Blog Post 1

Advertising: VOD vs. DVR

                       
                     “Louis Missika argues that the classic era of tv was a period of absolute domination by producers, editors, and schedulers over audiences, but it has been superseded by the freedoms of new technology” (Miller, 27-28).  One of these new technologies is the DVR which has allowed the viewer to have more control, temporally and spatially, when they watch a particular program.  Amanda Lotz assumes there are five aspects of production in television programming which are “technology, creation, distribution, advertising, and audience research” (Lotz, 46).  The advent of digital video recording of television programs has affected revenue generated from advertising.  The DVR lets you fast forward through commercials which means advertisers are paying for airtime that people are not watching.
                     
                    More advertisements equates to more revenue.  The cost of commercials is based on the length of the ad and the size and demographics of the audience the show reaches.  The TV industry earns about 70 billion dollars just in ad sales, obviously this is an extremely lucrative aspect of television and having viewers bypass commercials will hurt revenue.  To combat this potential loss networks are preventing viewers who watch videos on demand from skipping the commercials.  Additionally cable networks could further increase ad sales by about 400 million dollars if at least 70 percent of DVR users switched to video on demand (Shaw, 1).
                   
                  Television networks, especially the big four, want to encourage people to use VOD instead of DVR.  It is feasible for networks to promote this switch because it does cost the consumer extra to have a DVR.  Also many networks are supplying their video on demand libraries with episodes of entire seasons allowing viewers to catch up on episodes they have missed.  There are benefits to using VOD, for example, if there is not have enough space to record on the DVR, if you forget to record something, or if you have a few shows recording at the same time.  Despite these advantages it will still be difficult for networks to compel consumers to just use VOD because the bottom line is nobody wants to sit through commercials.

Sources:
Lotz, Amanda.  "Understanding Television at the Beginning of the Post-Network Era"
Miller, Toby. "Television Studies: The Basics" 2010
Shaw, Lucas. "Networks Want to Keep Audiences from Skipping Commercials." The Edmond Sun. 2014.

Blog Post #1

Kyle Miller

The Internet and its various media options including wildly popular mediums of watching media such as YouTube and Netflix have surely affected television but it's not in a negative way like you'd think. In Toby Miller's "Television Studies: The Basics", Miller argues that "In fact, YouTube videos are the greatest boom imaginable to mainstream US TV. Rather than substituting for television programs, these excerpts and commentaries promote them, promising new business opportunities provided they can be legalized." For example, a good amount of the views on YouTube go to videos posted by major media companies advertising their products such as TV shows and movies.

Television is much easier to access now so media companies have discovered new ways to profit off of their product. Ease of access has allowed people to watch television programs on devices other than the television. That's where Netflix comes in. Netflix houses thousands of different TV shows that can be accessed at the touch of a button. They charge a rate of $8 a month for access to their services and of course, Netflix has to pay the media companies to license their shows. This is actually making TV more popular than ever. According to recent figures, viewers in the United States and the United Kingdom are seizing of the small screen, with 49 percent of consumers now viewing over-the-top content (Internet) as well as usual TV fare. (Newsroom.cisco.com)

Advertisers are hurt by all of this viewership outside of the television itself. It's commercials are reaching less people there but they've found a way around it. On free platforms such as Hulu and Youtube, they've bought ad time before videos and in the middle of videos. Unfortunately for the viewers, there presence can't be missed. All in all, the Internet has been positive for television. It creates a new medium for sharing content as well. Just as people every second are sharing their thoughts on television programming every second on social media. The television industry is still growing but it's also casually shifting to become more accessible. But don't expect the television itself to die out anytime soon, it is still the past time of many people.

Sources:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature/1119737/How-the-Internet-is-Changing-the-Way-We-Watch-Television

Blog Post 1

Dana Macaluso

110033396

Blog post 1

                The article I chose for this blog post is an article written in The New York Times on July 25, 2014 titled "When Media Mergers Limit More Competition".  This article I felt directly correlates to what we have been discussing in class; in particular, the reading "US Media at the Dawn of the 21st Century" written by McChensey.
            

                This article is about the Fox-Time Werner merger, and although the merge did not end up happening, the content of what is discussed in the article is relevant to the points McChensey made about "pressing concerns that these concentrated markets inhibit the flow and range of ideas necessary for a meaningful democracy." (McChensey 17). The article discusses how if Fox and Time Werner were to merge, it would limit even more competition, having even fewer people owning the major Hollywood studios(from 6 owners to 5). McChensey explains that having the television industry controlled by only few major industries is what hurts what is supposed to be a democratic industry. It limits the opportunity for smaller industries to rise up since these major corporations, in a sense, own the media. “There’s empirical support for the claim that there’s been a loss of creativity, originality and daringness as independent producers have largely been incorporated into the larger conglomerates,”(Stuart, "When Media Mergers Limit More Competition) .

                Since these large conglomerates control the media, they also control what is being aired and control the information their programs feed to the public. It limits other people from showing their creativity because in order to have something aired you need to try to sign a deal with these larger television corporations(which is a battle all of its own), and then they decide whether they want to produce your idea while still having control over the production. “One person shouldn’t own all the cultural creativity resources. If one person can limit content, that’s a huge loss to society” (Stuart, "When The Media Mergers Limit More Competition). This is a valid argument on why Fox and Time-Werner should not be allowed to merge together. The merger would only make them more powerful and limit even more creativity, which raises antitrust concerns. The television industry has turned into a money making industry above the public's interest, and there needs to be stricter laws against these mergers.  

Resources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/business/a-21st-century-fox-time-warner-merger-would-narrow-already-dwindling-competition.html?_r=0

McChesney, US Media at the Dawn of the 21st Century

Blog Post #1: Political Economy and Television in the "Post-Network Era" by Raymond McKenna

Raymond McKenna

CCS 313

Blog Post #1

September 23rd, 2014

Political Economy and Television in the "Post-Network Era"

The digestion of media, particularly television, through more contemporary means, specifically the Internet, has resulted in alterations and disputes over the rules that dictate the type of media, the cost of media, and even the amount and speed at which we can digest said media. Most notably in recent news, there is a battle over the usage of the Internet between companies like Verizon and Netflix, who holds and delivers the content through Internet Service Providers (ISP) like Verizon, most commonly referred to as the gatekeepers to the Internet (Gill), and involving government institutions like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In an article by Dror Gill of Tech Crunch entitled “Netflix vs. Verizon vs. Consumer: Who Wins?” Gill outlines and explains the dispute between these two companies and how it affects the consumer. But, the dispute between Netflix and Verizon is not limited to these two entities, but rather every website and Internet Service Provider that exists in the United States, but particularly Netflix, and others like Hulu, because they deliver television shows (which are large files that require high bandwidth to transfer), and Verizon, who is attempting to force certain websites, like Netflix, to pay high premiums to deliver content to their subscribers at a fast enough rate because they cause network congestion within the ISP's lines. If Verizon gets their way, Netflix would be forced to either pay the premiums to deliver content at a high enough bandwidth, which could cause rates to increase, or risk creating a poor customer/consumer experience (Gill). 

This article and the concepts within it are important because they address the new and increasingly numerous problems related to television and political economy, caused by the continuously changing landscape of television and how we consume it presently. We are currently in what Amanda Lotz calls the "post-network era" of television (Lotz, 34) in her piece "Understanding Television at the Beginning of the Post-Network Era." The "post-network era" has redefined the definition of television, and changed how and when we view television content, as well as how we pay for said content. As Lotz explains, content is now delivered through means other then just the television, most notably nowadays is how we, the viewers, digest television through means of the Internet, utilizing websites such as Netflix and Hulu via a myriad of devices such as smartphones, tablets, and our computers (Lotz, 34-35) through the Internet and thus through ISPs, like Verizon. In addition, television has moved from a “flow” model, to a "publishing model," resembling the way we pay for and ingest older forms of media such as magazines (Lotz, 34). But in doing so, it has also raised issues around the production, distribution, and consumption of television, that ultimately involves the consumer of such digital media, as well as economic decisions that result from political interests, or even laws. In fact, there have be many recent online protests, boycotts, and petitions by consumers in an attempt to get the FCC more involved in net neutrality and in keeping the lines of the internet free and open. With disputes like the aforementioned, its easy to see how the different business models, as well as evolving technology have contributed to the evolution of television and how its viewed, but have also led to increasing problems related to political economy.

Works Cited

Gill, Dror. "Netflix Vs. Verizon Vs. Consumer: Who Wins? | TechCrunch." TechCrunch. AOL Inc., 6 Sept. 2014. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/06/netflix-vs-verizon-vs-consumer-can-everyone-win/>.

Lotz, Amanda D.. The television will be revolutionized. New York: New York University Press, 2007. Print.

Blog #1

Raphael Moyeno
CCS 313

In her article, "TV's Next Season", Lynn Spigel makes the point that scholars are studying television in new ways due to the modernization of the consumer's viewing medium. She goes on to explain that television is now studied under "umbrella terms like new media studies and visual culture studies" (84) because television and the Internet are so bound together now. With sites like YouTube now available, anybody can create and upload videos that people all around the world can watch. In 10-15 years, I don't think there will even be a need for television sets in people's houses. Anything you can watch on TV today can also be found somewhere online, legally or not, and soon enough, the Internet is going to absorb television into it and they will become one and the same.

The Internet essentially offers everything the television does and more. My housemates and I decided not to bother getting cable because we'd be spending money on something that we can watch for free on our laptops. The Internet has truly revolutionized the way that we, the consumers, get our entertainment. YouTube is especially popular because it's like cable, but with far more options available at the consumer's disposal. By going on websites like YouTube and using apps like Netflix and HBO Go, anybody can watch anything they want whenever they want. There is no set schedule for shows on the Internet like there is with cable. There is really nothing that cable has that the Internet doesn't have as well.

Television has evolved throughout it's existence and will continue to evolve through different mediums. In the future, I see cable channels creating their own apps for laptops and mobile phones, like HBO did, in order to remain as relevant in people's lives as they can. Television now is the primitive version of the Internet, but in a few years, the Internet could very well be the primitive version of whatever technological advancement comes next. In conclusion, as our medium for viewing television advances, the way that we study it should advance as well. Nobody can predict exactly how much our technology will improve in the future, but I think it's safe to say that the Internet will soon completely overtake the television as a means of entertainment for us consumers.

Blog Post #1

CJ Severin
CCS 313
Blog Post #1

[T]he distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character. The difference becomes merely functional; it may vary from case to case. - Walter Benjamin "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Section 10

    By examining his contemporary moment and the technological advances which it engendered, Walter Benjamin, in his 1936 essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", looked at how photography and, even more so, film compared historically and artistically with long established forms of art such as painting and sculpture.  Benjamin probes into the question of what he refers to as "aura", which, when found in these older forms, can be said to be the unique place a piece has both spatially, in a museum, or a place of religious worship, etc., and historically how it fits itself into the cannon of art history.  The loosening of spatial fixity and distancing of art from canonizing authorities, are, however, not strictly Benjamin's focus as much as the material conditions with allow for those movements are, and the conditions which follow from them.  Given this focus, the question of "aura" may not be the right one for examining our current moment, TV Studies 3.0, as Toby Miller would have us call it, but instead we should look at how we both consume television and film in the 21st Century and how television and film are made to be consumed in the 21st Century.

    Beginning with the latter and drawing again from Toby Miller's conclusion to "Television Studies: The Basics", it's important to remember that despite personally having the technological means to create and disseminate media content (cameras, smartphones, Youtube, the internet, etc.) the public does not dictate how television functions.  "[Televisions] history is not a tale of visionary inve(n)(v)tors finding means to satisfy the existing curiosity of audiences --a consumer-driven market-- but an uncertain dance of the law, the state, capital, labor, performance, and interpretation that reveals complex, shifting power relations."  Our position in relation to the creation of media is not only becoming concrete and, in fact, much less clear, but it is also becoming less important.  Whether you're watching or uploading a Youtube video, either a personal home movie or a profession show resembling that of a traditional television show in this example, your presence on the site is what matters not the content, because, producer or consumer or both, Youtube and its corporate owners are ultimately the owners of both the means of production and the ones drawing in the largest profit.  Similar can be said for new television platforms like Netflix or Amazon Prime, where smaller, more creatively driven projects can be funded and shown, ultimately and primarily the profit from their work goes back to the owners of the site before smaller fractions of that money are seen by the creators and workers themselves.

    In terms of consumption in our time, Benjamin himself weighs in almost seven decades early by stating: "[e]very day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, it reproduction."  If spatial closeness to a work of art is said to erode the "aura" of the piece, than even if one could have argued for the aura of a film or television show in the past, doing so now, in the age of smartphones, would be quite stretch; even the major broadcast networks of television early history all have apps that let smartphone users view their programs from anywhere at different times.  These shows that do still air on television at specific times, which Toby Miller reminds us, is still how the majority of television is viewed, the ritual of sitting at certain times to watch it has been undermined by both modern DVR technology, network websites and apps, and various illegal means on the internet.  Beyond those shows which do still have set air times, both Netflix and Amazon Prime have their own shows which never aired, in the traditional sense, but were released once and have been "airing" continuously since their release.  And, once again, even further, Youtube as a means of watching television doesn't even have "shows" in the traditional sense, but an endless stream of content which sometimes refers to itself, but more often exists unknowingly side-by-side with millions of other "shows" of varying qualities.  Without these traditional touchstones of previous art or a fixed ritualistic site of consumption, the public can truly and constantly be the absent-minded examiner which Benjamin claims it to be.

    As Benjamin draws from Marx's dialect formation of capitalism that contained, within the process by which the workers are exploited is also the ability to create conditions by which capitalism itself could be abolished, we can draw from our current situation a similar dialect: as dichotomy between producer and consumer of content becomes increasingly unclear, the means by which the owners of those platforms of media distribution becomes increasingly all encompassing, at the same time, and using the same technology, however, media users, on both production and consumption side, are entering the position by which they can become entirely unreliant on those forms and owners of the previous generation's media.

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. 1935. <https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm>

Miller, Toby. Television Studies: The Basics. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. Print

Blog Post One

Julian Breyette
Blog Post One
Professor Casanueva
September 23rd, 2014

     In Miller's "Television Studies: The Basics" he discusses a vast array of topics. One that I could personally relate to was that of young people being extremely inclined to use social media, saying that "When new technologies emerge; young people are identified as both pioneers and victims - the first to know and the last to understand" ( Miller 25) growing up I was always amongst the first to use emerging social media sites; I had Tumblr back in 2010, deleted Facebook by 2012, and became addicted to Instagram sometime that same year.
     In an article titled "Instagram is more important than Facebook to teens" posted on SocialTimes.com, information gathered from a study conducted by Piper Jaffray proved that between 2012 and 2014, Instagram became the most important network amongst teens. This information proves Miller's point that as time goes on, trends change and youth are the first to adapt to these new changes. Miller also points out that "moral panics emerge," (Miller 25) such as parents joining Facebook to check up on what their children are doing. The article on SocialTrends.com confirms this by pointing out that while Facebook still has more users than Instagram, it is far less important to teens than the square-photo sharing smartphone app; "Facebook still dominates in terms of usage, with 80 percent of 12-24 year-olds on the platform." (SocialTrends.com)
      Instagram does include ads in their users, feeds as well as all other social media networks, which brings up the point of mediums of technology being used as economic tools.
      While these views could be viewed as biased due to them being from Television Studies 1.0, I personally think that the points Miller makes regarding the nature of Television Studies 1.0 hold true to life not only today, but also throughout history; "-cheap novels In the 1900s, silent then sound films in the 1920s, radio in the 1930s, comic books of the 1940s and 1950s, pop music and television from the 1950s and 1960s..." Therefore, I believe that the trends of technology; social media, television, cinema, and all other mediums will continue to evolve and youth will continue to be the first to discover them. While Miller says we are the last to understand them however I am not completely sure that I agree. Perhaps in the context of when he wrote the article the statement would have made more sense, but today I would definitely say the youth is the first to understand new technologies.

#sixseasonsandamovie

Natalie Fang
CCS 313
Blog Post #1

            Television is no longer television. This statement is nothing new, we've known this for a while, and it's even more apparent now with the extreme popularity and variety of TV alternatives. The new mediums and services are only going to expand with time and in the next decade, television may mean something else altogether. In "TV's Next Season," Lynn Spigel talks about the new ways scholars study television because of the modern age. She explains how television studies is now often under "umbrella terms like new media studies and visual culture studies" since television is now so tightly bound to the internet. And because it's so bound with the internet, we are seeing independent creators take their work into their own hands and find outlets such as YouTube and Vimeo to showcase their work to an audience. However, the creators are not the only ones given more power by the internet, the audiences are also given a louder voice when it comes to program selection and saving certain programs.

            Campaigns to save TV shows have been around way before the internet blew up, of course. There was the letter writing campaign to save Star Trek back in 1968, the sending in Tabasco hot sauce campaign that saved Rosewell for two more seasons, and the high DVD sales of shows like Family Guy that revived the show being off air for multiple seasons. Fans have even shown so much support that if the network the show was originally shown on doesn't save it, another network will, which was the case for shows like Cougar Town and Futurama. With the emergence of new streaming services, Netflix in particular, the support system for failing shows have expanded. For example, Netflix financially supported AMC's "The Killing" for a third season, but when AMC decided not to renew it for a fourth, Netflix picked it up to broadcast on their site. Netflix has also backed up the cult following behind "Arrested Development," producing the show's fourth season seven years after its cancellation.

            The most recent show that has been saved by a third party is Community. The comedy that aired on NBC back in 2009 was a huge critical success and gathered a solid following, but did not generate enough money for the network. NBC decided to pull the show from their midseason schedule, during the show's third season. The backlash was apparent throughout social media platforms with hashtags like #SaveGreendale and #sixseasonsandamovie taking off to show NBC that the show had an audience. The show returned in the following fall season for their fourth season but was cancelled after the fifth season.  However,  the show was saved by a internet company. Not Netflix, not even Hulu, but Yahoo had ordered a sixth season. A search engine, news source, mail service conglomerate, Yahoo is an odd choice to host a television program, but not that surprising. With the success of online streaming options, Yahoo is probably one of many odd sites to join in on this venture.

            But what about the Community  movie? With sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, crowdfunding has become a reality for many creative heads. Maybe Dan Harmonn, the creator of Community, will take note of what Rob Thomas, the creator of Veronica Mars, did with his cult favorite series.

Works Cited

Spigel, Lynn. "TV's Next Season?" Cinema Journal 45.1 (2005): 83-90. Web.

Blog Post 1

In April of 2014, both Netflix and Verizon came to an agreement.  This agreenment established a direct connection between the two companies to improve service for users (Gustin).  Only months before however, both Netflix and Comcast agreed to a similar deal (Gustin).  This is a significant issue in the world of new media.  Large network distributers such as Comcast and Verizon have the power to put internet companies like Netflix in a position where they will have to pay for bandwidth services to them directly, as opposed to an online “middleman.”  Bandwidth in lamens terms is defined as the speed or rate at which the internet reaches a device. Netflix on the other hand is on the losing end because they will ulimately be paying more fees.  Netflix had already agreed earlier in the year to pay the interconnection fees through the smaller bandwidth providers such as Cogent Communications for example (Reardon).  Cogent’s stock had plumitated once this deal was made.  Netflix suggests that Comcast is to blame because it's violating principles of net neutrality, which are all about keeping the Internet free and open (Reardon). 

According to McChesney’s article U.S Media at the Dawn of the 21^st Century, conglomerates include television networks, cable channels, film studios, and music studios (p.6).  Having conglomerates such as Verizon and Comcast creates a great deal of controversy.  These giant corporations get to reap the benefits because they surpased the law put in place by the FCC, which is a regulation on net neutrality.  This does not satisfy the needs of the people because ulimtately they will be paying more money and for some, there is a lost sense of Democracy knowing that these rich businessman are only concerned with making money at the expense of others.  “Not only are all of the markets oligopolies, where almost all of the main players are owned by a handful of firms, the media giants also tend to work quite closely together” (McChesney, p.8).  These only leaves speculation in the public’s eye of who really is in charge.        

Works Cited:

http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/
http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

Blog Post 1- Janelle Hudson

In the article ‘US Media at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century,’ McChesney states “it was in this period that the United States was transforming its media system. In McChesney’s eyes the US media system was a fundamental part of the capitalist political economy, hence, the beginning of the twenty-first century introduced “concentration and conglomeration”(McChesney). The media conglomerations and concentrations that McChesney speaks of have been misusing their audiences for support and political advancement. The markets in this industry are controlled by a small group of corporations, which affects democracy, and would cause anyone to question it. With a minscule industry that controls what we see and hear in news, sports, movies, and music, politicians “whore out” themselves to these companies for monetary profit and power.                      

      However, from the dawn of the twenty-first century until now the norms of the television industry has significantly changed. In the article, “Don’t Mean To Be Alamarist, But The TV Business May Be Starting To Collapse,” Henry Blodget states that as a result of the advancement of media technology, user behavior has changed. A few centuries ago, the mass population depended on newspapers for everything, from the weather to commerce. We lived in an era where a newspaper pile had a fixed position on our breakfast table, and hours were dedicated to flipping through the pages in search of information. However, a few centuries after, the television was introduced, and this was the beginning of the digital era. The introduction of the television changed almost everyone’s perspective on the dissemination of information, and what we were told; but it didn’t stop there. A few years later, the Internet was introduced, which resulted in an upward surge of the digital age. Newspaper companies went bankrput, television consumption was almost a thing of the past, and the world seemingly revolved around the internet.

             User behavior has shifted from the traditional TV and newspaper era, now to what is known as an era controlled by networks. Not to say television will disappear like newspapers did, but truth is: “We almost never watch television shows when they are broadcast anymore  (with the very notable exception of live sports); we rarely watch shows with ads, even on a DVR; we watch a lot of TV and movie content, but always on demand and almost never with ads (We're now so used to watching shows via Netflix or iTunes or HBO that ads now seem like bizarre intrusions); we get our news from the Internet, article by article, clip by clip. The only time we watch TV news live is when there's a crisis or huge event happening somewhere. (You still can't beat TV for that, but soon, news networks will also be streamed); and we watch TV and movie content on 4 different screens, depending on which is convenient (TV, laptops, phones, iPads)” (Blodget). Although many may say, the era that we live in is significantly different from that of a few years ago, Lotz sums it up well in his article saying, “television is no longer organized in this way and has not been since the mid-1990s. By then it was already apperent that we needed to reassess television and see it as a medium that primariliy reached niche audiences.”

Works Cited

Blodget, Henry. "Don't Mean To Be Alarmist, But The TV Business May Be Starting To Collapse." Http://www.businessinsider.com/tv-business-collapse-2012-6. N.p., 3 June 2012. Web

Murdoch Monopolizations

Michael Newcomer  

CNN recently put out an expose detailing how News Corps’ CEO Rupert Murdoch may not be completely out of the running in his bid for Time Warner.

“Combining both companies would have been a dream proposal because the amount of content the combined company would have had would have been tremendous,” Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, who owns stakes in News Corp, Time Warner, and Disney said in the piece.

“Knowing Mr. Murdoch, I think the idea is still in his mind. But I think the time is not right now because the management of Time Warner were against it, and the shareholders of Fox (News Corp) were also not for it”

This is a prime example of the attempted monopolization of American and global media that we read about in McChesney’s “US Media at the Dawn of the 21st Century.”

“The striking structural feature of U.S. media system in the 1990s are concentration and conglomeration.” (16, McChesney)

Given the relaxed attitude of regulation within the past few decades, it doesn’t come as a surprise that Murdoch is still considering a merger of Time Warner with News Corp, despite concerns over conflicts in programming such as CNN (moderate-left news organization) going under the umbrella of a corporation that owns Fox News (right news organization).

If the merger ever is given a second consideration, it may be a boundary-breaker for regulatory departments such as the FCC. While they seem to heavily scrutinize certain telecommunications and radio mergers (i.e. Sirius/XM, T-Mobile/MetroPCS, Alltel/Verizon), there seems to be little scrutiny or media attention given to these massive mergers between an already largely monopolized section of the media. However, I can’t imagine a merger like this going through without some sort of resistance from the public. Conflicts such as CNN/Fox News becoming mutually owned, as well as stations like FX and Adult Swim no longer having to complete in content or advertising could be too much for the FCC and public to ignore.

Given that management and shareholders on both sides of the buyout don’t seem too pleased with the situation, it may be a long while before a merger of that status sees the light of day. However, if a merger as large as this were potentially to be approved, it could open the floodgates to a massive concentration of these media companies as we’ve seen in the telecommunications business. This may ultimately lead to an even further abandonment of the traditional television model to online products, at an even faster rate than has been underway the past few years.

Works Cited:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/21/business/richest-man-in-saudi-arabia/ (The Richest Man in America on Oil, Isis, and Murdoch)
(McChesney, US Media at the Dawn of the 21st Century)

Media conglomerates are nothing new in the 21^st century, but nonetheless deserve the attention of the concerned public. As of September 22, 2014 MGM Productions has swallowed up Hearst’s reality TV production company, One Three Media, as reported in The New York Times. MGM, the 90 year-old movie studio which has seen silent movies switch over to talkies, known for their hugely famous credit introduction starring a live lion and his massive roar, now owns a reality TV company. As if they aren’t already a leader in the feature film market, with this purchase MGM is claiming a stake of 55% in the cash cow that draws its main crowd from the younger generations, perhaps in an attempt to stay relevant. After all, MGM’s motto coined in the 40’s is, “More stars than there are in heaven”. Its funny though, that their other motto is “Ars Gratia Artis," Latin for “Art for art’s sake”.

            As the late Walter Benjamin would argue, television, much less reality television, lacks a genuine aura that truly individual, unique pieces of art possess; an aura created by the hands of the maker and the presence of the actor, one which the camera disintegrates.

            These media conglomerates that are popping up everywhere are formed not for the sake of art, but for the sake of money. Author of “Rich Media, Poor Democracy”, Robert McChesney is weary of these ever-engulfing companies. What is most disconcerting is just how powerful, as McChesney puts it, these “oligopolies” have been allowed by capitalism (and a few revisions of laws) to become. For example, One Three Media was owned by Hearst, and Hearst owns several magazines (21 US, over 300 international) and newspapers (15 dailies, 34 weeklies). The previous owner of a reality television production company controls what is on the front pages of newsstands everywhere. Talk about bias.

            Now MGM owns One Three Media though, and reinstated the United Artists Media Group which they had tried in the early 2000’s but ended in bankruptcy. As well known of a company as it is, MGM is just not in the top 6 media giants (GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS), who squash competition by making it nearly impossible to compete with them. MGM is trying to get back into the game with the United Artists Media Group. Why should the public care? Because media conglomerates control what is available in the news, on the television, and in politics.

Resources:
Barnes, Brooks. "MGM Buys Big Stake in Mark Burnett’s Reality TV Production Company." The New York                   Times. The New York Times, 22 Sept. 2014. Web.

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. 1935.

McChesney, Robert Waterman. "US Media at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, Part 1: Politics." Rich                   Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. Urbana: U of Illinois, 1999. 15-77.Web.

Netflix

          Netflix, the “world’s leading Internet television network launches in Belgium, France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.” This information is extremely important due to the fact that television’s next generation is growing bigger than we thought.

          As discussed in class, according to Miller “Television in the U.S would seek to pacify audiences through the same authentic lies.” Due to Netflix, an Internet television innovation being offered in these countries, people are changing the way they watch television from day to day. These television shows, whether the news, reality television etc. are feeding the eyes that watch it, lies, and poison. According to Miller, anyone having a television is asking to be manipulated and lied to.

            These Netflix users are also taking away the pure culture of gathering around a television with your family to watch these episodes. Not only is it taking away from the “I love Lucy” culture, but it also allows anyone that has access to watch an episode, any season and at any time of the day. Netflix is also a huge contributor to this Television 1.0 and 2.0 theories that Miller explains in his book.     

            Netflix, can be seen as a huge industry that allows certain television shows to be viewed. The “Netflix” clan can choose what to make available, they also, believe it or not, probably choose the ads that are being seen when trying to watch a television show. Having Netflix control what we watch, you can kind of look at them as the upcoming giant industry that will swallow up smaller industries. According to Jenkins, Democracy is being eaten away at by the television industries. Having all of these nations, being able to watch television and seeing the same ads, and shows at any time, makes Netflix more attractive to television viewers, which will impact how many people buy and use it, which will in the end give the Netflix industry more power, and they will use that power to take advantage of the viewers.

            To conclude, I believe Netflix is an awesome innovative invention and should be used by anyone who wants to have free access to shows at any time. But, I don’t think Netflix should have went global. The fact that it has gone global will almost in a way homogenize the cultures that each nation has around watching television. I miss being able to watch a show, and if you missed it you had to wait for it to be played on re –run on the television. I despise that an episode that I haven’t seen yet, can be spoiled by someone else writing about it on the web. I think that Netflix being available for everyone is spoiling television for viewers around the world. Unfortunately, I believe that Netflix will just keep growing and televisions will wash away as we know them. A few generations down the road, people are not going to even believe that we had something called a television and that it wasn’t touch screen or talked to. Inventions are positive but can also have their negative impacts on the world. I believe Netflix, is indeed a negative invention.

WORK CITED:

https://pr.netflix.com/WebClient/getNewsSummary.do?newsId=1593

Blog Post #1: Opposing Views of Children's Television from The Guardian

Fabrizia Maiello

CCS 313

Blog Post #1      

            Understanding the social parameters that revolve around the activity of watching television have contrasting factors. Not only does our world currently (and presumably incessantly) support and promote visual aid communication, it has expanded its use to purposes of learning practices, pure entertainment benefactors, and necessity for understanding social currency (to name a few). The question that I would like to raise is if the advantages outweigh the costs in the case of consistent television watching for kids?

            Looking at the benefits of this televisual machinery, one of the biggest advantages that has evolved with social media is its interactive behavior in which respiratory responses are encouraged between transmitter and recipient. Specifically looking at the changing patterns of television programs, many entertainment based programs have been substituted or changed for the purpose of initiating reaction among their audiences. Let’s focus on one children’s television program specifically, Dora the Explorer. The series began in 2000 and has initiated a progression for interactive educational programs on television. One of the big things about this program is its use of language to instill vocal and memory stimuli in the brain. Children are asked to infer, interpret, relate, and finally memorize the prescribed phrases and terms that are spoken in Spanish on the show regularly. Dora the Explorer has changed the pattern of education received on children’s television programs by introducing a completely upper-level concept to the traditional pattern of “ABC” games and number puzzles.  

            On the other hand, arguments have been made to highlight the psychological dangers of persistent “boob-tube” watching. There have been several studies performed by researchers in the aid to decipher if sitting in front of a screen can affect the mental health of kids. Not only do we have to worry about how much TV a kid might spend his/her time watching, but also the prescribed programs that are given at full access to anyone with a remote. Adult programs are dominantly surfing the channels of our cable network, and some will never see a need to have any type of censory in their messages. Two other problems arise with this concept: some children television programs are among other adult programs in the channel network, and progressively, children’s television programs are gaining a mature edge by writing in adult jokes and putting reference to mature ideas among an animated setting.

            This by no means answers the question or provides valid discussion arguments for this topic, but it does bring to mind the different perspectives surrounding the illusion of what television watching means and what it entails.  

Citation Sources:
Rustin, Susanna. "In Praise of Kids' Television." The Guardian: Life & StyleFamily. The Guardian, 5 Apr. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/06/in-praise-of-kids-television>.

Sample, Ian. "Children's Computer and Television Time Linked to Psychological Problems."The Guardian: NewsSciencePsychology. The Guardian, 10 Oct. 2010. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/11/children-computer-television-psychological-problems>.

Blog Post #1 - Jaclyn Lattanza

Blog Post #1

Jaclyn Lattanza

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

According to a report from market research company Park Associates, U.S. consumers are still relying on their televisions to view video content. The nationwide survey of U.S. broadband households that was conducted in the first quarter of 2014, analyzed “how multiplatform innovation is fueling new revenue and retention opportunities for TV content owners and distributors” (McCarthy, 2014). Although many might think that viewing video content on tablet devices and smartphones have become more popular, the study showed that these households spent, on average, only 1.3 hours per week watching on tablets and 1.6 hours per week on smartphones. This doesn’t even compare to the 20 hours per week that these households spend watching video content on TV.

When the television was introduced in the early 1950s, many households’ dreams came true because “people always [had] fantasized about transmitting and receiving sounds and images across space via a box” (Miller, 4). It wasn’t until the Internet was introduced that people worried about what the future held for the device. As TV became “the most important cultural and political device in people’s homes” (Miller, 8), the Internet became popular as well. It took a while before society realized that the Internet and the TV feed off of each other to strive.

In recent years, new technology has allowed consumers to use tablets and smartphones as devices to do almost anything, including watch TV. According to this Parks Associates study though, the TV is still dominant in that area. However, this does not suggest that tablets and smartphones are not being used. The percentage of viewership on both devices have actually tripled and doubled since 2010, respectively; they are just not popular enough to take over the role of the TV. “Television is the key point of articulation between the requirements of a massively complicated economic system and the daily lives of people…” (Miller, 11). But even so, while consumers are watching video content on TV, they are still engaging in a second-screen experience with their tablet or smartphone.

In fact, a study that was conducted by the IAB earlier this year, found that three quarters of advertisers believe that “mobile video-viewing devices will become as important as TV in the next five years” (McCarthy, 2014).  

Sources:

McCarthy, John. “The US still prefers watching video content on TV to smartphones and tablets.” The Drum 19 Sept. 2014: Online.

Miller, Toby. Television Studies: The Basics. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. Print