One of the biggest transformations that defines TV throughout the 1980s and 1990s is the rise of the niche audience. A medium that once sought a large, mass audience for programming shifted to one that increasingly sought specific, targeted audiences. As you read this week, media scholars have deliberated upon the benefits and drawbacks of this transformation, and on the impact it had on TV’s role as a site of national public culture.
This reflection assignment asks you to consider the different ways that TV changed in this period. Please answer the following questions:
- What, according to Thompson, are some of the defining features of “quality TV”? Why, according to Thompson, does this form of programming emerge? (5 points)
- What, according to Smith-Shomade, were the problems with BET’s approaches to defining its audience and to selecting its programming? (5 points)
- In his discussion of talk shows, Gamson writes that what “takes place in and through the genre, though, is not simply the creation of a strange, hybrid sort of public sphere, but also the enactment of ongoing quarrels over the constitution of public space itself, and especially over the boundaries between ‘public’ and ‘private'” (197). What does he mean by this? How do talk shows transform how TV works as a public sphere? (5 points)
officials, public administrators, and the public in democratic governance. Administrative duty and political responsibility Finer assumed a closed dating between administrators and the general public wherein the options and priorities of the public is provided handiest through the elected, representative establishments. this means that Finer (1941: 419) views administrative duty as being responsible to “the declared or absolutely deducible intention of the representative meeting,” which lies inside the relationship between the govt and legislative branches that contributes to the balance of powers in a democratic society. Friedrich, however, recommended for administrators to anticipate a role that necessitate their open and direct interplay with the general public. Switching the eye from the institutional contexts to individual behaviors and attitudes, he perceived responsibility in behavioral phrases and targeted on ethical behaviors of administrators and their discretion in the broader public interest. In his view, because “politics and management play a non-stop role in each formulation and execution” (Friedrich, 1940: 6), the important thing dating of accountability was between public directors and their materials, no longer constrained with the aid of consultant establishments. This corresponds to what Romzek and Dubnick (1987: 229) termed “political responsibility,” with the potential parts along with “most people, elected officers, organization heads, organisation clients, other special hobby companies, and destiny generations.” but, a few authors positioned more emphasis at the direct dating with the majority amongst various elements because the unique pursuits of hobby groups expressed via elected officials have been visible to confound public administrators’ policy selections or movements (Dunn and Legge, 2001: eighty). responsibility-as-mechanism and responsibility-as-distinctive feature Their debate has been a habitual theme within the cutting-edge debate that specializes in the definition and size of various concepts of duty. Finer defined duty, in a slender, descriptive sense, as an responsibility to conform with imposed institutional relation or preparations together with laws, policies, strategies, and requirements. His consciousness was less on an responsibility of public administrators and greater on the way in which the relation or arrangements operate to make certain administrative duty. This corresponds to a sequence of terms, consisting of “passive duty (Bovens, 1998),” “accountability-as-answerability (Tetlock, 1985),” “duty mechanisms (Bovens, 2010),” or “ex post facto accountability (Bovens, 2007),” which advocate that directors are passively held answerable with the aid of the mechanisms that are applied retroactively to their behavior. The pattern related to these frameworks is doubtlessly grounded in Finer’s (1941: 350) perception of administrative obligation, which “require[s] public and political manage and path.” Bovens (2007) identified the 3 stages of those mechanisms in practice and condensed them into his definition of accountability as “a relationship between an actor and a discussion board, wherein the actor has an duty to provide an explanation for and justify his or her behavior, the discussion board can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor can also face effects” (Bovens, 2007: 450).>GET ANSWER