PBS...A Good Thing

I believe I have nine blog post…at least I think, so this will be my tenth and last. The reading we had consisting of Sesame Street and overall “kids” programming seemed as usual to me. People getting all upset about a show that millions of people like and try to find the “behind” meaning of what is really going on with the show Sesame Street. My question is, “Where can I find a job like that?” I mean come one, what classic show don’t you know of that was happening during the 70’s that didn’t consist of drug users creating it? I say give Sesame Street a break, they’re a non-profit program on PBS, we should be looking more closely in Blues Clues or Dora the Explore and other money hungry shows that are hot right now. In the time of Sesame Street we were worried about Communists and today we’re worried about terrorist, much difference, not really. Sesame Street is a great program that enables children to get some practice before school, plus people aren’t teaching them…Muppets are and that’s cool, considering how a show like Mr. Rogers couldn’t be successful in today’s word due to his resemblance an online predator. Either way shows on PBS are way more educational in a sense compared to shows on Nickelodeon, from Arthur, Reading Rainbow, and Real Science! (come on you can’t beat that lineup). I don’t have kids to worry about currently, but Epley my man you do, and highly take in consideration what you let your kids watch because knowing a little about you, you’ll probably let them what as much TV as they want. Curious George, Dragon Tales, to Sesame Street they all are either informational, educational, or entertaining. I watched them and I turned out alright...some say.

Non-commercial Television Blog #9

So I feel all this debate over Sesame Street and children's programming is somewhat useless and unneccessary. They are arguing over whether it is more beneficial for children to learn cognitive skills or learn to use their imaginations. Obviously both these qualities are necessary for children to develop into moral and responsible adults. Can't we agree that most educational children's programming is doing more good than harm? Another thing about this debate is the emphasis put on these television shows. I don't think exposure to Sesame Street is really going to improve a child's chances of having a better education. I guess at least they are trying to educate kids, but I feel more of the responsibility should rest on the parents. Parents too easily pawn there kids off on the television set. Some television watching is alright for kids, but a lot of it is not all that stimulating or educational, and too much of a good thing is still too much. If parents paid more attention to what their kids were watching it would not be so detrimental. At least Sesame Street is not part of this capitalistic controlled children's tv. They aren't making this to get rich, instead they are offering more of a service to parents. Parents can sit their kids down in front of the tv and put Sesame Street on and know that it is at least better than other children's tv. And now the government doesn't want to fund public tv anymore. Well that is just riduculous considering that the amount they spend is so little in comparison to their other expenses. A show like Sesame Street should be complimented and held in a higher regard than regular children's programming, it should be supported by both parents and the govenment, not picked apart and ridiculed.

Quality TV Blog #8

So the entire semester we have been bouncing this idea around about quality television. What is quality tv? Who decides what can be called quality. I read Pieper's blog and I agree with her comments about your comments (Eply, that's you). Maybe you were right. Maybe I am being dupped by network executives. Maybe I do scoff at people who watch Rock of Love, Girls Next Door, basically any show on MTV, or the E channel for five hours a day because I feel more intelligent. But just because I am being marketed and sold to just like the cultural dopes who watch crappy tv doesn't mean I am going to change what I watch. I like what I like. Everything that is on tv is on there to do one thing and one thing alone, to make money. I am just happy that some of the shows offered on television do provide me with what I consider quality entertainment. I am not saying that Six Feet Under is any better than America's Next Top Model, oh wait, I am saying that. But why shouldn't I say that. I have a right to my own opinion. I believe that what most scholars consider quality tv is fundamentally better than other programming. It seems to dig deeper into the human experience and provides a better protrayal of human emotions and interactions. Not to mention the comedies that are considered quailty. It seems I like quality dramas because they dwell on personal experiences and feelings more. I like quality comedies because they use more refined techniques of story telling than the average one-liners. What it comes down to is this, whether or not I am being dupped dosen't matter. I am just glad that some of the people out there that are making television are making it in a way that appeals to me, even if I am to be sequestered as a high-cultured, academic, hipster wananbe.

Disintegration: Cable to Youtube Blog #7

So in this blog I am going to once again get bitchy about American society, and why not, it is so easy. Television is scared of the internet and I can see why. But mark my words, television or some futuristic form that is similar to television will always be around. There is no way to escape it. Right now television seems to have a relationship with the internet, only the internet is wearing the pants. The internet holds all the power, but the television is the pretty counterpart that is fun to look at. Anyway, it's great for fans to be able to go on-line and access material related to their favorite shows. It also allows them to connect with others that enjoy the same show, and to talk to other fans. But this idea of the intenet functioning as a valuable social and culture space I just don't agree with. I wish it could be, but let's just put it out there, the internet is a huge marketing ploy. The idea of personal tv and target marketing is the next step in our capitalistic society. This step worries me. I am just down right sick of it all. I don't want to be a consumer, I don't feel that I am a consumer. The only thing I ever spend money on is gas, food, rent, and bills. Why am I the target demographic? I don't need or want to have all this consumerism pushed in my face. It basically just makes me feel bad about my life, as if my life was insuperior. If I had my choice I would probably move into the mountains and get away from all these overbearing forces that make me feel like I need to buy to feel happy. Why not try feeling happy through something else. I obviously have no idea right now what I am trying to say and this blog makes no sense, but I will just say this, the meaning of life, at least mine, is not found in a prepackaged world picked out just for me.

Television's Prime Blog #6

So it's been awhile since we talked about Gitlin, but this idea of hegemony keeps coming up. In his piece he talks about how television promotes the partiarchal, white, way of thinking. Well, of course it does, it's run by partirarchal white males. He talked about changes in the way that the hegemonic thinking is inserted into television programming from the different eras. In the 50's and 60's it was obvious. But then in the 70's it changes. Shows start including social issues in their themes. But this is a trick, they are domesticizing the problem. They're are talking about them, but aren't really talking about them. We think things are changing on television or in society, but it seems that the people in control are just tweeking their ideas and presenting them in a new way. What I am trying to get at I don't really know. I just feel that hegemony is everywhere and it always has been. The problem I believe is that everyone allows it to work. Members of our society don't challenge whether the American dream is a good dream, instead they immerse themselves in it, they strive for it. Maybe the problem is this American dream. This idea of success is what seperates us from each other. It positions us as competitors, instead of bringing us together or whatever. Television is obviously a vehicle for this to happen. We are presented with countless shows that reinforce this idea of reaching for the American dream. Television also is all about advertising. In Gitlin's words it turns us into a market rather than a public. I see this as one of the major problems in America. It's all about the stuff that you have. Everyone is so busy trying to attain material posessions they are distracted. No one feels connected to one another anymore, no one cares about anyone else except their immediate family. It's all about the benjamins for most Americans. We're all individuals. Right, who cares if your an individual if there is no one there to appreciate your greatness. Who cares who suffers as long as you have what you want. This is the problem with American society.

Children's Television

The reading from last week really made me angry. How in any way, shape or form is Sesame Street bad for children to watch? For the most part everyone I grew up with watched it and I think we all turned out fine. Shows that they have now are even worse for kids then Sesame Street ever could have been. Sesame Street taught kids things that really were good for them. What stuff does the Teletubbies teach a child? Sesame Street taught colors and numbers. The characters on the show were pretty cool and fun to watch. The best show for a kid to watch today would be Dora the Explorer I think. This is because it actually teaches kids Spanish while still being educational. It is an easy show for a child to watch because it's fun and there is a monkey in it that is pretty fun, too. PBS has a lot of quality shows for kids today. Arthur is great because there is always a lesson that comes with the show. There is also a show with a clown girl on PBS and that is pretty entertaining. She shows kids how to clean up in one minute and also does exercises like stretching during the show. Minus the part that she is a clown, it really isn't to bad of a show. I think that with your twins, Epley, you should start them off with some good old Sesame Street and then slowly move them up to the Wiggles once they can walk. The Wiggles are pretty fun and they tour the country doing live shows. Just an idea though!

Reality TV- This could be you!

The reading from the week of reality television didn't surprise me much. What we talked about in class and what the readings said was that it could be you. You can be on a reality television show if you wanted. Lets think to this year and the girl from UNI that was on Big Brother. Now I have never watched that show, nor did I when she was on it, but none the less it showed me that hey I can be on television just like this other girl from UNI. Then came spring break and MTV's trashy shows from spring break in Florida. That is when another UNI student was on television and ended up winning some couples contest. I have heard from various people that the guy wasn't actually dating this girl and that they just were models together. Which then goes to show me that reality television is a bunch of crap. What happened to great television shows that were about family and actually had some talented actors/actresses in them? I miss the days of the Brady Bunch and Wonder Years. Now don't get me wrong I do love the trashy shows that occupy the television time, but I also like watching good shows that have some special meaning in the end. I think I am probably out of luck with that because I feel that television won't be turning around and going back to producing higher cost shows anytime soon. Another thing that really bothered me in class was when Nikki was talking about volunteering on the set of Extreme Home Makeover and she said that Ty was never even there until the last few days before the big reveal. I think that that is pretty shady of him. People think he is such a great guy cause he is helping make someone who has a shitty house so much better and in all reality he doesn't do anything to help really. This needs to be put in a little disclaimer at the end of the show so people know about it. I think that I am going to go apply for the Real World and try to get on there and then I can report back about how unreal it really is.

Sesame Street 1972

I'm almost offended by last weeks reading and how people could think Sesame Street is bad for their children. They compare it to Mister Roger's Neighborhood and explain the differences that make "Mister Rogers" a better choice for youngins. What would you rather watch as a child, Sesame Street or Mister Rogers? I covered some research about Sesame Street in Media Processes and Effects and it shows through two studies that Sesame Street is an effective television show for kids 3-5 and helps them learn before they attend school. Their ability to pick up numbers, and the alphabet were higher than those who didn't watch Sesame Street. Isn't that rewarding considering your child can enhance their cognitive learning before they set foot in school? The big picture is that a child's viewing habits can effect them in so many ways. Whether they watch educational programming, violence, or cartoons, it's going to have a lasting effect on their actions and attitudes. A lot of it will come down to the parents and how proactive they are in their childrens lives to monitor how much TV they watch and what they're watching.

X to the Z goes to console

While makeover television gets more popular, i'll continue to laugh at the fact that X to the Z made it onto Xbox 360 and Playstation consoles. I have no idea how I was in the dark about this, but this game looks absolutely retarded. I just happen to google Pimp My Ride images and found this screenshot from the console game. I might be on my way to Family Video or Blockbuster later to get my Pimp My Ride fix in. Not. The show was dumb, the only part that was worth watching was to hear Xzibit's laugh. Maybe i'll link a video later if you don't know what i'm talking about. While Pimp My Ride was really popular and made it 4 seasons, the first makeover show I remember watching was the original Extreme Makeover. Before Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, I remember watching this show with my parents and seeing people getting makeovers to look totally opposite than what they did before. I thought it was kinda cool at first, but little did I know that many shows that were twice as dumb were to follow. Is this just a way for celebrities to rejuvenate their careers? Pretty sure Xzibit's music sucked and now he's on to acting; see Derailed.

Broadcasting to Broadcasters

Addressing broadcasting, narrowcasting, and microcasting, unless you’re a business major, only becomes really interesting when you look at its future. Unlike the 50’s, when daytime TV catered to female audiences, Saturday morning catered to children, and primetime catered to the man of the house, our world today is shaped by a much more diverse group of spectators. As Nate addressed in class, not even the Food Network is catering to an all-female fan base anymore. I mean…you saw Giada’s low-cut shirt, right?

Today, advertisers have taken the position of narrowcasting. Commercials aren’t broadcast to “men coming home from work” anymore. They’re broadcast to “Hispanic men, 18-34 years old, working blue collar jobs in the Midwest.” It’s really a new level of advertising that marketing and advertising grads are probably still beaming about. Unfortunately, they probably still haven’t gone far enough, for their tastes or maybe even our own.

As Lewis and Parks addressed, TiVo and the connections we make on DVRs may take advertising to a new level. No longer will they narrowcast, they’ll microcast, baby! They’ll understand that even though I’m a college student and am slotted into a neat little advertising demographic, that advertising Busch Light to me is completely useless. A) it sucks, and b) who the hell thinks it’s a good idea to crack open some cheap beer while zip-lining in the mountains…honestly. Anyway, these DVRs will retain a form of virtual memory and advertisers will probably start buying rights to access them, yada yada, etc. The more interesting thought is “Do we hate this or do we want this?” Furthermore, “In the end, aren’t we really just convincing ourselves things are easier and making more work for ourselves?” Look back to the invention of television and women in the house for some back-story. Or…read my response paper to see what I think. You know you wanna.

Neo-Liberalism and Makeover Shows...when did this class turn in to "The Soup"

Honestly, the whole time the in class discussion was going on, I couldn't help but think how great of a script this would make for a new show on E!...hosted by Joel McHale. First off, starting with the cornucopia of ridiculous known as neo-liberalism...how in the fuck does Uncle Sam rationalize in his mind that we the people are better off paying $4.00 for both a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk. If this is a glimpse into the future I see us inevitably arriving in a world where we roam the countryside in our beat up and outdated vehicles, raiding villages for the necessities that we can no longer afford. Yes, I realize that this is somewhat of an over-exaggerated idea that will more than likely never happen...there is still a chance. So this is what I am going to propose...to counteract the gas prices, the government needs to push Toyota to make the Prius cool. I know, I know, it doesn't relate to television, but if the government pushes people who are making un-cool things to add a little bad-assness we will all be better off. I remember seeing an episode of Made where the lead singer for this band Attila who wanted to become a model. This guy was built like me...was all scruffy and had gauged ears, probably about 7/8". Anyways, he went on Made and instead of making him lose all of his uniqueness, they actually allowed him to be himself. They just cleaned him up a bit. I believe he got surgery on his ears which runs about $600 for the pair simply because they are not desirable in the fashion world.  The point of all this? This person is STILL the lead singer for his band and is still the same person he once was. He may attempt to pass as a high cultured citizen but he didn't lose all of his cultural capital within the music scene for "selling out"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4TdPxOXuYw

Fan Fiction

I love the idea of fan fiction and the idea that it could possibly become a mass culture. Watching some of the Star Wars fan fiction films I was somewhat surprised that the creators were actually re-creating a setting that was EXTREMELY similar to the "real deal". The main problem I can see with this sort of creative leeching is that quite frankly, those who are participating in the production of fan fiction process are stealing ideas and creating them as their own. While this may be protected under the many variables within copyright infringement, I understand why the original creators could possibly be upset. For example, if someone creates a piece of fan fiction and the production quality is lacking this could give a bad name to the original creators. While it may be a unique concept...some people aren't able to discriminate between two pieces of media. If I were in George Lucas's shoes I wouldn't someone shooting a fan fiction film in Hi8 and proposing that it is test footage for Episode 7: Jedi FTW. 

The other aspect of fan fiction that I see is the idea of Rip and Remix culture. Ever since Com Tech I have become a complete fanboy of Girl Talk. While this doesn't relate to television, I feel that this is quite possibly more important and risqué than fan fiction. Basically, since it consists of content producer ripping sound files and remixing them to their satisfaction, it is actually using the hard copy of what was originally created. Not just the idea. This hard evidence could stand up in court in a greater way than simple fan fiction.

And now...BROKEBACK TO THE FUTURE!!!

Jealous Bitches

You know what, guys? Just shut up already about The Hills. You're all just jealous. It's not their fault that everyone wants to be them. I mean, come on, Heidi and Lauren are practically self-made celebrities. They worked their way to the top just like the rest of the lighting guys, Steadi-Cam operators, and directors on set. It's not their fault that some 22 year old P.A. got hired to follow them around with a hair light for 18 hours/day. It's yours for not applying to be that guy.

I don't care what you say...The Hills is quality programming. It tells the real-life stories of teens and the hardships of what it's like to live on the Sunset Strip. Finding somewhere to eat, choosing guys based on facial hair patterns, and selecting an accountant that's not “all old and boring” can eat up a lot of time. I mean, it ain't all Chanel and BMW's – one time on the show Lauren had to ride in a Toyota...and the air conditioning didn't work. Talk about a rough day...yeesh.

I mean, it's not like you guys couldn't be little go-getting entrepreneurs as well. I'm sure Audrina, Whitney, LC, and Heidi sat down one day and had a pre-production meeting about how much people envy their lives. I know...how could you not, right? I mean, with the exception of eight guys in black following them around all day with boom-mics and HD cams, it's perfectly realistic. Of course, that is if someone doesn't mess up their line – then you'll need to re-shoot Lauren's over-the-shoulder shot. It's going to be a bitch to resync that with the other cam, though. Oh...and there was one episode where they had to stop because Spencer got trashed and crushed his lav mic, but besides that....I mean, the conversations are real. Well...maybe not all of them on camera, but when you see “The Hills: Behind the Scenes”....that's when you get to see the real stuff they couldn't show.

So stop judging them. It's not their fault that their reality is so much cooler than yours. They earned it...and their better actors than you'll ever be. So take your jealousy and shove it. There's a 73% chance re-runs are on right now, so I guess I've got somewhere to be.

You Are A Star!!!

It doesn’t really matter whether or not you like reality TV shows or not because they’re here and I don’t see them going anywhere. They’re easy ways for people to become stars, washed up stars to comeback, and their high ratings and cheap budge make producers giddy. You can’t turn to a station without it having some form of “reality” based concept going on; whether it’s VH1’s Rock of or Foodnetwork’s Top Chef. Some people want to come home and watch something funny, interesting, and most importantly not have to think. People, well most people, have jobs that consist of thinking and can be relatively stressful, my dad would always say, “I figure out problems all day why the hell do I want to come home and think hard some more?” That’s probably why he watched Animal Planet a lot. I see myself falling along these lines because I watch relatively dumb downed shows throughout the day because I don’t want to have to keep up and make my business to watch. If you’ve never seen an episode of Flavor of Love well your in luck my friends because they recap everything before episode and show repeated marathons basically all day long. America’s Next Top Model has ran each season every weekend for the past month. The brand “reality TV” will be with us for a quite sometime and probably get worse. So many people want to be on TV and are willing to upload videos via website to get there faces seen and most reality shows are viewer friendly in which you can go on their webpage and vote for certain cast members, hell there’s even video dairies up on their websites is people really can’t get enough. Mixing cultures, religions, and people who think they’re God’s chosen one you get dramatized television that going to keep viewers tuning in every week. Sure producers and editors edit what type of storylines to go off of, but it seems to the cast themselves full right along into it. Put me and 6 other people (half of them being girls) in a house, supply us with alcohol, and not make us have realistic jobs…where do I sign?

Amazing Star Wars Lightsaber Fight

Crazy fan culture. These guys demonstrate their Star Wars skills with a 5:00 minute long video to show their dedication to Star Wars. From what I know, Star Wars probably has one of the biggest fan cultures out there and fans show their appreciation through conventions, fan made videos, and countless other endeavors that they engage in. Some take it to the extreme and dress the part, others use their film producing capabilities and make fan videos like the one posted above. I guess there's nothing wrong with that if you're really passionate about it. You'll have your followers of certain shows or sports teams, and it'll depend on the person to how extreme they take their fandom. The question is, do some people take it too far? If they do, how far is too far? How about naming your kid after Luke Skywalker. Are conventions too far? I don't know because i've never been to one, some might think it is. Even the videos, are these people living in a fantasy world of their own? For me, it's probably a little too far when you name your kid after a fictional character. I cant' really comment on the conventions since I don't really know what they're about. Fans will be fans, and they'll express their appreciation any way they can.

Crazy Fans

Fans perform reenactments, go to conventions, and produce their own scripts; have they gone too far? I don’t think so and like Epley said the creators of the films/TV series are realizing this to (George Lucas). Fans of Firefly want to continue on the “legacy” by creating a webpage and naming themselves Brown Coats…do it! I see not a whole lot of difference in fans that wear cub’s hats and shirts compared to fans who where a band shirt or have a tattoo. It’s the year 2008 and reality is not as cool as we had pictured it so people still try to get their fix of imagination by going to conventions/concerts and actually participating in events with others who feel the same. Marge Simpson says there’s an age limit, but yet I see both my almost 50 parents suiting up their gear to participate in a Jimmy Buffett concert…yeah they’re Parrot Heads. Holding on to something you truly love and admire isn’t a bad thing at all no matter what age you are. Do others go a step further and to the extreme when it comes to Fandoms? Yes, but who else are we to watch on YouTube doing crazy stuff, and who else are cartoon writers suppose to make fun of? Little do we know I think we need people that go to the extreme in liking a specific thing because it’s something different (like the Star Wars video we watched, that took major production and input to create) and some of us are not willing to do it but if someone else is we’re willing to watch. I go to live events and concerts, I spend quite a bit of money on them…is it a waste, maybe, but you only live once.

Hybrid TV

Not just for women, the Food channel accommodates to men as well. I made an emphasis to bring this up in my presentation, showing that it's not just women's TV. The food channel retains the feminism, but also can have an effect on men as well. I think it's a great hybrid network that combines convenience, humor, and diversity all in one. I have slowly become more and more addicted to the Food channel as I've begun to make it apart of my daily schedule the last two weeks. Women still get the ideas for quick and easy dinners, gourmet dishes, and tips from decorated chefs. Men get the eye candy of Giada and Sandra Lee, not to mention an appetite from all the diverse foods. Rachel Ray brings it home with quick ideas for easy dinners and lunches, while Emeril hosts his live TV show with humor. One of these days i'll get crazy and attempt to emulate one of their dishes. As the "Working Woman" came into her own, a network like the Food network makes perfect sense in our crazy daily lives.

Mass Market?

In all of the discussion of the mass market, I couldn't help but constantly question the idea of if a mass market actually exists. While it is impossible to flip on the TV and see the same commercials everywhere, there seems to be a select few that no matter what network you are watching, these commercials are invading our lives. The most successful advertising campaigns use television, internet, movies, and all other forms of technology to sell their product. At the risk of seeming like a complete fanboy, the Apple adds are almost like a plague on our society. It seems as though you cannot watch a day of television without seeing one "I'm a Mac" ad. However, these are not only on television but on internet popups as well. Now, the big question comes, what is the point of all of this and how does one determine if a particular advertisement is part of the mass market? Well the obvious answer is when a mass amount of people have seen an ad. When my mom is telling me about how thin a Macbook Air is, well clearly this form of marketing has spread to popular culture.

When does this all become too much? That question is somewhat hard to answer as it is nearly impossible for me to image flipping on the television and seeing and ad for Cherry Coke just because I am jonesin' for one. I somewhat have mixed feelings on this due to the fact that I would love to avoid seeing the god-damned Mazda Zoom-Zoom ads...but do I really want my thoughts broadcast to television networks? The hypothetical "what ifs?" get to be a little much to answer.

This is a Public Service Announcement…

After class yesterday Epley posed the question relating to, “Do we need to be advertised in a mass culture sense?” First of all just being advertised things you prefer is kind of creepy thinking about the example Epley used involving the Teddy Grahams. A billboard changing right before your eyes to suit your advertising preference…what happens if four people are in a car, does the billboard wig out and self destruct? Either way hate ads and large scaled events or love them, they give us all (as people of this lovely society) something to talk about and vibe ideas off one another. TV was invented as a form of entertainment for families, not just one Joe Schmo. The example of bringing up a conversation revolving around the final NCAA tournament game was brought up, and whether or not you care about the game or not it is a form of common knowledge at this time of the year and is to be used as an “ice breaker” to a conversation (take that away from society then there’s going to be a lot more awkward elevator moments OUTSIDE OF ELEVATORS!!!). TV’s and computers are going to become way more user friendly in the future in ways I can’t really comprehend, but in my eyes advertising on a mass audience scale will always be around as long as there’s jobs, schools, and other social encountering places. People might watch TV by themselves, but saying something out loud during a program is a lot cooler/normal when others are around to comment back. Watching Everyday Italian with Giada De Laurentiis alone (acceptable), watching the Super Bowl alone (creepy/pathetic). The internet and online gaming is already showing signs of what happens when people are only exposed to one form of media and the after affects are disturbing, just talk to someone who plays World of War Craft (it’s a hole other level).

Feel Good TV

Last week we talked about the four ways to approach quality when talking about television. A lot of people said money played a factor in what people feel is quality TV and also location of residency. In my mind, cable/satellite TV is so cheap these days that even the hobos out in the boonies of Iowa can even enjoy some Law and Order these days. The one thing I found interesting about Epley’s speech was the thought that in some of the jokes seen on programs are to reward/make the viewer who understands it feel smart. I don’t think that is the full on intent when the writers of a show are doing their thing, but certain shows definitely throw a few flatteries in there. Last weeks South Park was basically making fun of he recent stories about how kids are chugging Nyquil and other over the counter medicine to get a buzz by playing with idea that having a cat piss on your face will get you high. Now the flattery part comes in when the whole “Dairy of Anne Frank” comes into play when cats are band from South Park and Cartmen allows some cats to stay in his attic and gives one a diary. Now I thought that idea was hilarious and another one of my roommates did also, but we understood it. Had someone not understood it would they have less enjoyment? I don’t know. Getting something does make a person feel good (have you ever look in on of those crazy books where you’re suppose to see a sailboat but you can’t…not fun) and I can see Epley’s point. If you watch Lost every week and keep up to date, you are rewarded with next week’s episode by learning more ineptly about a certain situation that only you (and other weekly watchers) can fully understand. I see it as basically being another way to draw viewers in every week because you don’t want to be left in the dark, it’s almost like them cliff hanging before a commercial making you hesitate to get up because you might miss something. Sounds sick, I know, but TV is a crazy, feel good force that is becoming ever so manipulative. Watch Rock of Love…lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA8Vm4SWgeE

Koala-ty-V

Koala Bears - Amazing videos are here

Look at how cute and cuddly they are. It’s adorable, isn’t? God, I could just watch them for hours. They’re eerily human-like, with their opposable thumbs and arms and up-right sitting. I can really relate to them. Sitting there, eating. Hours upon hours of sitting and eating while watching koalas.

Shifting gears a bit, I watch Smallville. Wow, it feels good to finally put it out there. I watch Smallville. I’m not proud of it, but I’m tired of living a lie, living in fear of what people would think if they found out. Well, I watch Smallville. But I am not a fan. I was for a little bit. The first two seasons were acceptably week, season three was averagely good, and then season four was pretty damn good (I may be off a bit on the seasons as I power-watched the first six seasons in a fit of depression). They’re on season 7 now, and I mainly watch out of curiosity as to how the show is still on and how bad they’re going to let it get. It’s on the WB or CW or whatever it is now, but it’s still on. It’s not that they jumped the shark (Clark still can’t fly), but it’s more like they decided to show a picture of a shark and then a pair of water skis and just kinda let the viewers assume that they had already jumped the shark and there was a reason for it being so bad. It is the antithesis of Arrested Development, un-witty, un-original, and still going. It just kinda seems like Billy Joel had it right all along: only the good die young, and those that are or at least considered good are drug out longer and longer until they are old and crippled and have no honor left. Well, that second part wasn’t really a part of his song, but you know what I mean.

Quality TV and Me!!!

I have to admit I felt a slight pain of realization/humility/disillusionment/abasement when Epley suggested that those of us who enjoy quality/cult television were merely being targeted as high-cultured, academic hipster wannabes, and that we are in all reality no better than the audiences who enjoy low-brow, lowest common denominator-catering television.

But after thinking about it... I decided that in a sense that parts of this idea may be true (certainly not in all cases) but I still will continue to honor artistic/creative merit and enjoy the same things I always have, and that I will use that new knowledge only to argue with those who think they have a better taste of "quality" than my own in regards to television. Actually the next day I think it was, one of my friends, who constantly must state his opinion about the quality, credibility, or mainstream vs. independently produced entertainment content, was sprouting his usual "people have no taste" or "I just have good taste" argument so I countered this time with a "your taste is relative" and "your simply being sold what people assume you will think is quality" kind of thing. While I do not totally buy into this new argument it was quite fun using it to belittle him by playing devil's advocate and maybe next time he'll think twice before making fun of me for watching How I Met Your Mother!!!

I recognize the "four ways to approach quality" and can see how they relate to the TV I watch. I would consider some of my favorite shows such as The Office, Arrested Development, 30 Rock and Lost (Lost has many quality qualities, but I'm still not sure if it entirely qualifies) to be in the "quality" category because they are all very distinct in their production and narrative and reward their niche audiences with self-referential humor and "in-jokes." It is very rewarding to "get it" and to recognize reoccurring jokes, gags, or plot lines.

The coolest thing happened to me at work the other day (well maybe not so cool but cool in the sense that nothing interesting actually happens at work to begin with) when a lady called and asked if we had any seasons of Lost for sale. Then she asked, "Well.. do you watch the show? Can I ask you some things?" She went on to ask me all about Danielle Russo's background, the purpose of the hatch, why the 'Others' had kidnapped Walt and why they want to have babies so badly, and my opinions on where the plot is leading. We talked for a good ten minutes, and she just kept saying "wow" and wished we could talk longer. I was like the "Lost wiki" in this woman's mind, and I have to admit it felt totally awesome and rewarding. I just felt it related so well to what we had talked about in class.

Quality Television

What is quality television? This is what we talked about all class this week, but I don't believe I ever got a clear picture for myself. I think that quality television is as hard to define as what is considered popular. Epley said that quality television usually has reoccurring actors or actresses. I don't know if I can go with that either. I like to think that the television I watch is fairly quality. Half of our class would totally disagree with that statement I am sure. There is nothing wrong with watching The Hills because there is something that people can learn from it. I will give you a list of the things that I have learned from The Hills just to prove that you can learn something....here it goes:
1. Don't date men that have dread locks and disregard general hygiene practices.
2. If your boss offers you a trip to Paris for work don't say no just so you can spend the summer with a guy.
3. Most men that live in California are scum...STAY AWAY!
Okay so there I made it pretty clear that The Hills probably isn't really quality. But what shows really teach people anything? I know that there are shows for little kids that teach them colors and the history channel might teach you something useful, but other then that what really gives you the "quality" that everyone is talking about? I personally think that there isn't one show that everyone can decide on and say is quality. It is an opinion that will vary person to person. We will probably never know what real quality television is because no one will ever be able to agree on it.

I love Ellen

I am really not sure what blogs I am missing but I don't think I have had the wonderful opportunity to write about my favorite person on television today...Ellen Degeneres. You may wonder why I think Ellen is just fabulous and I have many reasons for it. First of all how many talk shows do you watch that have the host and all the guests that come on the show dance?! Honestly I think that that is one of the best parts of her show. I wish that every show had the hosts dance because it just lets them show their fun side. Secondly I love Ellen because of her carefree attitude about how people view her. She is a lesbian and has a girlfriend and is very public about it all. She doesn't care what the media says about her homosexuality. She is very comfortable with herself and I think that is something to be admired. She gives a voice to people that didn't have the guts to talk about their homosexuality. When Ellen came out on her show back in the 90's and shortly after the show went to the dumps is just a shame. Ellen was a great show. It was like the Mary Tyler Moore Show of the 90's. Okay, maybe that isn't true completely but they did kind of have the same story line. I might just be partial to gay people. I think that I love everyone that is gay. I think that homosexuality is great and I wish I had a best gay friend. Anyway though....I think that having a acceptance of gay people in television was a great way to give gay people the chance to break out and be more socially accepted. And to end this blog...one last time...I ♥ Ellen!

If TV Said To Do It...You Do It!

Every person has a favorite show or genre of shows that you find interesting and watch every week; like Epley says, “You schedule watching it into your life.” If you don’t please tell me what you do instead, because we live in Iowa and you tell me something other to do than watch TV that doesn’t consist of something stupid, illegal, or requires you to be 6’5.” My roommates got me hooked on Lost and Heroes this year and believe me I’ve spent time watching all the beginning seasons to keep updated. You basically have to! Both in the Janovich and Mittell reading they describe TV shows that seem more like moves, with in depth storylines and the ever so changing characters. You can’t sit down this coming Thursday and watch Lost and be like, “Oh, yeah I can totally understand this.” It’s similar to that fact that you can’t leave during a two in a half newly released movie for and hour and comeback understanding everything. If you like a show and want to be “apart of it,” then you’ll put aside things on that night or schedule your classes before it airs because you my friends have entered a cult without ever really knowing it…lol. I love how popular movies and TV shows get classified as cult classics…

CULT-
–noun

1	a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.	an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3.	the object of such devotion.

4.	a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5.	Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

6.	a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7.	the members of such a religion or sect.

8.	any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

I don’t see how TV can be religious, but of the definitions they give some that seem accurate. My roommates and I are bound together with the idea that we can talk/relate to given comments or things referring to the particular show we all watch because we’re regular watchers. You wont find me at a Lost convention dressed up like Sawyer, and I don’t rock black Nikes and drink the punch…cult, or whatever you want to call it, I’m not going to quite watching just yet, especially if I still reside in Iowa.

The 48-Hour Sales Event: Everything Must Go!

It's not so much that there isn't quality programming anymore. The problem is that there is so much other shit on your standard 80 channel cable hook-up that you've got to spend way more time sifting through the crap to get to the quality. Think of it like a TJ MAXX.

My Beefs with Quality Television (or lack thereof)

1. Nothing is real on reality TV. Everything from Man vs. Wild to The Real World reeks of staged events and over-scripted dialog. When you see how the show is made and how Survivor is filmed 500 feet away from air-conditioned Mac editing bays, it seems to take the wind out of our falsified tension-building sails.

2. Nothing actually matters. Entertainment Tonight, ESPN, and CNN 24 Hour News are all guilty in some form or another. Shows like Entertainment Tonight and E! News do nothing more than show you explicit and semi-normal photos with an “I can't believe they did this” slanted storyline. ESPN takes the honor of being able to drag a storyline out better than any other station in history. For the most recent examples, see Brett Favre, steroids controversy, or the NFL Draft. All of the 24 hour news stations have this amazing power to create stories when there is seemingly nothing else to talk about. All day and all night, these stations need to be talking. By this point, I have seen every possible angle of the 2008 Presidential Election spun from every type of person imaginable on CNN. I really just want to tell them that nothing matters anymore...at least until November.

3. The television “directed” at me doesn't relate to me. Honestly, how many 21 year olds can relate to the life that is led on The Hills? The show shows 20-somethings leading posh, BMW driving, credit-card dependent lifestyles where the most controversial issue to ever have surfaced revolved around “those ugly socks that I can't believe Jason wore with those shorts.” I mean, yeah, people want to be whisked away once in a while to their own little fantasy, but is this the kind of fantasy we should be promoting to our 12-24 year old demographic? It smells like awkward combination of silicone and Chanel.

4. Nobody wants to cut the bullshit. The important issues that matter for the development of our own well-being aren't ever brought up. Instead, people with the power to actually do something would rather not be so controversial or not choose sides. What we need is a live show that springs unscripted questions on important people. Sure, you'll probably only get one show out of the deal, but you'll have some amazing and not-so-amazing answers that truly reveal how a person in the spotlight thinks without cue cards.

Like I said before, there is quality television. It's just that right now, I don't have the time or resources to sift through the clearance bin. I've got more important things stimulating my brain...like chewing gum, for instance.

Barack Obama Disciplines America for "Acting Like Children"

A few thoughts:

1. I wish I would have numbered my blog posts

2. I wish I would have known they are graded individually rather than the previous statement of “basically if you post all your blogs, you'll do great”

3. I wish I watched more TV so I could understand you kids and your crazy pop culture references

I have watched no more than three significant programs in the last week. One involved the raising of gorillas in Cameroon, one involved UNI's very own Deric Mickens winning Tila Tequila's Fantasy Couple Contest at South Padre, and the final and most significant program was Barack Obama's speech on racism and diversity in America entitled “A More Perfect Union.”

While I will gladly stand proud for participating and taking interest in the American political system, I would by no means classify myself as a political revolutionary by any stretch of the word. I feel my powers are better utilized at calling out people on their bullshit and pointing out the cold, logical, and sometimes unwanted, rationale behind an issue. Let me tell you this...if every American spoke about issues of racism and discrimination as Mr. Obama spoke about it on Tuesday, America would be a very different, and most likely better, place – and yes, even on television.

Barack Obama addressed racism and diversity in America as every American should – with a cold truth and a smooth baritone voice. He addressed the scared black man that grew up in the South during the Civil Rights Movement. He addressed the illegal immigrant looking to better his family's well-being. And he addressed the confused white man – a man that can't express fears about a downtrodden urban community without being labeled as racist. Just as America uses statistics and polls to avoid the larger issue, so too does the American television industry.

The television industry makes the mistake of addressing race and diversity quantitatively - “...only 6.4% of owners are minorities, while only 3.7% are women, and only 12.9% of television news anchors are black, while 2.1% are homosexual, but only 10.4% can afford to hire a part-time gardener...” When it comes down to it, it's not a matter of statistics or regulation - it's a change in lifestyle and culture. Sure...everyone wants to live in a happy world full of equal representation and ownership, but it doesn't work like that. There were “network families” and personal relationships rooted long before any issue of diversity in the media ever came up.

In my opinion, the issue of minority and queer television is a textbook “band-aid issue.” Sure...we can flood the market with “classic black programming” or “notably queer personalities”, but rather than asking why these programs aren't on network television, we should be asking why the American public doesn't tune into these programs on network television. It is often said that the public interest determines the programming, or sometimes even that the programming determines what the public watches. I believe that by this point we've all come to the realization that it is a double-edged sword and the relationship flows both ways. Whether it's the producers or the viewers that don't “approve” of alternative programming seems to be a moot point. It's time we all just cut the bullshit and talked “as if we were adults.”

In case you're interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Spiegal Blog #5

Relating Spiegal to today's television programming does not seem to be that difficult of a task. Take a look at the programming of yesteryear and the programming of today, they have shocking similarities both in daytime and primetime programming. Let's start with daytime programming. The elements that were present in the beginning included magazine type shows, game shows, soap operas, and instructional shows that wouldn't distract the American housewife. These programs were easy to watch and didn't really challenge the viewer. They were more of a way to keep the viewer entertained, and were definitely made to instill consumer desires into the watcher. These shows aimed at improving the quality of the housewive's world, whether it be instructing techniques in better cooking or cleaning methods or promoting the new up-and-coming product. These elements are very prevelant in the daytime programming of the present day. The Today show seems to showcase everyday problems, new gadgets, interesting people and places, and sometimes news. I would say this show directly targets women just by the content of the material that is highlighted. They talk extensively about problems between men and women and also give advice on improving relationships between husbands and children. The funny part is that I basically watch this show in the way in which the original producers of television would want me to, while doing other things. If I were to sit down and deliberately watch this show I would probably get bored and turn it, but since I am not, it is tolerable. Another show that I watch that directly relates to the good old days would be The Price is Right. I have been a loyal friend and true to this show since as long as I can remember. But it is very apparent what the purpose of this show is, to sell you products. The entire show is one long commercial. It sucks you in with its pricing games and leads you to believe that you are enjoying yourself when actually you are being tricked into watching a commercial. It is evident that this tactic is used extensively by other game shows during the daytime viewing schedule. Now lets move on to primetime television. Speigal comments about television bringing families together and then later comments about television tearing families apart. Which idea is the correct idea? Or does it relate to the time period being discussed. In our present day programming I believe that both would hold true. Certain programs were designed to be accessible to viewers of all ages such as sitcoms, movies of the week, gameshows, and even some reality television. But there are also shows found in the primetime slots that may break up the family viewing time. Shows aimed at bringing in the younger audiences are not very enjoyable for people over the age of 30. These shows are not hard to find, just turn on FOX anytime after seven. But even now I think that television has the capacity to bring families together, even if it is just for an hour a day after supper has been eaten. It is apparent that social changes back in the beginning of television helped shape what programming was offered and also inspired producers of television today, sell sell sell!

Reactions to Videos Blog #4

As I sat through these mulitple examples of television from the past I spent a lot of time comparing them to their counterparts of the future. It seems like not too much has changed in fifty odd years. Let's start with the Today show. Unfortunately I have to admitt that I will tune into the Today show if I am in the vicinity of a television before the hour of 9 a.m. (After that it is of course Stewart and Colbert reruns and The Price is Right). The Today show has kept their same format all this time. They should definitely bring back the monkey though. I get a sense of what television was like back when daytime programming started to become important. It is centered around consumerism of course just like the rest of our lives should be, right? It is almost hilarious to watch all these different programs as a woman who grew up decades later. I mean, how naive can these women be? I LOVE to wait on my husband hand and foot and clean up after the five kids and make sure I still look hot at five p.m. when dinner is supposed to be on the table. But these were apparently what the standards were back then. I probably would have bought into the idea if I was born back then too. The funny thing is that things are still this way today. I mean, look at the coffee commercial in the "Queen for a Day" video. Although it looks pretty corny and gives me a sickening feeling in my stomach, it still closely resembles coffee commericials of today. I watch a Folgers commercial and I want to puke because their idea of a good life is so cliche. But I pretty much wanna puke whenever I watch any commercial that isn't cynical or comedic.

dare we watch "The Hills"?

A Non-Watcher's Guide to The Hills
From Gawker:
"The Hills is masterfully crafted, beautifully shot arch melodrama. You bring me the best of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and I'll show you its parallel on The Hills. It's a picture of self-involvement and social anxieties that could be seen as representing the minds and experiences of many young people, only writ large and ludicrous. So you don't hate it, you just don't understand it yet."

Diversity on TV

Oh how do I miss shows like In Living Color and the Wayans Brothers on TV. You can catch a re-run of the shows on BET from time to time, but I miss them being on all the time. I just moved so I can't turn to BET right now to tell you what's on, but it has created a way for diversity to be seen on TV. So what else do we see that shows diversity on TV? I can find Fresh Prince of Bel-Air on late night, Chappelle show on Comedy Central and reality TV shows are including more and more diversity. What I never realized until reading last weeks readings is how bad non-white writers/producers are discriminated against and have their productions overlooked. The "whassup" ads were a big wakeup call, and it was criticized heavily for the way it portrayed African-American males around their age. Personally, I thought it reminded me of crap my friends and I do. So does that mean if my friends and I produced something of that nature, that we're gonna be criticized for

More Pomo?

Honestly, I kind of enjoy the different arguments about Post Modernism and in certain respects I really enjoy it, and in others, I despise it. I did find Epley's argument about PoMo being around for much longer than the textbook writers will say it has been. He would bring up architecture and stuff from a couple centuries ago and how it's pastiche and all. Well, lately I stumbled upon a commercial made for a European audience where the ads will last up to 5 minutes or so. It's an advertisement for Prada where a woman is reciting a piece of literature as a voice over. It sounds incredibly modern. However, what she is reading is from a Gnostic text entitled Thunder Perfect Mind, which would have been written sometime in the first or second century, which takes Epley's argument much further back. Gnosticism was an early form of Christianity that died out after a couple centuries. Their texts focus more on theology and really stretched the mind, rather than really focusing on Jesus and all that... Anyways, the text was lost until it was discovered again in the 1940s along with about 11 or 12 other texts in a collection that is known as the Nag Hammadi library. Here is the Ad, hope find it as interesting as I do.

If You Hype It They Will Come...

Television is filled with diversity today (classy…I think not), but either way you look at it TV has an increasing amount of African American Sitcoms to gay reality shows. The Real World is the first current show that comes to my mind when thinking about the Gray and McCarthy readings. They pick seven strangers and almost every time there’s an African American male/female and one gay or lesbian individual. Sure it makes for “good” drama TV, but understanding the big picture is what I see most often skewed by viewers because they think that one individual represents the entire race or sexual preference. There still has yet to be a sitcom drama that consists of an all black family that deals with realistic problems and beliefs. Like the readings before, a sitcom like that would probably shock and make viewers uncomfortable, so we’re going to have to stick with comedic shows like Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and more recently The Chappelle Show (which is a hole other realm of comedy). Shows like Heroes and Lost are great for today’s society because people like the variety and want to see themselves relating to a character, and those multicultural shows allow for that to happen. I mean come on who’s a white, young college student who doesn’t want to be like Peter Petrelli?

As for the Watts reading, I think today’s TV choices for commercials definitely reflect on the success of the Wassssup? Guys. Ads still use other’s “cool” culture aspect to make you think that if you buy the product you will become that much closer to “coolness.” But like I said before, beer is beer and you either like it or you don’t, and quite frankly a person to go that in depth on a commercial like that makes me not sleep well at night. Either way commercials today still go for a multicultural/relatable aspect (much like the sitcoms today) to get viewers to buy in on the hype.

Diversity?

I really find odd what some consider to be diversity in television, even in 2008. Not one person has really pointed out any considerable examples of "true" representations of African American or Queer culture on television, as demonstrated by the readings. I think that the majority of people searching for these examples and coming up with shows like "Ellen", "In Living Color", or even the entire BET Network (which by they way is now owned by Viacom I believe and therefore not really in the hands of black producers anymore) are ignoring the fact that they cannot say what are authentic representations of these minority cultures. One of my favorite terms in communications/cultural studies has to be Richard Dyer's "whiteness." This prevents people--as culturally enlightened as they assume to or aspire to be-- from totally accepting the fact that as members of the Caucasian race we are are assumed the default race by privilege. When Caucasions watch TV we fail to see how overrepresented we are. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's human nature to immediately recognize and relate with similar types. Really "whiteness" can be replaced by "defaultness" so that it also applies to other minority cultures which we fail to recognize as well.

For those of you who think I'm full of complete BS right now, just know that I know that whites or any other mainstream cultural groups can be stereotyped or poorly represented, but honestly it just does not happen so much. Even reality shows, which are starting to have more diverse casts, typically try to find a recognizable or stereotypical character that one can easily categorize.

Don't get me wrong. I know that the aforementioned shows and others listed as "diversity promoting" shows have really made some progress in the industry. But that doesn't change the fact that they are so few and far between that I can't even think of any more than a hand full of shows that aim to represent the underrepresented. Even shows with "self representing" producer's such as "Tyler Perry's House of Payne" or "Chappele's Show" fall into a formula of previous representation--appealing to white audiences only through comedy and using comedy to touch on racial issues. Once again not always a bad thing, but it shows that after such a long time of this struggle for representation, television viewers are still assumed not to be comfortable enough to stomach "authentic" black culture without it being sugar coated with "universal comedy."

I know I'm kind of on a rant. Maybe I have white guilt. Maybe I'm a hippy liberal like my dad likes to call me. Or maybe I just realize that racism, sexism, and bigotry exists in EVERYONE no matter what. We might always and forever have certain connotations associated with all groups of others. But in regards to TV, I honestly am just wondering if we will ever see a day where we don't have to strain so hard to see a more accurate representation of the world we live in. I'm not talking about some magical rainbow of equality here. Just some realness and the recognition that race, gender, nationality, and sexuality matters a lot.

Inadvertent Villain

I feel a slight pain of annoyance every time a black comedian impersonates a white guy with a pre-pubescent, nasally, nerd voice. Whether or not I am allowed to express this as a feeling can be left up to anyone who would see it as something other than distaste for bad taste, but really it ought to be considered for more than that. In a way I have always seen the world in a racist manner. I should appropriately rephrase that to say that I have always seen television in a racist manner. I’m white, therefore I am very, very easily racist. A sense of humor about social struggles for gay and lesbian people or African Americans can be cool if you always support the claim that civil liberties just aren’t being upheld when the only portrayal that large communities of people get are stereotypes. Otherwise, I’m a racist and a bigot. I don’t support the people who are not only different than me, but also would need mine and others’ support if they are ever going to get an equal or maybe fair representation broadcasted. I don’t support them in anyway that would be considered real support. I attempt to sympathize. I wish they could have more programming oriented towards them, or even be included in a variety of situations and contexts. I even wish there were more black people and homosexual people writing for television and cinema. Still, it doesn’t mean I would tell other people that is right. I don’t get angry when I see black people portrayed as criminals or homosexuals portrayed as fairies or bikers. In a way, I’m more of a racist, a bigot, and a misogynist than I’ll ever have to account for because I am totally cool with television’s representation as is, I’m ok with the “balance” that it has, or at least my apathy would lead people to believe that is the case.

FCC policy clarified, finally

As this clip from the Onion explains, FCC rules are really quite straightforward and clear.


FCC Okays Nudity On TV If It's Alyson Hannigan

A Big Fat Whassup

I can’t claim to watch many shows that have a constant black or gay character, let alone leads. I can really only think of Chef right now, though I’m probably simply over thinking. No, I just paused for a minute and I’m not, I really don’t watch any shows that have much of a minority cast. So be it. Perhaps I don’t watch any show like that because I simply can’t identify with such characters, or perhaps it’s because my target demographic isn’t one that that allows for having a lot of minorities in the cast. I don’t know.

I still think that Will & Grace was only on for as long as it was because of Jack. Critically, the show isn’t ‘gay’ enough, insofar as inclusion of the variety of different sexualities. It has two main homosexual characters, one of which who is very much in agreement with the standard expectations of society with the exception of being gay, and one who’s so flamboyant and effeminate that everything he does is comedic. Network wise, it’s probably still too gay. Still, if the gay-themed shows continue and even have the slighted bit of quality to them, I think that Ellen was right, and in twenty years, a gay character on TV won’t be a big deal. But that doesn’t mean that the representations will be that much better.

It seems like TV’s that entertaining is rarely TV that’s academically acceptable. It just seems to be a thing that needs to be weighed out and properly used. TV shows that are good for helping society grow and move past certain stigmas is most likely not going to be watched a lot and therefore not going to be able to be on TV much. But there’s also some very popular TV that’s pretty damaging on an unconscious social level. The Cosby show may not have been great about actually tackling issues of racism and representation, but the show ran for a long time and was able to familiarize the country with the representation of blacks that aren’t poor and urban. As far as the Whassup commercial goes, I honestly feel that, for as accurate as a lot of the analysis seems, that it was simply over analyzed. Yes, it put forth an all-black cast in an ‘other’ narrative, but in its frame it doesn’t seem any worse than the hundreds of other commercials that do pretty much the same thing.

Walt Liquor... a new delicious refreshment from Disney!

Disney is the ultimate marketing company. They used entire shows to advertise their new attractions. Separate from earlier network shows that had sponsors, the fact that Disney was able to produce entire programs just about their parks is ridiculous. What's worse is the fact of how people bought into it! I don't get how Walt was apparently that damn smart that he figured all this out. What was really going through his mind? "I'm gonna be fucking rich!!!!!!!" That could be it. I don't have any clue. What is interesting is how Disney has been able to market and sell whatever it damn well pleases. The fact that it can actually make people go crazy over "releasing a movie from the vault" is utterly amazing. I suppose, if Disney decided to start brewing some hops, or distilling some hard alcohol... people would buy it. They could make something "family oriented" about it. "It isn't really family night unless Dad is drunk, yelling, and throwing things, now is it?"

Ratings should be slaves; not masters

Minnow's speech about the future of television is something that is truly motivating. Had I been one of those privileged media producers in that room, I feel I would have been truly inspired to take action over most of the things that were addressed. His ideas, his honesty, and his cold rationale are something that seem unparalleled in today's media industry.

Minnow begins by affirmatively reassuring the audience that television is not a bad thing. It is a wonderful tool that has endless possibilities to expand the minds of millions of Americans, and when it is good, “nothing is better.” He then addresses that most television unfortunately doesn't fall under this category and speaks of how television itself has become a “vast wasteland.”

Minnow goes on to discuss many important issues in his speech: children's educational programming, rating systems, censorship, networks, licensing, and diverse and alternative programming. He makes fantastic points on every single issue and reassures all broadcasters that he is not there to stop the progress of television, but simply push it in the right direction.

However, I couldn't help but feel disturbed while reading this speech. Simply put, none of these amazing ideas ever surfaced. Today, networks are still slaves to the ratings, advertisers still control the programming, educational television is still at a minimum, and diverse programming is becoming less and less while stations look to capitalize off of others' previous successes. It's troubling to read about how different the future of television could have been if these producers would have looked up toward the horizon rather than down at the Nielsen. Like Minnow said, “Never have so few owed so much to so many.”

Can't stand it.

Little did I know that Disney had it's own show that was self-referential, and advertised itself within the show. Maybe it's just painful for me to watch old shows that I have no interest in. It's hard enough for shows nowadays to keep my interest. I don't know if I could stand TV in the 1950s-70s if I grew up then. Props to Disney though, he made a buck or two by advertising his amusement park on TV. So how does this relate to this week in TV? Advertising of course. A drama like "Las Vegas" is similar because we see the strip, the clubs, and the fancy casinos. It's not a show like "Disneyland" but you can obviously see the promotion. To be honest, i've never seen a show like Disneyland before. I found it weird to watch a TV show that is promoting an amusement park by the owner itself. Do you think Girls Gone Wild could be in this category? Promoting drunk girls on spring break? But Disneyland was in the public interest. Something around 40% of households and 26 million viewers tuned into Disneyland. The Reality TV genre fits that mold today, gaining the public interest from shows like American Idol. It's what the public wants, so keep feeding the wolves.

Total Merchandising

While this may not be the exact thing required to blog about, I feel that total merchandising is one of the most important and prevalent things to arise out of the Magic Kingdom. Much of Disney's work can be seen in the businesses we see today. While it may not come in the form of an actual product created by a company, it my come in the form of a likeness or character being used to promote various different products. For example, yesterday I was watching a documentary about the creation of Star Wars and the trouble Lucas went through to create this film. In the beginning, it seemed as though this dream would simply stay that way, and the film would never get off the ground. However, with the release of "A New Hope" the popularity of this film was booming and people couldn't keep their hands off it. I distinctly remember a quote by Carrie Fisher saying "I wasn't famous, Princess Leia was famous." These people were buying up the images created by George Lucas. Kids could go to their local movie theater, watch the film while eating Star Wars endorsed M&Ms, Pepsi, and Popcorn, go to their local Wal-Mart, purchase Force-O's and make a mask out of the picture of Luke printed on the side while the creators ride the money train all the way to the bank. 

Although this idea of endorsement isn't EXACTLY total merchandising, I believe it plays a much larger role in our society today than the ideas created by Walt Disney. However, this idea of endorsement will not last forever. The figure who is being featured on the product still needs to be considered both popular and wanted by the buyers or else their worth will plummet.

Telefission

If TV is a vast wasteland, then TV Land is a vast wasteland-land. TV has become self-sustaining. It reached it’s critical mass. Minimum input with maximum output. TV shows based on and about earlier TV shows. Disneyland (the amusement park) was the fundamental example of postmodernism in Media Lit, so it’s not so surprising to read that they’re essentially the ones that implemented this chain-reaction of television. True, it wasn’t quite the same form as today because they were making TV about movies and parks, but it opened the door. Davey Crocket? Really Disneyland? An epic that swept the nation? I think I said this in my response paper (no, I will not take the time to look), but I gotta repect the Dis if nothing else. That man got a lot done in his time, AND he could work the camera. Smiling and telling the viewers what great things are in store for them today. If only he had had something worthwhile to put that type of energy towards, he probably would have been president…of one of the broadcast companies.

I watch a lotta C-SPAN with a side of C-SPAN2/BookTV in there. I don’t give a fuck how lame people think it is, I find it fascinating. Specifically because of how few people stereotypically tune in. I think it’s a lot better than most of the TV out there in both informative and entertaining lights. It’s amazing to watch the human psyche in action. To see how certain people can manipulate and how some can be manipulated, or how a back and forth game of coercion can develop because neither parties are prepared to actually put the true topic out in the air. Watching people’s reactions and phone-in responses of both incredible naivety and intelligence can keep me entertained for a good while. It makes me wonder how that particular person developed to this point in their life to say or ask what they did. It’s the same things that make me wonder why there is such Grade D crap on the air and in the system. In my gut I’d agree with Minow about ‘the people’s taste’ not being as low as the broadcasters assume, but in my head I can’t help but notice how there is absolutely no demand for anything more than what we’re being served. It’s quite curious, how placid we’ve become.

ask Not What Disney Can Do For You, But What You Can Do For Disney

Reading/listening to the Minow’s Speech I’ve looked real hard at today’s TV and how broadcasting overall should have changed for the better. The points he brings up are timeless, in my mind. Broadcasting is the most powerful voice in the world he quotes, “It must ring with intelligence and leadership…be aware of the world.” He also refers back to Gov. Collin’s speech, “public interest must have a conscience…build character, citizenship, and intellectual stature of people.” In today’s society we basically see no of these factors in television. Even newscasts are becoming a comedic performance and full of useless graphics and crawls that don’t mean anything. I would say TV today doesn’t help us build character or how to better ourselves as people, but rather brings out and talks about people who have failed in life in hopes that we’ll learn from their mistakes (I guess). You could be learning more information about the Iraq situation and then see a crawl that says Brittany Spears in back in rehab, or J Lo named her twins Walker and Texas Ranger…who cares. I get a kick out of watching old 50’s TV and how they can be relatively related to present day shows, but a little more “classy.” Minow talked about bringing back the 50’s style shows, but that will never happen (very farfetched).

As for the Disney piece, I found it amazingly interesting. Walt had a good thing going on and the whole idea of “total merchandising” was genius. Disney movies are seen as being acceptable to all ages, and parents have no worries about purchasing any of their products for their children, or even themselves. TV seen by ABC then can be seen all throughout TV today, in the way it targeted families rather than adults. Kids are the ones watching TV for long periods of time, so why not have shows relating to them, but also make the shows appeal to parents as well. I do kind of find it funny how Disney brings back old movies to DVD with enhanced features making them appear to be timeless classics, in which they are. My buddy brought up the fact he bought the original Aladdin on DVD like a month ago at the bar we were at and you’d be amazed how many people know the lyrics to “It’ A Whole New World” (now that’s what makes a classic a classic).

Scattered, But There is Something Here I Swear

Content is something to be considered no matter what. Remember that line I have to build from it. There are twenty two minutes of a thirty minute block for every sitcom (do the multiplication yourself for the hour and two hour long programs). The other time, eight minutes for a half hour, goes to marketing of different things, I italicize this because every noun is becoming a thing or has become already I’m not positive of the exact date of the shift. Television is, amongst numerous other well argued occupations, a marketing machine. “They” have it out for us and what us to buy buy buy, right? Well here is my argument for this class and I’m sure the rest of my life. There is twenty two minutes for story and eight for sales for a reason, the content matters. You cannot market things unless there is something with a little bit of beauty surrounding it. So without a good story, a funny joke, a relatable character(s), or attractive people you cannot build an empire from showing commercials and tie-ins. The empires start with great ideas followed by selling-out as hard and quickly as possible. What happens when someone sells out is that the people who trusted them before because they could relate to the stories they allowed to be aired don’t trust them as much and they get what they can out of what is given. I’m using MTV as my main example. MTV used to show music videos all the time, nothing but. Now there is few if any in a twenty four hour span, there are only reality shows and sillyness, that people do not love and come back to everyday so that they can watch all the way through. Content built MTV and it was what got them to be respected enough that they can get away with having shows like fuckbus or whatever that stupid show is called. MTV still gives people music, but it’s on other channels and its more of a narrowcast. I’m done getting sidetracked with MTV now. I want to leave it on this, television is not a bad thing, bad television is a bad thing and unnecessary and yet it is tolerable because there is still some things out there that are worth budgeting time for because you can’t sell good taste, but you can sell things during a show that was made by people with good taste for people with good taste.

Vast Wastoids

I actually listened to Minnow's Wasteland Speech as I read along and it really got to me how this same speech could pretty much be read today in regards to current television. Take this quote for example:

"You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials -- many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it."
Just drop the words "western -- men" and "private eyes" and replace them with "good cop" "bad cop." And we would have to add "reality stars" to the list as well... not to mention about another laundry list of mindless/indecent material... but still this list is a pretty accurate way to describe what I have always seen and continue to see on television. Of course there are many ways in which this speech would not apply, especially since the FCC has little say of what goes on cable... and that regulation has changed so much for broadcast stations as well.

So why do networks insist on making programming this virtual see of crap... and why do we consent by tuning in? (mind you I am really commenting from one point of view and do realize that there are some prize gems in the big TV turd) I was having a discussion not too long ago with some friends about the general population's "desire" or "need" to consume things like violence and obscene content. Some of us pretty much decided that even the most intelligent of people just need the escape from reality. And that even if you realize how ridiculous or offensive the content is it can only lend itself to activate or engage the mind--whether you are indulging in some fantastic idea that could never occur or criticizing the content which is also engaging the mind... well this all sounds okay but we were all drinking at the time (another escape from reality) so maybe we were all just talking in circles.

I guess an example of what I am trying to say is that I do recognize I "waste" a lot of time watching television that in all honestly I think is crap--things like Rock of Love (not the new season though, that's pushing it too far for my taste) or Bad Girls Club for instance--I'll even admit some of my favorite scripted shows like Lost and How I Met Your Mother contain tons of unnecessary or over the top filler crap. But I love to hate these shows--and that keeps me tuned in. I criticize the lame sound effects, story lines, editing choices, character development, etc. And in a way this helps me appreciate the finer parts of television... even if they are few and far between.

Jack Bauer is America and So Can You

In class we discussed Gitlin's definition of hegemony and the influence it had/has on TV programming. One thing I found very interesting was how popular action shows have always been and that the validation of state power seems to be an underlying theme of many of these shows. Gitlin offers the example of the Six Million Dollar Man reinforcing the "anti-red" ideology. I can see similar themes that promote state power, besides the obvious Law and Orders or other crime dramas, especially shows that came out after September 11th and following "The War on Terror."

24 is quite obvious in it's validation of several points of US military actions tied to terrorism. The main premise for the show, that first aired in 2001, is that main character Jack Bauer works for the Counter Terrorist Unit. After the official proclamation of the "War on Terror", the word "terrorist" obviously became a huge buzz word holding much more meaning, weight, and connotation to the US audience than ever before. In this sense 24 validated the need for the US to be concerned specifically with "terrorism" and not any country in particular or in general. Specifically it validated the "War on Terror"--this term, many have argued, is a government manipulation/scare tactic used to generalize all "others" who may be in opposition to the US and also used as a preemptive war to justify the war in Iraq.

The show also depicts that torture is crucial to fighting terrorism. This theme in the show became more prominent after reports leaked that torture was being used by the US military on Iraqi prisoners. I seem to recall a controversial episode of Jack using really gruesome torture techniques some time after the photos from Abu Ghraib were released.

I think it's obvious that 24 and other shows have based most or some parts of their scripts around US military action since September 11th. I'm wondering how much this has to do with pure interest in exploring/exploiting this topic or if it does stem from some need for Americans to feel validation for our actions.