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.