Thursday, October 23, 2014
Blue Skies
Why do you think that Thomas Streeter titles his essay the way he does? What do “blue skies” and “strange bedfellows” have to do with 1960s discussions about the possibilities of cable television? Does the language used around cable at that time sound similar to the way new media technologies are discussed today? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Streeter’s article, he refers to “Blue Skies” not only as the “Blue Sky Era” of cable, but also denotes it as a slightly sarcastic inflection. They mentioned television being part of a discourse, in regards to utopia. They believed that “the problems of the present could be transcended with the help of the new communications technologies, particularly insofar as they embodied the utopian dream of the wired nation.” Evolving television into cable and the “wired nation” would solve some of the problems and create what looks like, a “blue sky.” When I think of a blue sky, I think that there are no problems. So, I think that what Streeter is trying to say is that they believe that cable will begin to solve some of the problems that people were dealing with.
ReplyDeleteThis also plays into how people think of television today. They believe that if you keep evolving technology, it will make life easier for us.
When it comes to thinking about new technology today, I also picked this quote to describe how I feel people react: “Cable was neither described as ‘new’ nor best described as ‘technology.’” If you think about introducing new technology to society, a lot of people get excited because they want to have the “New Best Thing” but a lot of people respond, “As soon as this comes out, a new thing will come out right after it. It’s all the same. Just small changes.” For example, the iPhone is a perfect example of that. Also, they mentioned how cable had already been in existence. Think about DVR/TIVO in this sense. The idea of recording television shows is not new. People have been recording shows as early as the kinescope recordings, but I also remember my parents used to record them onto VHS tapes. The only difference is that it can happen at multiple times and it is just more technologically advanced. It’s not necessarily a new idea – just more advanced.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Thomas Streeter titles his essay about cable , “Blue Skies and Strange Bedfellows.” The blue skies seem to be thought of as the promise of cable television and thinking that it could wondrously resolve conflicts that were going on in the 1960s . However, after reading more into his essay, there are many instances where it seems like Streeter is being sarcastic with his title. There are hints of cable television being less spectacular than everyone was making it out to be. As for the strange bedfellows part of the title, the usually meaning of this phrase has to do is bringing together very different people. In the case of the term with of cable, I think that Streeter is saying that cable gave people new specialized options of watching television other than the same few networks.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the essay the way technology is spoken about is evolutionary rather than being revolutionary. Instead of creating a new form of technology, people just used wires and the technologies that have been around since the 1940s to introduce cable. Towards the end of his article, Streeter talks about how there is a new wave of technological utopianism and that cable would be replaced and become and old despised technology. This shows that there are always new technologies being invented and cable was one of these inventions where its popularity has come and gone.
In his article, Thomas Streeter argues that cable becomes to be viewed in utopian terms, which “embodies the potential for solving numerous social problems and dilemma.” He thinks that cable television is able to help solve social conflicts by reducing the gap between different social groups. Cable can reprecent the local voice of the people, increase educational opportunities, improve health care, provide different programming serving various subcultures, and enables different culture groups to discuss the important news and issues. Thus, Cable television, in his opinion, helps to build social relations and life. “Blue Skies” thus refers to the utopia of cable television that could solve the problems of social relations.
ReplyDeleteThe cable television was the new dramatic technology during the 1960s. However, when we look at the new technologies today, we know that the new technologies will always replaced by newer ones that are more advanced and appealing to the customers. For example, the advent of VCD, CD, MP3, reflects the evolving technology that attracts people who desires for new things. Streetner also says that a new trend of the technological advancement will replace cable television and becomes popular as time goes by. The technology is always evolving.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the last page of his essay, Blue Skies and Strange Bedfellows, Thomas Streeter dubs his history of the 1960s discussion concerning cable television written therein a “cable fable.” To summarize that fable: Aspiring for the blue skies of a better future for all, interest groups of very different character all climbed into the same discursive bed together. Each bedfellow spoke of the same key terms: the liberalization of cable television regulation and the liberating effects cable television would have on society. But in that discursive bed there wasn’t much interaction between the various groups. Had there been more interaction, debates would have broken out between them, for sure, and their mutual consent would have been called into question. They all had different interests: Cable operators were interested in the free reign to sell their services. Progressives and media activists were interested in taking television out of the hands of the network oligopoly and making it a public tool for intercommunication, creative expression, and education. Economists and liberal elites were interested in restructuring the television system to allow for “more natural” market competition; they probably saw the liberalization of cable as a step in the right direction toward no regulation at all. Streeter argues that this common way of talking, despite its pundits’ differences in interest and owing to the fact that these differences were not adequately addressed, helped push the way toward getting the Federal Communications Commission to deregulate cable. But the fable has a sad ending: Once liberated, cable would fall into the hands of the same corporations that dominated newspapers, network television, and Hollywood, etc. Television did not become an interactive tool and it did not necessarily give birth to a world of program diversity. And, in regards to the aspirations of liberal elites and economists, structurally, not much changed: cable became integrated within the existing television system.
ReplyDeleteI can imagine similar idealistic discourses surrounding new technologies may enchant certain groups, but I can’t say I hear any that are so unified as the one Streeter describes. Perhaps he is exaggerating the mutual use of the discourse for the sake of his argument that the argument was the decisive force behind the FCC decision? If I think back to the mid-90s I can remember people my parents’ age telling me the internet – the new technology of the turn of the century - was going to change the world, but I’m not sure they were describing a common “blue sky.” And I’m not convinced everyone is in agreement on what the internet has given us. It has allowed for a new arena of market competition, but it’s probably safe to say it still has a similar structure as any previous “arena.” There is competition, yes, but Google, Netflix, and Amazon are giants of similar character to the Paramounts, NBCs, and Hearsts that once were. And there is now a great deal of popular debate around the benefits the internet has had on young people. Facebook can be seen as a service that brings people together but it is also described as a distraction from human interaction and social realities. I hear the internet being described as an atomizing force – everyone tapping into a different media stream – at the same time as I hear so many people talking as if it were a given everyone has Netflix, that everyone is participating in a common technological universe. So there are similar discussions taking place, but I don’t see the uniformity Streeter is describing.