At their worst, the programmes can come to resemble trial by kangaroo court in which the studio audience’s catharsis is gained through the hostile prosecution and judgement of the confessing witness.
This critique of the show really puts in picture how a vulnerable and healing environment can quickly turn into a medium of judgment and public shame as it is broadcasted nationally. Where during these times, things could get performative or harmful towards the bigger picture.
Thus, while the Oprah Winfrey Show, unlike most other television forums, attempts to reveal and challenge social inequalities, its liberal assumptions nevertheless often compromise substantive possibilities for creating a “more equal America” in which some people are not, in fact, “more equal than others”
This section stood out to me because of the specific and individual style of storytelling on the show can create a transformative and healing message but with the lack of specificity on the bigger picture of the whole message can challenge how far the good intentions of the show can portray.
In Home Alone, as we have noted, gross neglect and abuse were equated with the actions of the guest who had left her children for 20 minutes
This is why television has always been very oversimplified to satisfy a general audience, but when it tries to ground more complex situations and emotions, it can unintentionally compress different concepts into the same categories.
Indeed, the Oprah Winfrey Show can be read as a showcase for the failures of the American Dream to deliver and of the tensions of the liberal politics at its bedrock.
The fact that a show as powerful as the Oprah Winfrey Show can actively produce and manifest new cultural values while also reflecting them. With the optimistic and transformative nature of the show, the cracks and failures showcased can also be a showcasing of the imperfections of the american dream
The key narrative frame of all of these constructions/readings is that of the American Dream. However, even as the Oprah Winfrey Show provides a window on competing “Americas,” so too does it mediate a multiplicity of Dreams, often in contradictory ways.
This part of the paragraph made me reflect on how it is really important to note the perspective of which the American Dream is being told is coming from. Can it truly be a framework if its changing depending on who is telling the story.
While the classic network era’s dominance as the definitive US “system” of TV may have, in retrospect, been rather surprisingly short‐lived, its continued relevance should not be underestimated
I thought that this was powerful because of its truth and clarity. Television continues to transcend all cultural barries as it evolves into new forms of live streaming entertainment whether it be on Netflix, Tik Tok Live, or Twitch. I feel like my children will be watching television and generations after it. It will evolve, but the concept is the same.
If film induced a dream‐like spectatorial state, entranced by an undistracted “gaze,” television seemed motored by “distraction” and the “glance.”
I thought that this was a good point that I do agree with, as television seems more to be a time filler and movies an experience, however it is true that the experience of watching a movie on a television is also similar to television. Episodes of engagement, vs full hours of immersiveness.
the Big Three during the classic era provided a more “shared” arena because of the need to appeal to a broad and mass audience, and given that each network was “profoundly influenced by the racial and cultural politics of the period,” they could function as more of “a visible and polemical site of cultural debate” than any other media form (Gray 1995: 77).
It is an important truth to embrace how much influence television added into racial and cultural narratives and how this broad audience could have been reached due to intent and different interpretations of the content. Knowing our entertainment was built on this infrastructure makes me wonder how much of it is still trickling down in parts of the media that I dont notice because I see it everyday
By 1959, TV was old enough for critics, scholars, government regulators and legislators, industry executives, and the viewing public to assess retrospectively the nature of the medium, its purpose, and its contributions (or lack thereof) to national discourse.
I thought this was a good reflection on how deep TV has intertwined with cultures not just in the west but world wide. It was/is one of the few things that transcend cultural barriers and is now a drive of force in our global culture. I wonder what the older generation at the time thought of televisions when it was first becoming popular.
the quiz show scandals of 1958–59 had the effect of consolidating network power in the name of the public good.
I wonder to what extent is the actions of the network in the publics good? Who was getting to determine this because it is likely that what was better for the public good also made the network much profit.
Oppenheimer’s role as both a writer and a producer proved extremely threatening to a community of writers who saw producers as management, and therefore their adversaries in contract and labor negotiations
I wonder if these tensions were the foundations of various labor movements that we have seen over time in the media industry. Blending the complexities of art with business, with the lines between an artist and an executive get blurred.
Creativity is often defined as a singular vision: so how can such singularity of mind come from a collection of, arguably, dozens of people? And yet, sometimes if it’s the right collection of media makers, the results can turn into the best television has, and perhaps ever will, offer.
I just thought that this was a super powerful way to summarize and conclude this piece. It makes me wonder how much our obsession with culture with social media especially in western markets of individual brilliance and doing it hustling by yourself. But the truth is in the chaos and the brilliance of "dozens of people". Conan O' Brian used to write for the Simpsons before he was randomly chosen to host the late night show but I think did a great job in his career to highlight that it was more than a one-man show effort.
Nowadays when we think about the author of a narrative television series, we assign a privileged role to its creator. The creator provides the original story, building a storyworld that an ensemble cast inhabits, and often has a continuing
I think that this was important to note as it highlights how much the industry has shifted and how meticulous we are with credit these days. However, with labels the general public consistently seems to think that the creator or owner of something means they do everything. Which is furthest from the truth
Karl Freund was from the movies, Desi was from the theater and the stage, Lucy was from the movies, and everybody got together and put in their two cents and made it work . . . It was like inventing the wheel, as it all turned out rather well.
Pointing out how there was never a true showrunner for I Love Lucy, the mutual respect towards each members contributions is evident where they all recognize overlooked contributions. Reading this, it feels like this show was truly their baby which helps me understand why this was a gem for the time and influenced many generations of television and media.
By celebrating rather than shying away from showing the first pregnant woman on television, I Love Lucy (CBS, 1951–1957) and the arrival of little Ricky secured the Ricardos as a television family.
Back in a time during the 50's when pregnancy was more of a taboo subject, even more so on a television screen, this challenged the societal norms and pushed boundaries of what should be acceptable for families for talk about. It is interesting to think how now it is almost too normalized.
They had not met such a challenge before, and they were not prepared for it when it came. That radio was delivering the news faster than newspapers, that radio was making money doing this, and that the public obviously wanted radio to perform this service, were all bitter pills for the publishers to swallow.
I wonder if radio now is undergoing the same process that they elapsed over the newspaper industry with the rise and dominance of social media and digital/visual media
The number of stations associated with Transradio Press continued to grow throughout 1934 and 1935. The Publishers' Radio Committee admitted to 25 stations in May of 1934.40 By January of 1935 Herbert Moore estimated that his service was being offered to 150 stations,4' and by June of that year Business Week put the total at around 200.
I just thought that this was inspiring to see its persistence and growth. It was like something that was so inevitable that no one can deny it. I hope to see some form of insane media shift like this in my life and be able to experience and be a part of it. I wonder if there were any newspaper agencies during the time that truly embraced this new mode of media and were able to evolve with this tide.
entering into the "Biltmore Program" with the publishers and the Associated Press in December of 1933. The press had been able to turn an untenable position into a strategic advantage.
It seems here that the press used the power in their established papers to sway broadcasters into government regulation that would not be in their best interest. Since it was such a new concept at the time, I wonder how much true weight they had in the media culture at the time with their rapidly growing network. I believe there may be a similar rhetoric here in the amount of new podcast we see today getting bought out by bigger companies.
The reactions of some of the newspapers was to drop the commercial references in their program listings, or, in some cases, to drop the listings altogether. This action was one which broadcasters apparently were afraid of, but the response to it came not from the broadcasters but from the papers' readers
I can see why the newspapers' decision to withhold radio listings from their publishes but I cannot help but wonder how much more the media landscape at the time could have boomed if they saw the opportunity in its potential. However, it is cool how broadcasters were unbothered by this, as people were seeking our information about the radio regardless of the newspaper.
As. important as being privy to such spectacular but rare transmissions was the novelty of contacting other people, strangers, through space. One operator claimed that amateurs using only "a wire strung up like a clothesline between trees" were able to pick up "many long-distance messages."
I think that this is a good testimony showing us the level of excitement and curiosity the general public had about this technology, where you had children trying anything just to experience it themselves. It was a time where people could feel innovation rapidly rising, even in their local neighborhoods.
THE EMERGENCE OF this grass-roots network of boys and young men marks the introduction of yet another way of using and thinking about wireless and the ether which contributed to the social construction of broadcasting
Overall, this is an example of a technology boom that the world was miraculously able to integrate within some decades that was able to create lots of jobs and opportunities and also a new pipeline of innovation and learning experience for the youth of the time to carry into future generations. The transformative cultural shift where the wireless tool became a public resource, of which evolved into the mainstream media we have today.
The amateurs were tapping point-to-point messages meant only for certain ears, not broadcasts intended for everyone. They could feel part of an inner circle of informed people because they heard the news as it happened.
Another example describing the power of a people, where when there is a clear new way to effectively communicate quickly, people are going to find ways to use resources for privileged access to live news coverage. It can be argued that this can be and observation of a form of nonconformity to regular media at the time.
The response to his invitations was so enthusiastic that within four months the league boasted two hundred official relay stations across the United States.60 Thus, in 1914, there existed in America a grass-roots, coast-to-coast communications net work.
Adding onto my previous comment, this further reinforces my argument that since there was no way to effectively regulate this technology at the time, although dangerous, it was a form of communication that naturally, humans want to use to communicate easier. Its clear that it was for all people from the start. With the rapid expansion of the new national organization the swiftness of which it was able to grow in just four months is a testimony for this.
Some amateurs deliberately sent false or obscene messages, especially to the navy. The temptation to indulge in such practical joking was enhanced by the fact that detection was virtually impossible. Amateurs would pretend to be military officials or commercial operators, and they dispatched ships on all sorts of fabricated mission
I found it somewhat charming with the fact that the people were using this new technology and rapidly finding out new things about it in their own time. It seemed, there was none who had true power over it at the time so even with the dangers of uncharted territory, even amateurs could have their way with it