Sometimes, the creators of a product can cause its ultimate demise. If the phone companies continued only pushing the phone from their perspective of zero socialization needed, it likely would have failed and never been accepted by society so quickly. Inventors and business people feel the need to stick to their plan, not adapting to the road and societal expectations that come along with it. What led to the eventual success of the Phone was society telling the companies exactly what they wanted; they just wanted to talk on the line and use it how they wanted. Once the phone companies accepted that their original plan was not the most successful one, the phone was able to trailblazer into every American home.

I previously mentioned how the move to the big city in the 1920s provided for easier phone use, and this point furthers that. Connecting one, giant building, to telephone lines is easy, and provides hundreds of people with the ability to use a phone. This technological understanding that the phone struggled in rural areas explains why, in the 1920s, the phone succeeded in having socialization; people were moving to cities, where the focus in life was more on socialization, and thus more people utilized the phone that was at their disposal much easier in comparison to rural areas.

When I think of the 1920s (primarily anything before 1929), I focus on a time of fun and excitement. The world was changing, and people were accepting it. There was no war, and Americans had begun utilizing the new technologies and advancements provided to them. I think this is directly why the sociability rates go up. People weren't focused on saving, nor protecting the household style - people were having fun, and society was okay with that for once. While some locations adhered to the societal expectations of keeping a stereotypical home, major cities allowed for a new world to begin. With bustling cities, travel becomes harder, thus the phone becomes a necessity. Post WW1 focuses on a more joyous few years, and society was slightly prioritizing socialization and growing the big city. The phone provided limitless communication to discuss the world and its surroundings and provided a line to secure more socialization face to face.

I think beyond profitability, socializing using the phone was a waste of money. With economics plummeting, and the common household struggling to get by, wasting time by spending hours or even minutes on the phone was too far-fetched. Functionality was key from 1900 to 1930 in the product, which is why they focused on business and housekeeping - because people needed those things, they didn't need to socialize over the phone, that could be done in person. I also think that the role of the working man, who had no time to socialize, also played a role in socialization not being promoted. With every dollar providing for the family, spending a single cent on a technology that would just waste time wasn't functional. However, once America had reached a point where socialization was accepted and affordable, this allowed the phone to blossom into its full potential. While I think some profits could have been brought from socialization early on, I doubt that it would have provided sustainable differences in metrics due to the circumstances society relied on.

Especially in this era, I don't think anyone saw men as sociable creatures - as defined by social expectations, they were focused on working and providing for their families. Part of this woman rhetoric plays into the fact that the life of a woman focused on the social; hosting parties, book clubs, etc. However, with this role dictated so early on in society, it's interesting that phone companies didn't take advantage sooner. The aforementioned fear of disrupting the household, but the phone was produced as a tool for house chores, making the woman's life easier, and in turn making the house run smoother. I think inevitably this becomes a double-edged sword for early 1900s society; yes the woman would have an easier life, but she already has an easy life compared to her husband and we don't need to change anything.

I want to make the hypothesis that one of the reasons why the phone was not promoted as social is that women's workplaces were the home - if communication and socialization were allowed using the home phone, the woman would not complete her daily tasks and thus the household would fall apart. However, once social implications were removed from the advertising of the phone, they finally realized that the phone gave women a window into a new world, which could be a lucrative market. Also, besides just women, I think telephone companies feared that the Phone would overtake the home, disrupting lifestyle, and thus many would dislike the product. This would be a plausible reason as to why the social aspect didn't come until later in the telephone's life.

Going off of my former annotation, it finally feels like the phone is being put in the consumer's hands. Using the phrasing "Your Telephone" allows the consumer freedom and conscious ownership over the product to do what they want. By providing guidelines that focus on boring realities (safety, business, etc.), customers couldn't see the opportunity that the phone provided - an unsolicited world of communication at your hands. Finally, when the telephone companies gave that to their consumers, there was acceptance in society that this functional tool could have potential in the societal realm for good.

After reading this, I found it interesting how simple it was to connect the phone to the car. While fundamentally different items, they both provide a functional way for people to connect, either physically or communicatively. This functionality is what the phone advertising originally lacked, as I think they were too focused on promoting the "high-class value" of the product. By constantly saying that the phone should be used for X, not Y, you are limiting a product that should truly have no limits. By finally allowing the phone to be in the consumer's hands, the technology was able to fully grow and develop into a functional staple of the American household, connecting communities and societies just as the car had physically connected the nation.

I find it peculiar that people could not figure out what the purpose of the telephone for, and that it necessitated years of advertising and marketing to explain it. However, with original companies pushing away from socialization, I could understand how this marketing would be confusing. If given a phone, and told that it's the newest way to communicate, but you have to communicate with it in a specific way, a person may not be drawn to try it. Their advertisements, utilizing attractiveness as a large factor for users, certainly hold some value, but it seems that the telephone found its footing on its own, specifically in the hands of society. Once people started utilizing the technology as they saw fit, to communicate any ideas, without the restrictions or hand-holding of phone companies, that's when the influence and growth began.

I had NO idea this is what AT&T stands for! I think it's interesting that they kept this name, even though the telegraph fell off in use completely. I think they hide this reality of their name, but from a marketing standpoint (sorry I have to let my business minor show), I would love to see them focus on how they have been here for hundreds of years through the evolution of communication. I think that could be a great advertising strategy demonstrating the strength and long-term effect that AT&T has on our world.

Instead of being entrapped by our cocoon, our cocoon is slowly encroaching on the rest of the world. The American entertainment industry continues to grow and flourish in other nations, and as we take their attention they join our cocoon. Also, the ease of joining the American cocoon via social media and the internet makes our webbing a bit stickier. This is mostly due to the power and strength that our society gives entertainment, and in turn, it can transcend borders and leach onto any audience willing to listen.

With social media and online streaming taking over media as we know it, I think this adds a layer to the nationalistic approach to broadcasting. While, yes, our broadcasting relates to and defines us, since it can transcend borders, it can also begin to affect and redefine other places. And similarly, with easier access to other nations' media, we can be affected and changed by their media. While our media continues to define us, the modern role of the internet allows it to redefine and reteach others as well.

I think it's fair to argue that broadcasting has borders, however, I think broadcasting can also transcend and become borderless. If we consider that social media and online streaming networks are a form of broadcasting in our modern era, people from across the world can see the same information/entertainment, and relate to it. Television lies in the traps of borders, but as we look to the future, I think it is more fair to argue that modern broadcasting is breaking borders down around the globe.

We are constantly evolving and growing, but I have to argue with this statement. The past has occurred, it is dead, and we cannot change how these things happened. However, with new, modern perspectives, we can provide new viewpoints on these events. History does indeed live in the past and lies as a fact. It is up to us in the present to look at these histories from a different perspective so we can find new definitions for our future.

I have found that British television shows are much more willing to handle the darker sides of humanity in their television. The original British Office, specifically the Ricky Gervais character, was based on much darker humor, which is the complete opposite of Steve Carrel's portrayal. However, I find myself shocked that the US has not tried to replicate the great success of Doctor Who. The show goes from hilarity to deep emotional moments, but the show still made its way across the pond to huge success. While it seems like darker, more emotional shows are a consistent success in the UK, America fears that we need more light-hearted material, and thus we don't see these unique and fantastic TV shows.

Media has the power to completely rewrite history, specifically in our modern era with Social Media. While broadcasts may tell the full story of an event, social media provides a platform to pick and choose how history is retold. Earlier in the reading, the author focuses on how the audience holds great power. However, when the audience also has the power to share the story they want to hear, it may become the only story that people know, reconstructing and altering history in the process. For example, if someone's social media feed is based on conservative rhetoric, they may only hear the conservative viewpoint of certain events, and that becomes their history. Even though they may know their not getting the full story, they would rather hear the history that fits their perspective.

My perspective may be different due to the generational gap, but I feel that Nick at Nite fully influenced my perspective of the late 80s-90s. The shows I saw (Friends, Seinfeld, etc.) all demonstrated the lifestyle of young people living in the big city, and how this should be the dream. However, even with this much more modern viewpoint, the shows always had at least one character/couple focused on marriage/starting a family. Even though these shows took place 40 years in the future, they still focus on the heteronormative couple and relationship expectations we see in the 50s shows.

When thinking of the 50s lifestyle these politicians lived through, I found myself caught off-guard by the government staying out of private lives, specifically because of the Red Scare and McCarthyism that was present from the 50s-70s. Media, especially broadcast, focused on the dangers of Communism in opposition to Capitalism, and the government focused heavily on attacking those who showed any support. However, because these politicians lived the heteronormative lifestyle, and were unaffected by this breach of security by the government, they act as if it never happened. The role of the media here specifically demonstrates how societal power can be amplified or silenced by media representation. The perspective of those who held opposing opinions to the norm were silenced, and thus the media overpowered any anti-government perspective that could be provided.

I think it is important to stress that social and cultural power can be grown or taken away via broadcast media. With broadcasting providing an international stage for viewership, those who control the media can place whatever viewpoint they want for their benefit. However, I also think this could be done consciously and unconsciously. Unbiased media, though rare, can act as a mirror to the powers of society and culture which are already thriving or need representation. When we look at history, we can see how the media represented certain societal groups and how, in turn, it positively or negatively affected that group's power and role in society. As previously mentioned, this bias is so rare, that it is much more common to see how those in power within the media can use their role to change the power/perception of any group.

I think providing as many viewpoints into a retelling of history works towards providing the fullest story possible. The author has some control over picking works that match his perspective, but by his omission, his goal is to provide differing viewpoints for the audience's benefit. Hearing history from the same voice would provide a one-note rendition, but differing perspectives allow for the reader/student to take pieces from each to solve the puzzle of history. Especially when discussing the ever-evolving and open conversation of Media and Broadcasting, hearing multiple points of view on the topics is a guaranteed way to grow one's knowledge.

As someone obtaining a business minor, I cannot stress how many times history has been a point of discussion in my business courses. Specifically, when interviewing for a position, many people think you should know the entire history of the company, and be able to provide it in the blink of an eye. Knowing a company and its assets is certainly a leg up, but a company's past is not its present. I believe it is a much more beneficial tool to know where the company wants to go, and how you can be a beneficial and supportive part of that journey. Also, some history of businesses and workplaces is so dated and unuseful that it could lead to a negative mindset, something that is not beneficial to the direction a business wants to go. I think knowing the history of a business/career path can certainly get you in the door, but being open to new opportunities and paths is how success is brought forward.

One could argue that a misinformed citizen is the most dangerous member of society. When history is placed into a perspective that fits a nation/location/society's expectations, the stories and lessons we can learn from it completely change. Yes, the author is correct in saying a well-informed citizen is important, but how can we be certain that we are informing all citizens in the same way, especially in the modern US?

This goes back to my former comment on how the American Education System values history so greatly. I certainly agree that knowing your country is a valuable tool for political decision-making, but it also depends on the history you are being told. The viewpoint of different states & their retellings of American history can greatly affect a child's perspective, and eventually, this will adapt to their political point of view. While it is certainly important to tell the history and keep the public informed, it is wholly dangerous to adapt that history to the political and societal expectations of where it is being taught.

When thinking of the American family, I have to think about the expectations that society and history have placed on the American people. Since childhood, we have been told that we should want a family and kids, even though the world is overpopulated and you don't have any requirements to do that. History plays a huge role in our identity as families, and the expectations that families then pass on from generation to generation.

Utilizing these real-life historical examples of morality persevering also proves to be a key political and societal arguing point. While some may see historical figures as daring and brave, others see them as rebellious and criminalistic. While I agree that yes, morally we can use these historical figures as moral standpoints today, there will always be some other group in our modern world that might disagree with that standpoint completely. History is like a pair of binoculars, you can give people the same pair but they are gonna see different things.

This makes me think of institutions such as the patriarchy and heteronormative functions in our society, and specifically how, even in ever-changing worlds, they continue to thrive. I think those two societal structures specifically are great representations of the repeated survival of something that benefits few but thrives on. History should allow us to learn from these structures, and teach us how to rebuild and reconstruct more equal societies using the baseline on which the formers have survived.

While yes, history is a tool for solving our questions, it could also be an arrow pointing in the wrong direction. With so limited information due to a lack of technology or even documentation, it is genuinely difficult to support the claim that we should wholeheartedly use history to define and research the why of our modern societies. I think they are certainly a good mirror and reflection of where we came from, but questions on our species should be answered in the now. I simply don't believe we can base the definition of our species on the uncredible past.

I know it's the first line of the text, but I don't think all people live in the present so to speak. I find myself constantly looking back to the past, repeating history in my head as to what I did wrong/what I could've done better. Other people, live in the future, using the present as only a means to reach the reality which they think they deserve. Depending on your mindset, I think you could live in the past, the present, or the future. I just think it's important to note that if someone's past is deeply personal and constantly on their mind, it may merge into their present.

I think the clarification on the American Educational System here is key to understanding why AMERICANS study history. I feel that at some point, history lessons became indoctrination into the cult of American pride, as history courses focus on the greatness and the success of the United States. Later in life, I was able to focus away from the US, and that's when I started to enjoy history because finally, we were getting the full story. This distinction and manipulation of history is a key point into why History has been such a widely used tool in the American Education system.

Certainly, our society has moved past this baseline, especially with the waves of new technology at our hands. Yes, knowing historical points and dates can prove intelligence, but not when you have a supercomputer in your pocket that's giving you all the answers. However, some could argue that using that technology to your advantage also proves intelligence and skillfulness, but that is a perspective plagued by generational disagreements.