Thursday, April 1, 2010
Post class post for 4/1/10 Herman and Chomski
After reading chomski and herman there are several things that can be said, first of all I am really interested at how Murdock and News Corp were not mentioned more often. We continually spoke of them in CMC 100 and then again in CMC 200 and i felt that it would have been a wonderful example of the first filter being size and ownership. it was mentioned that the amount of media that a single entity could own was a bit of a filter that allowed the public to still maintain some form of control over the media, but at the same time the Clinton era definitely relaxed some of the FCC rules and regulations as well as the amount of media a person could own. This really isnt surprising considering the amount of economic prosperity at the given time. it always seems that during some time of economic boom that rules and regulations are often let go for a little while and then as soon as the boom is truly realized they are once again enforced. the second filter was one of the most interesting in my mind. I really had no idea that advertising was that big of a lobby and influence on the media. I had heard once about the prices that existed during an event such as superbowl sunday or something of the such, but at the same time it truly seems to be the advertising companies that are controlling the media and not the corporations, it is interesting to me that the public has not gotten to these advertising companies and basically said that if there was not more public ownership of the media they would stop supporting their products. I know this is a very large claim to make but at the same time it just seems that if a few giants such as coca cola and disney and AT&T were told that a good deal of their profits were going to dissapear unless they got behind some good ideas that they would. Well someone can dream...Movie recommendation to supplement this reading would be either War Inc, or WALL-E...both will give you a good idea of what a commercial entity or advertising can do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yo King,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to clarify on something you were surprised about - the scope and power of advertising. I am in a class called "History of TV & Radio" (highly recommended) and my professor said, verbatim, "Television runs exclusively on rating." We have all heard of ratings - CBS has been boasting for years that they have the #1 rated primetime slot of major networks. When a network runs highly rated shows, the asking price for ad-space during those shows increases. In other words, a popular show will attract many viewers - more viewers, more competition for ad-space. According to my professor, Dr. Rodgers, the process by which a network television show is picked up starts and ends with the advertisement. When a show goes under review, there will be a screening with several representatives of major corporations; in that screening, all it takes is one representative to say, "Hey, I think this show will fit well with my company's selling points." At that point, the show will receive funding from that one (or several other) corporations to shoot a contract-oriented number of episodes. If the ratings on that show rise, then the bidding for advertising space during that show will exponentially increase. If the show tanks and no one watches it, the corporation sponsoring the show can back out of their funding and the show can get dropped right there.
Contemporary example: If you have been following the primetime Sunday night series "LIFE" on Discovery channel, you should have noticed that Target is its primary sponsor. As far as I have heard, LIFE has received great ratings; if it were to run for a second season, Target probably would get outbid by Coca-Cola, General Electric, GM or some other major corporation as the primary sponsor.
So, that's my long-winded way of theorizing that advertising fuels our viewing pleasure. This should not be a new concept for us to ponder, as most of us have lived in a capitalist society all our lives. But I just wanted to go into a little more depth.