culture.
In my Mass Media & Popular Culture class we are learning about these theories on culture. One interesting aspect of Marx's theories on culture is that he claims a powerful class dominates culture, which I believe to still be true today.
In the context of American television, advertising is normal. It is' recognized by viewers as the source of station/network income and ex-pected within the course of programming, an integral part of tele-vision flow.
The evolution of television is interesting in this sense, with DVR and being able to skip commercials, or platforms like Netflix
glorifying the physical appearance of Anglo women
This "presumed superiority" is typical not only in television media but within all kinds of advertising and products as well. Hair color is a good example of this that connects denotation vs. connotation.
too much goes on at once and there is too much redundancy among sound and image elements for it to be "artistic?'
Haven't thought about this before, but Seiter makes a really good point that TV has never been seen as and "art" culturally compared to some cinema.
Structuralism stresses that each element within a cultural system derives its meaning from its relationship to every other element in the system: there are no independent meanings, but rather many meanings produced by their difference from other elements in the system.
This interconnectedness is shown in the differences between the Freaks & Geeks and Friday Night Lights. They are within the same system, but highlight different high school stereotypes.
Semiotics tells us things we already know in a language we will never understand?'
At first when I read this definition of semiotics I was confused, but it makes sense that there are certain social scripts we just know about (stoplight example) but the language that this uses we don't understand, there isn't a textbook rule to it, we are just expected to know.
ive possible matches between story and discourse duration:
I found this list of five very interesting, and will definitely notice these more in the shows and movies I watch now that I have a definition for them!
others, like The Wonder Thars, make oral narration an inte-gral, ongoing facet of the text. Narrative theory helps us break down such voice-over narrators into two types: those who are situated outside of the story they relate, and those who also double as characters within that · h t t· 29 story.
This reminds me of the TV show "Jane the Virgin" that just ended. It had a narrator (outside of the story) that was an integral part in the show. It recently just ended, and the last episode revealed who the narrator was - which actually ended up being a character in the show. I thought this was a really cool way to end the show and tie it all together.
event as "a change from one state of affair to another."
I love this definition of "event" and have never thought of it in this way before.
How can ap-proaching television as a narrative art deepen our understanding of indi-vidual shows or of the medium as a whole? How can looking at television help us with our research on narrative itself?
This is very interesting to me, as I have never really looked at television as a "narrative art" but rather just as a form of entertainment.