Hello section!
For this Wednesday, please prepare to discuss the following:
1) What is Streeter's argument in "Blue Skies and Strange Bedfellows," especially regarding the discourse around cable television in the late 60's and early 70's? How does his piece fit into the history of cable/CATV that Dr. Moore discussed in lecture last week? How does Streeter deploy discourse analysis to make his case?
2) What is Lentz's argument about quality vs. relevant TV? How does it connect to the larger issues about the representation of race, gender, and sexuality that we have been discussing throughout the term? How do our screenings of All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Maude, and Good Times explain, explore, or contend with the arguments of this essay?
3) Come prepared with a YouTube/internet-accessible video 2-4 minutes in length that relates to one or both of the questions above from our contemporary moment and be ready to explain why you think it is relevant to our discussion.
Also, please note, we will be doing group work that requires that each group have a laptop, so please bring yours along if it is convenient.
See you Wednesday!
Josh
Step 1) Discuss your answer to question 1 or 2. Talk about the essay's argument, method, shortcomings, and the screenings you see as connecting to this essay.
ReplyDeleteStep 2) Construct a blog post explaining your answers.
Step 3) Review your clips that you brought in, and choose one that relates to the essay your group discussed.
Step 4) Insert this video into your blog post, and explain how you see the issues it brings up connecting to the essay you discussed, and outline what larger issues in TV they bring up.
Step 5) Put the first names of your group into the post.
Step 6) POST IT.
Lentez' argument divides quality between quality of production and quality of writing/representation. The Mary Tyler Moore Show, while boasting higher production quality (clearer picture, etc) and a self-reflexive portrait of television production, was a "feminist" show in a much milder, less direct fashion. The MTM show never directly addressed any problems with Mary's single, independent lifestyle, instead focusing on Mary's successes in her liberation. It did, however, offer a critique of television production and the news industry. Maude, on the other hand, dealt with feminism, sexuality, race and class issues in a more "on the nose" fashion. Abortion was discussed openly, and Maude was very clearly in control of her sexuality (unlike Mary, whose sexuality was rarely touched upon). Characters expressed their opinions openly and directly on the show. Maude also dealt with race issues, regarding Maude and her housekeeper Florida. Good Times, a spinoff of Maude, focused on Florida and her family, and dealt directly with economic and class issues and issues of race.
ReplyDeleteFor clips, we selected an episode of Modern Family and 2 clips from it.
http://vimeo.com/7324122http://vimeo.com/7324122
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZbeBwRiRM0
We selected these clips because they deal with stereotypes (in this case, Mitchell and Cameron attempting to "avoid" them) in a direct fashion, like Maude, from a show that both deals with issues openly and also presents them the way Mary Tyler Moore did, by showing characters from minorities in their lifestyles and not addressing them as stereotypes.
Anne Slovick, Haley Prasad, Sarah Letson, Adam Deland
Good work! You've captured the major difference between MTM and Maude quite well. I think the modern family clip (only the second link was still available) was an interesting choice. I think that MF is interesting in how it presents itself as being "about the issues" and super socially progressive, but in production value and character, it pulls a lot of the same punches as MTM, as this clip demonstrated. My question would be, does MF combine what MTM vs. Lear productions did in a successful meld, or does its combination end up coming out perhaps less socially on point than either of the examples from the 70's we were looking at?
DeleteTroy Redmond/ Alex Stephen/ Katie Nahvi/ Jay Sarkar
ReplyDelete1. Cable was “considered” the future of technology for all people, a blue sky in terms of optimism around cable. Streeter also talked about a certain self-regulating utopia about talks of cable control on page 224, New York wanted to have a self regulate cable service and how the “glittering” effect of this idea would provide a major control of entertainment for “whomever controls the circuit will control the city”. Yet, with the incorporation of cable, and other newer applications like Netflix/Hulu it’s filtered toward the upper/middle class that excludes the lower class. The ability to provide an array of channels to, but at what cost to using the service (electricity, television…) The method of Streeter’s discourse analysis has him stating facts and restating them in his own way to make a point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6te4In4KJtk
Explanation: It relates to Streeter as it talks about self-regulating the FCC and the affects government control (Boundaries) on networks. An example from the reading being, how cable was seen as a place of free speech and change for those willing to pay for it. Yet, where is the limitation of what can be said or done on a paid service, which is not controlled by the FCC in which this scene showcases the issue after a soldier is shown cursing on air and the FCC threatening to place fines on the network.
Good work! You've successfully pointed out the optimism that surrounded cable and the way it ignored material concerns like who would be able to actually pay for cable. Discourse analysis does start with what other people have argued, but rather than focusing on facts, it focuses more about what different sides of an issue take to be true and what that tells us about the historical moment that we are studying. This is why Streeter has multiple arguments represented and then extrapolates from them his argument about the way that all sides of the cable debate subscribed to the same blind optimism despite having very different stakes in debates about the future of TV.
DeleteI liked your clip for how it dramatized worries about regulation and the FCC's (contentious) power. It also shows how the networks ended up being in a bind of having to continue to censor themselves in a way that cable didn't as it became more prevalent.
Group: Claire Abee, Jeremy Borison, Ryan Crum, Sean Higgins
ReplyDeleteLentz argues that quality television aims to improve television aesthetically but does not attempt to address social issues (specifically feminism) on a deeper level, instead opting to intertwine the social commentary within the show. Relevant television, on the other hand, followed a ‘social issue of the week’ formula (specifically focusing on racism) by “becom[ing] more responsive to the social and political milieu of the 1970s” (Lentz 48).
The Mary Tyler Moore Show falls into Lentz’s definition of a quality television. For instance, in the episode screened in class, there is no direct discussion of feminist issues; however, looming underneath the surface, Moore is a single middle-age female who lives alone in an apartment and works in a male-dominated environment, all feminist traits. Additionally, the quality of the program is noticeably higher than its competitors of the time, featuring sharp visual images, smooth camera work, and bright, vivid settings among other things. Thus, The Mary Tyler Moore Show fulfills Lentz’s definition of quality by subtly addressing feminist issues in a non-obvious manner while simultaneously featuring high quality production features.
On the other hand, the Norman Lear shows, especially All in the Family, exhibit traits of Lentz’s relevant television programs. For example, in the elevator episode of All in The Family, Bunker obviously expresses his racism by targeting his black and Hispanic companions in the elevator. Overall, the Norman Lear shows seem to fit bitter with relevant programs as they obviously address and preach to their audience regarding racism.
One weakness in Lentz’s argument is her funneling of feminism into quality and racism into relevance. As addressed above in our analysis of the programs, Lear’s shows featured social issues other than race, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show’s inclusion of feminism was subtle and almost non-existent. Instead, we suggest that a quality program does not simply focus on feminism but all social issues. As evident by the fact that Moore also touched on anti-Semitism throughout her episodes, expanding her commentary beyond feminism. The inclusion of social issues is subtle and under the surface, enabling the audience to consume it as they choose. Similarly, relevant programs do not simply focus on race. For example, Maude and Good Times feature this ‘social issue of the week’ format as they focused on abortion and welfare respectively. Thus, relevant programs inclusion of social issues is obvious, and its characters, generally parodies of the viewing audience, tend to preach regarding the social issue of the week, which may extend beyond racism.
In terms of a contemporary example, The South Park episode of "World War Zimmerman" displays the show's common technique of sacrificing quality for relevance. The show has a crude visual display and dialogue structure that allows for episodes to be quickly produced and released after recent events, such as the Brad Pitt film "World War Z," and the Trayvon Martin trial against George Zimmerman. In this way, South Park can remain extremely relevant, but in doing so has to be blunt about the topics it deals with such as racism and film clichés. The issues are not dealt with as existing naturally in society, but are explicitly critiqued as openly as possible, which can be seen in the simple decision for the Black character's name to be "Token." The way that the episode ends (as shown in the clip), identifies the common beliefs among Americans during the George Zimmerman trial by blatantly displaying societies alternative reaction if Trayvon Martin had been White.
Clip: South Park: "World War Zimmerman"- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OvKcXZpDMo
Some really great points here! In particular you did a very thorough job outlining Lentz's arguments and bringing in examples from our screenings. I would push you a little about the term "preaching" regarding relevant TV: preaching implies one message states strongly and unequivocally, which might better describe MTM's insistence on a "always already present" feminism that doesn't need direct discussion rather than the varied depictions of race, gender, and class in Lear productions. For example, in the elevator episode of All in the Family, Bunker's racism is a comment on racism and its prevalence, but the show also shows the rich black man as being racist himself, painting a far more complicated picture than I think the strong term preaching implies. Still fabulous work.
DeleteI am going to have to watch this South Park episode, as it is quite blunt in what it thinks of the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin situation, especially in the way that they discuss structural racism by having government officials show up asking for Token's death (which is why this is such a smart combination of the parody of WWZ with Zimmerman's trial). Also an interesting note, the term Patient Zero usually refers to the gay flight attendant from Montreal who was unfairly painted as being the origin of AIDS among humans, and unfairly took lots of blame in the 80's for causing the "gay" AIDS pandemic. I don't know if that was a mistake...
Streeter’s argument as a whole is about how he believes that new technology is exciting, but it may not be as exciting as other people believe it is. When a technology (like cable) is new, everyone wants it for the sake of having it and a culture can surround itself around it. Since cable was new, it created a sense of community because families would all sit together and watch tv shows. This also had people feel connected because everyone was watching the show at the same time no matter where they were. Now, cable is not as a connecting medium as it used to be in the past. Since TiVo and Netflix were created, people will watch all of the same shows, but each on their own time.
ReplyDeleteOne example is the television show The Smothers Brothers show. It started off as very popular because the brothers looked the part and spoke to the young people, but later on they got really political. This really showed how something that something that seems revolutionary in the beginning may be more disruptive. The clip below is another example of how a new medium of technology can become very disruptive and interfere with everyday life rather than just enjoying what is in front of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSDeesUUsU
Lauren Lucas, Loren Fanroy, Olivia Adams, EJ Lewis
I'm glad that you focused on Streeter's discussion of the "newness" of cable and how a sense of newness surrounding a technology (even if it isn't actually a new technology, like cable, which was technologically possible since the earliest days of TV) can lead to an (over) optimistic discourse about it that can, as Streeter points out, bring together groups with different stakes in an issue and political ideologies over how amazing this "new" tech will be for everyone.
DeleteI like the clip you chose. C.K.'s commentary on how people have been swept up in the "new" technologies of smart phones and twitter (which are, like cable, more evolutions of older tech than anything completely "revolutionary") to the point of missing the world around them parallels Streeter's take on cable brilliantly.
1) What is Streeter's argument in "Blue Skies and Strange Bedfellows," especially regarding the discourse around cable television in the late 60's and early 70's? How does his piece fit into the history of cable/CATV that Dr. Moore discussed in lecture last week? How does Streeter deploy discourse analysis to make his case?
ReplyDeleteStreeter is arguing that “blue skies” is what society was hoping cable would bring about (i.e. solutions to current problems like racism, poverty and international strife), creating a united, impartial opinions amongst powerful people like businessmen, politicians, etc. It was supposed to bring about a more diverse set of programming, intended to educate and create informed citizens. As Professor Moore discussed in lecture, there was finally an interest in programming directed towards niche groups, with the presentation of more liberalist ideas and themes. In theory, this would bring about a utopia of sorts where we could begin negotiating issues at the time. As the reading notes, “cable had the potential to humanize a dehumanized society” that was contingent on the industrial world at the time. Similarly, the 1960’s counterculture supported cabled because they saw it as a democratic alternative to the big company/corporate ideals. Underneath this blue sky facade were the “strange bedfellows”, including clashing ideologies in the industry between the FCC, commercial broadcasters, and court cases, whose participants (progressives and media interests) were these “strange bedfellows”. Streeter notes how discourse is not only shaped by, but also shapes systematic and political forces, working in a vicious cycle, influencing one another.
The SNL clip “Real Housewives of Disney” aired on a broadcast network and critiques the cable program “Real Housewives” which has now spawned into several series, exemplifying the idea that premium cable has not replaced cable in presenting programs that are more educational and high brow. Cable has failed to meet these utopic dreams seeing as it is now the low brow that is accessible to all, while the “intelligent programs” now come at a cost.
CLIP: http://vimeo.com/64001850
A great explanation of Streeter's main points, especially regarding the "strange bedfellows" part of his argument. I liked how you described his take on discourse as both reflecting and shaping social opinion, as his major point of looking at the competing discourses on cable was to explore how they reflected optimism about this "new" technology, but then also convinced more and more people that it was the awesome thing it had originally been constructed to look like, leading to more discourse about the greatness and unifying power of cable.
DeleteThat clip was hilarious, and I see the point you're making about how cable has perhaps not lived up to its promise of being high brow cultured programming. Though I love reality TV a lot....
Karsten, Taylor, Julia, Rachelle ^^
ReplyDeleteLentz’s argument on quality and relevance are often used in tandem as a way to self -promote television as a medium in contrast to the belief that television was a “vast wasteland.” Quality television was more of a way for television to discuss topics in a toned down manner in contrast to relevant television was more shocking and “real” in order to address the topic up front. Due to their methods of discussing topics, feminist topics often used the quality approach whereas racial topics tended to use a more relevant style.
ReplyDeleteShows like Maude were able to use both of these qualities together in order to discuss a magnitude of both feminist and racial topics. Maude was on the surface a quality show in that it was about a feminist white woman that appeared to be like other shows at the time, but it also discussed serious racial topics involving the character Florida. The show also critiques feminism in terms or racism because Maude’s feminist qualities that she often imposes on others such as Florida accentuate a racial condescension.
Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv8QDN_-cEE
In this clip Token tries to fight the stereotypes that Cartman tries to reinforce on him. But no matter how much he fights them and tries to go against them he ends up just falling in line with Cartman's assumptions. This is similar to the idea in Maud and Florida's argument where Maud tries to tell Florida how to make her self a more empowered black woman as a white woman.
Group (Michael Kosch Britt King Jin lee Noelle Gibeson Christopher Eddins)
I like your analysis of Maude a lot: it is generally considered to be part of the relevant genre, but it does have some crossover with quality TV, which I do think Lentz was trying to point out. Its major difference from, say, Mary Tyler Moore, however, is that Maude openly discusses her feminist stances (and I believe she actually uses the word feminist), rather than leaving them implied, which may tip the show a little farther into the relevant camp. Is there a reason that race was dealt with more on the relevant side of things? Does it matter that race was generally portrayed in a complicated manner in the shows that have lower production values?
DeleteYou make an interesting comparison between South Park and Maude. I like this clip alongside our screening because the satire of the show can be read as making fun of the assumptions about race that people have, yet the fact that Token (very purposefully named I might point out) still lives up to these stereotypes has the same shifty nature as the portrayals of race in much relevant TV that simultaneously critiques racist attitudes while also somewhat reinforcing them.