I wanted to discuss the segment from UP with Chris Hayes that we viewed in class Tuesday. What an interesting topic from something that is broadcast out into the world. It is rare that we get a glimpse past the world the media is constantly feeding us. Isn't it interesting though how controlled the situation seemed to be? Chris Hayes seems to be great at his job in this way. At any point when people started to talk over each other, even just a little, or get upset, Hayes would swoop in and find a way to agree with everyone while lightening the mood. He speech is comfortable, but he sounds knowledgeable. He is perfect for a program like this where a variety of, perhaps, unspoken topics are presented in a round table forum. The network and producers know they can't just cut things out in a panic, it would go against the message they are trying to put out there originally that is their willingness to speak as one of the media outlets controlled by big media conglomerates. So in order to avoid issues of uproar, Chris Hayes controls the show and he does so effortlessly. He knows how to deal with opposing opinions and how to shuffle words around so that the audience and his round table members are on the same page always.
Discussion Question: If more conglomerates used one or more of their media outlets to discuss their power, would their be a cultural change in understanding? If so, would the reaction be positive or negative? Why?
Discussion Question from Thursday's lecture: In a television program like The Bachelor, are their implications of societal expectations? Does the media want the images portrayed to be replicated somehow in society?