"Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity"

In Fred Fejes' article "Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" he develops the stages and ways in which gays and lesbians have in recent years emerged as economic subjects. Fejes also explains how gays and lesbians, unlike other marginalized groups, gained their sense of equality and political power not by controlling capitalism or production, but rather through their consumerism. According to the recent studies presented by Fejes in this article, readers of gay magazines and thus gay men in general, tend to have higher incomes. In turn these studies also show that they typically use their higher earnings to purchase high end products, clothing, alcohol, and vacations, for themselves because many of these men don't have families to support. These studies also revealed that fact that in many urban communities gay men, in particular, act as trendsetters not only among themselves but also for "straight" men. As a result, the producers of high end products and services have quickly came to realize that these men are the ideal consumers of the upscale world. At first, these companies just started by advertising in gay/lesbian magazines and other media outlets. However, more and more these companies are beginning to alter their advertisements in order to appeal to gay and lesbian consumers specifically. For example, this "Dolce and Gabbana" advertisement makes use of blatant gay sexuality in order to attract a gay consumer, similarly to the way heterosexual sexuality is developed in other mainstream advertising to attract a specific consumer.

lesbian/gay advertising rage!

In Fred Fejes "Advertising And The Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" he talks about how lesbian and gay males are accepted as political/sexual subjects and their acceptance and importance as consuming subjects. Lesbians and gay's are avid consumers, which makes them attractive to advertisers, so they can increase the market and it gives them equality. But gay males are more equal then lesbians for advertisers. The advertising industry can get the gay consumer through advertising aimed at the straight market.
It is important to point out that gay men are not trying to prove they can "live like the joneses" but according to them, they live a lot better. Gay men are seen to consume high-priced goods and are trendsetters for new designs and products, aka hyper-consumers. Fashion designers and major advertisers, like Gucci, Versace, American Express, and Merrill Lynch began to put gays in their page publications. To be "gay" in the media, the gay make must have a yearly income of $50,000 so he can have the classiest things, like great alcohol, a expensive car, and affording the gym. Whereas, in the past the focus on gays was coming out about their sex, but now its all about consumption.
Homosexuality can lead to job loss and other harmful consequences because in some states it is outlawed.



This picture shows people handcuffed, by police, with shirts that "separate is not equal" …suggesting that being gay is not equal because they are separate from the heterosexual rights. This goes along with the outlawed statement because they were probably protesting in a state where homosexuality is not a law, and being handcuffed could lead to harmful consequences.
The Human Rights Campaign put out a "assimilationist" strategy to advocate lesbian and gay marketing to the mainstream. The Human Rights Campaign put out gay and lesbian images to the media, like TV or magazines to put them on the track to political equality and power.
If they have not achieved equal rights as a heterosexual citizen, gay's can at least achieve status of a consumer. The construction of the gay and lesbian community is paid more attention to in the media images than the process of identity formation in individuals of other groups. The identity of gay and lesbian people have been commodified to the construction of a "straight" identity for them being homosexual. This "fake homosexuality," according to Sarah Shulman, is a way to have a double marketing strategy. One, being the emotional need to be accepted and two, selling homosexuality to heterosexuals so they can keep their dominance. I think this is very interesting and very smart, because homosexuals are still not fully accepted by the heterosexual world, but they can manipulate both sexes into consuming products based off dominant needs for the heterosexual and emotional needs for the homo.

Reality vs. Advertising

The conclusion drawn by Fejes in his article "Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" interested me because I saw a similarity to the conclusion I drew in textual analysis. Although the ad I examined was desexualized and not aimed at a homosexual audience, it too created an impossible image for young people to aspire to.

Regardless of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or economic status, no young person can escape the image of the perfect youth that is being projected by the media. That image is not the same for every demographic, but all of the images are fabricated and unrealistic and it isnot just young people who are targeted. Everyone is being sold an idea of perfection.

Advertisers don't even seem afraid to use the word perfection. Even though we are awareof their goals, we still buy into the image, even when the product is described as "perfection" we consumers bite the worm and swallow the hook. What does that say about the modern consumer and ability to articulate our identities?

Homosexuals in the Media

Feje discusses in this article the portrayal of gay and lesbian people in our advertisements today.  He goes through different years of progression, from gay people not being included in any advertisements, to gays being included in sexually explicit advertisements, to gay people having their own magazines and newspapers that may advertise them in a different light than they see fitting. 

            Feje talks about the “gay” market being targeted because they are seen as “consumers.”  He analyzes the process in that certain advertisers were afraid of using gay men in ad campaigns because they were afraid how society would react.  Fashion designers like Calvin Klein started putting gay men in his jean advertisements, straight people would be unaware that they were gay, but gay people would know.  I thought that this was interesting because it seems almost sneaky to portray this gay model as a straight individual. 

            The stereotype of the gay community being upscale, wealthy, fashionable, educated, with expensive belongings was a big part of this article.  It is interesting that society has gone to completely ignoring the homosexual community to putting them at the top of the social spectrum.  Although this image may not be accurate, it gives them positive press.  In contrast, this attention doesn’t help the fight for their equality with certain aspects of life like the military and marriage (217).  Also, people may not feel them as victims because they see them in the media as such privileged people with affluent lifestyles. 

            I found it interesting that women lesbians were rarely talked about in this article.  It seems to be that the lesbians haven’t found a way to advertise themselves in a large scale way as gay males have.  For girls that “come out” it is often seen as difficult for them because they don’t have anywhere to look, like men do.  They don’t have any role models to look up to or even many advertisements to help identify with.  

Lesbian/Gay Identity

Fejes's article "Advertising And The Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" is very interesting article; I never knew that publications of gay material in magazines in the late 1980s were sexually explicit and that they had to change a lot of that material. In general, some areas of the article that also stood out for me were:

"In the past the images available to lesbians and gay males in the mainstream media were highly negative (219)." This all started since the 1960s and over time it has become less of a negative connotation. These media images created a sense of identity for all of the gays and lesbians in the nation at the time, and depending on the time period, there was a heavy negative to positive relationship with the images and sexuality.

"Homosexuality ignores class, ethnic, and religious boundaries...most gays are not 26 years old and do not live a charmed, protected, and carefree lives in trendy urban centers, earning high incomes..and going to the gym daily and wearing latest fashions (221)." This section of the text pretty much negates all stereotypical connotations of homosexual individuals. When I imagine the "gay male" I always associate a high pitched voice, effeminacy, interest in "girl shows" like Sex and the City, and strange fashion styles to paint my picture of what a "gay male" is. Obviously not all gay men are like that and it is pretty stereotypical, and after reading this article I understand better how media influences a lot of issues regarding homosexuals and how media makes it difficult for them.



The image above, while slightly disturbing, is very interesting to this topic. It was made by street artist "Banksy" and it features two police men kissing. His art is generally associated with political or social themes, which in this case is homosexuality. This sort of media that Banksy has created is just like the article is talking about, with the political media effecting how the public perceives gays and lesbians as. It is a topic of discussion that many people agree with and disagree with and hopefully in the future gays and lesbians will have less negative connotations and more rights.

The Illusion of Power: Marketing to Gays and Lesbians

Fred Fejes examines the affects of media and advertising on gay and lesbian identity and culture in “Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity.” Fejes claims that despite the fact that advertisers now specifically market to homosexuals and value them as consumers, Gays and lesbians still have a long ways to go in gaining political, legal and social equality. Also, Fejes explains how gays are valued over lesbians to consumers, because of their supposedly higher income and greater readership of magazines targeted to homosexuals. However, gays were not always considered valuable to advertisers, who used to be hesitant to associate their products with the gay community. In the early 1970’s, Advertising Age ran reports involving the possibilities of marketing to gays, and the Advocate hired an independent marketing research firm to collect data about marketing to gay men. To reach the gay market, advertisers and magazines toned down their explicitly sexual content, upgraded their quality and changed their formatting. Thus, in the 1990’s advertisers became eager to market to gays due to their stereotyped high income, high level of education, frequent traveling, and interest in buying new electronic products. Obtaining objective and agreeable information was very difficult, as was marketing to a “gay” market. For example, a study posted in the New York Times argues that gays don’t make more money than straight people; they just spend it in a way more favorable to advertisers. Other studies say gays make much more money, or less money, than their straight counterparts. Nonetheless, gays became highly valued by advertisers, who portrayed them in a positive manor. Fejes warns that, while this may seem like progress, “being highly valued by markets means nothing politically.” (217) Fejes further argues that advertisements marketing gays and lesbians have, in some ways, adversely impacted homosexuals, as they are almost always depicted in the same way (they make a lot of money, wear designer cloths, go to the gym and ride in an SVU), which promotes conformity through consumption. This reading ends by acknowledging that gays more often live in “an environment quietly antagonistic at best or at worse openly hostile to their existence,” (221) which sharply contrasts with the happy portrayal of the gay lifestyle depicted by advertisers.

The picture I chose is a past cover of Out magazine-one of the leading gay magazines. I chose it for multiple reasons. First of all, the picture appears to be pretty classy. The men are dressed in business attire and wear fairly serious expressions. This demonstrates the movement away from explicitly sexual advertisements to ones more acceptable to the general public. Also, this cover illustrates the way the media depicts the gay community: affluent, business and technology-orientated, happy, good-looking, in shape, and falsely influential. Finally, I would like to draw a parallel between this reading and Schor’s “The New Politics of Consumption,” which I have already posted a blog on. Both Fejes and Schor emphasize how critical consumption is to the consumer. Schor explains that some feel that consumption is related to status, for instance if a woman buys a Prada handbag she feels wealthy, respected and dignified. Fejes conveys a similar argument by stating that homosexuals feel important when advertisers market directly too them, suggesting that this means they have achieved some form of progress. In both readings thorough rebuttals are provided. Schor leaves the reader with various theories, while Fejes more affirmatively establishes his belief that the common portrayal of gays by advertisers are inaccurate and that gays and lesbians have a long way to go to achieve political and social equality.

Media's Portrayal of the Gay Consumer - "Fake Homosexuality"

As we all know, the media is an influential force upon our society, affecting a wide range of demographics. It promotes a structure in which society is shaped by these publications. In the case of Fred Fejes' essay "Advertising And The Political Economy Of Lesbian/Gay Identity", homosexuals are portrayed as "minorities with privileges" whom are more likely to spend their money on new products (216). Part of Fejes argument focuses on the fact that "gay market" advertisers are drawn to the "gay consumer" because homosexuals especially gay men have the tendency to consume more than any other consumer group in society. So in that case, advertisers seek to promote through "gay media" a glamorous portrayal of homosexuality in order to favor its popular consumers. It emphasizes the gay consumer as one who lives a fairly luxurious lifestyle, 28.6 percent having incomes over $50,000 and 21 percent having incomes over $100,000 and most of them are represented as "fashionistas", travelers, well-educated, extremely attractive with well-muscled bodies, wearing designer clothing, drinking top-brand liquors, driving expensive cars, etc. (217 - 19). The media gives the idea that homosexuals are well off, have earned their equality, and most of all have achieved the media's approval. While that might be the case, the first two assumptions are not necessarily true. Society has to remember that homosexuals experience inequality, experience horrifying threats, work discrimination, are judged by friends, dismissed by family etc. The list goes on and the media as well as the political economy does not address that enough. There have been many terrrifying deaths because of this and the media keeps it out because that would contradict their "fantasy". As Fejes says, "these consequences of such narrow representation in ads can go beyond the issue of images and identities" (220). Homophobia still exits not matter what the media says. What is even worse is the fact that lesbians are "marginalized" more than gay men. There are very few publications of lesbian women in advertisements. Part of the reason is that society does not find lesbian women nearly as attractive as gay men. Also, in advertising gay men are only depicted as white middle class and hardly are they revealed as African American or Asian for example. If that were the case, these individuals would have very "white" features.In reality, most homosexuals are like everyone else. They are not always trendy white-collared professionals who go to the gym daily and wear the latest fashions as Feges argues. Instead, homosexuals expose their selves very conservatively and privately in order to protect their identity.

Consumer Culture and "Keeping Up"

In ‘The Politics of New Consumption’, Juliet Schor analyzes American consumer culture, outlining the attitudes towards consumerism over time, and discussing the reasons why Americans “want so much more than they need”. The United States, one of the richest countries in the world, is consuming at a dangerously high rate, continuing to desire more and more, despite the fact that the global income gap is so wide. The previously held notion that a comfortable, middle-class existence was adequate and satisfying enough is gone- Americans look up, basing their models of consumption on those wealthier than they are, while the “average American finds it harder to achieve a satisfying standard of living than 25 years ago”. Our consumption habits reproduce social and class inequality, exacerbating the already existing problem of the unequal distribution of income. Schor makes the point that “our sense of social belonging comes from what we consume”, meaning that achieving true social equality can never be possible unless you can “keep up” with the consumption of others. Income has become more unequally distributed over time, with the bulk of wealth shifting towards the top 20% of the population. In this culture of consumerism and “keeping up” where most Americans have a hard time achieving even an “adequate” standard of living, the pressures to consume have detrimental effects at the household level. These problems are due to structural changes, including the decline of community and a heightened presence of mass media, rather than a sudden shift in American attitudes towards intense “greed”. While opinions surrounding consumerism have long been based in the individual, Schor argues that real change in our consumption habits must be addressed as a collective.

The section of the article that discussed the social patterning of consumption, stating that "consumption practices become important in maintaining the basic structures of power and inequality which characterize our world", reminded me of this segment in the 2006 movie by MTV's 'The State', "The Ten", in which a narrator leads viewers through skits representing each of the ten commandments, portrayed in humorous and satirical ways. This excerpt is based on the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors' Goods", and tells the story of two neighboring families, each headed by an overbearing father figure, each obsessed with "keeping up" with the absurd consumption habits of the other in an effort to compete for "power" or gain the "upper hand". This scenario sounds familiar, but in this skit, the items consumed are not fancy cars, or home improvements like a swimming pool, but CAT scan machines. The obvious ridiculousness of this sketch pokes fun at the consumer culture of "keeping up", showing how consumerism can be based on the desire for objects that are essentially pointless or inessential. While the ending is somewhat absurd, I feel that as a whole, this video is a humorous critique on a prevalent social issue, one that is widespread throughout American culture, and threatens to exacerbate the problem of growing social and economic inequality.

New, Unrealistic Consumerism

In Juliet Schor’s article, The New Politics of Consumption: Why Americans Want So Much More Than They Need, she explained how America became such a consumerist society and why we feel the need to keep up with it. Many Americans cannot afford to spend the amount of money that is needed to keep up with the upper class consumer. One big problem is that Americans strive to be considered upper class, therefore spending the budget that members of the upper class have. Television has set up an imagined community of big spending consumers, making it seem as though no matter how wealthy you are, you have to keep up with the newest products and technology. Research by Susan Fournier and Michael Guiry has proven that “35% of their sample aspired to reach the top 6% of the income distribution, and another 49% aspired to the next 12%” (186). This leads to Schor’s new term, competitive consumption, which is the “idea that spending is in large part driven by a comparative or competitive process in which individuals try to keep up with the norms of the social group with which they identify” no matter how much money they actually make (185). In my opinion, being too wrapped up in a consumerist society can take you away from what is actually right. High-class consumerism becomes the “norm” to many Americans, taking them away from the reality that many people rarely are a part of the high class, large consumerist society.

By watching shows like Gossip Girl, it can take you away from what is actually the “norm” for society because many can be desensitized to what is impossible to achieve. In Gossip Girl, college students live in the high end of New York City and live exceedingly luxurious lives. The characters in that show are extremely unrealistic – taking trips to Europe on a whim as an example.

Does consumption yield happiness?

While reading Juliet Schors article, “The New Politics of Consumption” I was struck by how similarly the article related to my paper topic of “Perfection vs. Happiness”. Does consumption and perfection really make us happy? In my advertisement, no. The image I analyzed was of a couple that look to be breaking up. While their relationship is breaking down, they look extravagant. Their life seems to revolve around perfection and consumption. The woman’s dress is more than luxurious and you can even tell that the kitchen is extremely expensive. While analyzing this image I truly started to understand that consumption doesn’t necessarily bring happiness. It is evident that this couple is unhappy. They could be trying to keep up with the social expectations to live in a certain luxurious way. Schor writes, “They argued that Americans had been manipulated into participating in a dumbed down, artificial consumer culture, which yielded few true human satisfactions” (183). This quote describes that all the consumption and desire for perfection yields little satisfaction.

Although consumption may bring instant satisfaction, it does not necessarily mean it will bring true happiness. The competition between households to upkeep a certain status can tear a family apart. Schor writes, “Our notions of what is adequate, necessary, or luxurious are shaped by the larger social context” (187). Although individual know what they want, they feel like they have the “keep up with the Jonses”. Like this advertisement, the viewer can see an extravagant life break down. When will the competition to be perfect stop? At what point do people realize that consumption doesn’t necessarily yield happiness?

America is such a consumeristic nation, our everyday life depends on consumption. "The New Politics of Consumption," talks about the politics and social affects of mass consumption in America. The article quotes, "The good life, they suggest, could be achieved by attaining a comfortable, middle-class standard of living." (p.184) This quote suggests that white picket fence nuclear family, with a big SUV to fit the family. If people have a large SUV, even if you do not need it, is an example of wastefully excessive consumption.

In general, people seem to be buying larger and larger SUV's that waste more and more gas, and give off more emissions that hurt the environment. If you look at countries in Europe, there cars are a lot smaller than our in the United States. Gas in Europe is very expensive, so they are not as wasteful with it as we are in America. Besides for having SUV's, we also like buying two seater sport cars that get just as bad gas mileage. We do this just as a status symbol, because we as consumers feel we need to fit in with our surroundings, whether it hurts the environment or not.

The Current Politics of Consumption

I found Juliet Schors article on The New Politics of Consumption to be very noteworthy. I believe many of the reasons stated in this article can support the causes of the United States current financial situation. Its almost as if the article was predicting the future and foresaw that our society’s spending habits would increase. I consider people who have excessive spending habits with no money to back them up can fall under the category of the recession contributors. Something that I found to be true was the conventional view of the production and consumption having no “external” effects. Which states there are no consequences for the welfare of others that are unreflected in product prices. An example being pollution, which imposes cost on others that are not reflected in the price of the good that produces the pollution. Another point that Schor defended that I also agree with was “it is difficult to make an ethical argument that people in the worlds richest country need more when the global income gap is so wide, the disparity in world resource use is so enormous, and the possibility that we are already consuming beyond the Earth’s ecological carrying capacity so likely. (184) Americans need to realize the repressions of there consuming habits.

America: Land of the...Greedy?

Juliet Schor’s The New Politics of Consumption examines various proposals about why Americans want so much and provides theories about consumer culture. Critics who take a liberal approach say that the good life can be achieved by reaching a middle-class standard of living, and that income is crucial to well being. The Economic Policy Institute concentrates on the unequal distribution of income and wealth, and says that redistribution and growth is the answer. Schor, however, feels this is not the solution because “adequate income is an elusive goal.” (184) Schor addresses the social context of consumption (how consumption affects social standing) and emphasizes the importance of quality of life over quantity of possessions. The principles of “new consumerism” address competitive consumption and establish how people now use the very wealthy as the reference group off which to base their aspirations. Statistics support Schor’s argument throughout the reading, and the fact that only 15% of people said that they would be satisfied with “living a comfortable life” particularly amazed me. Because Americans are spending more and saving less, people are increasingly stressed, especially low-income families. New consumerism holds that income is used for private consumption, public consumption, private savings and leisure. Schor calls for a beneficial shift from private to public consumption as well as an increase in savings. The liberal stance to consumerism has faith in individual ability. It optimistically claims that consumers are rational, well-informed people who have consistent and independent preferences. Furthermore, it states that the production and consumption of goods have no external effects, for example on the environment, that aren’t reflected in the price of an item. This concept stuck out to me, which is why I chose Dr. Seuss's The Lorax as my media clip. The Lorax is very relevant to the concepts presented in this reading. It tells a tale about an “Onceler” (business character) who was very greedy and called for mass production to aid his business. People flooded the town in cars and tore down the trees in order to make more goods and earn more money. Interestingly, the face of the onceler is never shown, suggesting that he represents big corporations and enterprises rather than an individual. Because the public demand is so high, the company exhausts the resources and the land turns polluted and deserted, as it is unsuitable for living. This video signifies what could happen in America if this elevated level of consumption continues to hurt the environment. The idea of environmental damage due to consumer behavior is revisited on page 192. There are rebuttals to the economic model in the following pages, and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu states that class status is directly affected by consumer behavior. Finally, the reading ends by describing what Schor thinks the politics of consumption should look like. A few of these features include the right to a decent standard of living, ecologically sustainable consumption, and a consumer movement and governmental policy.

Consumerism and America

Juliet Schor's article about consumption was really eye opening. One quote that stuck out for me regarding consumption was "Luxury, rather than mere comfort, is a widespread aspiration (185)." This angers me because there are many people living in less than ideal conditions and they aspire just to have the basic needs to survive: food, shelter, and clothing. Americans seem to be striving for much more than that. Unnecessarily huge houses, cars, televisions and expensive clothing permeates throughout American culture, and it is almost a standard to have all of these items now- it is almost not luxury anymore because of how popular these once luxury things were.

All of these consumerism themes reminds me of the Pixar movie "Wall-E". Obviously, a major theme in "Wall-E" was that consumerism and lack of care for the environment lead to the abaondonment of the earth because too much consumerism lead to trash overtaking Earth. When Wall-E arrives in the space ship where humans live, they are all living a consumerism lifestyle to the maximum, eating profusely, using power chairs to get around, and buying stuff they do not need at the touch of a button.

Here is the opening scene from the film. The music juxtaposes well with the current setting of the earth overrun by consumerism. The music sounds like something you would hear "in the good old days" before the days of mass consumption.





The film "Wall-E" gives a fair look at the consumerism capital of the world that America has become. It still entertains kids with its humor but appeals to teens and adults with the messages about consumerism and how bad we have become with it.

This article and its discussion of consumerism, and the politics behind it, needs to be adressed by all Americans. I mean it is okay to buy something you need that will entertian you or provide some use. But buying products you will never use just for the sake of having them is a vicious cycle that America is currently in and needs to find some sort of escape from.

The Consummate Consumer

Juliet Schor’s article The New Politics of Consumption: Why Americans Want So Much More Than They Need, discusses contemporary American consumerism and its afflictions or immoralities. New consumerism is defined as the upscale version of a normal lifestyle, caused by the widespread desire to obtain luxury products and the struggle to attain them, and the large (and growing) gap between consumer wants versus adequate incomes to obtain such wants (185). This is the idea that spending is used as a tool in the competition to “keep up” with what is popular and desirable at the time, this aspiration having long been a part of American culture. “This new consumerism with its growing aspirational gap, has begun to jeopardize the quality of American life” (186). Thanks to the extreme pressures of “keeping up”, families move into neighborhoods with high housing costs (so their children can go to “good” schools) in their pursuit of the American dream. The tradeoff requires that two adults work to earn dual income so they maintain their middle class status, not to mention all sorts of other expenses (car payments, wardrobe costs). In addition, this busy lifestyle requires timesaving expensive commodities (take-out food, cleaning services).

Schor’s example of new consumerism relates to the movie No Impact Man. Colin Beavan is a New Yorker who decides to change his personal impact on the Earth, leaving no carbon footprint for one year. In order to do this he pursues a number of different approaches. Beavan purchases only local foods, becomes a vegetarian, turns off his electricity, uses only green methods of transportation (walking or biking), resists all material consumption (either uses what he already has or buys second hand) and creates little to no garbage. While this film is meant to portray an ecologically friendly experiment, it in turn depicts just how consumed we as Americans are. The strong message reflected is that we are defined through our consumption. We work hard to the earn money to consume these unnecessary products, which are not well made therefore unsustainable and thus will keep us coming back to purchase more. The need to be the consummate consumer slowly undermines our very ability to thrive, much like the competitiveness of new consumerism.

New Politics of Consumption

The reading was about the rise of consumption in America. According to Juliet Schor, the "good life" is attained by comfortable middle class standard of living and the income equals well being. But i becomes harder to achieve a good standard of living due to the longer hours of jobs, spending more because of pressure, and jobs becoming less secure.
The Economic Policy Institution focuses on distribution of wealth by giving more income to people to re-distrubtion wealth and growth. But more income leads to more consumption which worsens income in turn, because it creates social inequalities. It's all about the quality of life not the quantity of what you have.
The "new consumerism" is an upscale lifestyle norm that has people competing in consumerism to keep up with social norms. The idea of luxury is a widespread goal that people want to attain. For example, in the 50's and 60's there was the show "Keeping Up With The Joneses" was a show that showed the idea of luxury.
American's basically don't know how lucky they have it. The ideology of non interference applies to consumerism because it means that one should be able to buy what they like, where one likes, and as much as they want. This ties into the liberal view which is, consumers are rational, well-informed, consistent, independent from others, they have "no external effects" on consumption, and their consumption is complete and competitive.



This picture I found reminded me of the credit card passage in the reading because the saying "If the size of credit cards were in proportion to credit card debt" then maybe people would not be in denial about how much debt they have. If people have a credit card and see the logo they are more likely to spend it, according to psychologists.

Furthermore, American's live in a dream world where we consume any kind of commodity we can find.

Media Giants, Political Economics, and Cultural Studies

In Lawrence Grossberg’s work“Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy: Is anybody else bored with this debate?,” he in many ways wishes to defend and finalize the continuous debates surrounding cultural studies and political economy. In this work Grossberg uses the works and arguments of political economist, Nicholas Garnham in order to prove his ideas regarding the connection between political economics and cultural studies. For sometime cultural studies and the political economy have been divided over the make-up of what would be considered an adequate theory of culture and power.(626) For example, in general , those like Garnham who study political economics, believe that cultural studies are too concentrated on “consumption, leisure and everyday practices rather than production work and institutions.” Thus, they believe that cultural studies are incapable of developing an adequate theory on culture and power. (628) Grossberg however, make the argument that this belief is in fact not accurate. According to Grossberg, cultural studies comply with the idea of “articulation.” “’Articulation,’ is the way in which the relations between production, consumption, politics and ideology are theorized into cultural studies.” (627) Therefore, contrary to Garnham’s argument that cultural studies do not take into account class, politics, economy, etc. and as a result are inadequate, cultural studies does in fact incorporate all of these aspects.

In relation to Grossberg’s work debating the political economy and cultural studies, an article written by David Croteau and William Hoynes called “The New Media Giants,” in some ways exemplifies this connection. In Croteau and Hoynes’ article they study and discuss the major, media company, conversions of the 1990’s and the changing industry that is media. Specifically, this article exemplifies the 1999 merging of Viacom and CBS, the single biggest media conversion of all time. This and many other media conversions exemplify articulation and the connection between cultural studies and political economics. The merging of these major companies represent the influence of both politics and the economy, while the changing media industry represents the influence of culture that is leisure, consumption and everyday practices. In turn, these connections between media and economics would, according to Grossberg, easily fall under the umbrella of cultural studies.

400 Channels Yet All The Same

David Croteau and William Hoynes’s The New Media Giants article addresses many great points about the billion dollar merging deal of networks to create huge media giants like Viacom. An interesting point this article posed that hit home for me is the way these industries use not just synergy, and the improvement of technology to increase profits but they also use globalization. As stated in the article “MTV is a well-developed commercial formula that Viacom has exported globally, by making small adjustments to account for local tastes…MTV is the most widely distributed network in the world” (35). Originally being from France, I have seen how MTV truly dominates a global market, every single one of my friends in France has watched or religiously watches an MTV show. In France (MTV.fr), the shows have different titles like MTV “Cribs” becomes “Ma Maison de Star” directly translated as the “Star House” more so meaning “The House of a Star.” Interestingly enough, I have realized the shows they present are often old shows we have already seen many times in United States, but are now using them towards a global market making more money and easily spending rather little for them. Many are even re-runs like we often run into on MTV in the United States. It is just any easy way for media giants to use their already made shows to their benefit and increase profit. After all it seems in the media world it is often about being on top and making excessive profit to survive. It really interesting that even presently with TV programming exceeding 400 channels we often run either into re-runs or the same “stupid” shows that lacks any meaning on stations like MTV, but are rather made fun of daily. As the article states, “More content does not necessarily mean different content” (29). Look at the video making fun of the MTV show, “My Super Sweet Sixteen” this show is absolutely ridiculous as the Show “Talk Soup” on E clearly shows. It shows spoiled, out of control pampered 16 year old girls excessively disrespecting their parents and their friends, when they are lucky enough to have a beautiful party to celebrate their entrance into a new age in their life. Not only does more content not just mean different content but also poor content like this show proves. Yet, somehow we as a society still watch these shows. There are many more ridiculous shows MTV that are just as bad and often these tv series do not last and are swapped out by others in the long run. What does this show even show to our society? When I first watched this, I did think it was funny, the more I watched it my dad looked at me with an appalled face saying “Julia, how can you watch this, how can you waste your time watching this crap.” He’s right. It is amazing to see that even when Viacom owns so many networks thus shown by the image above, that still we run into mass amounts of meaningless shows and an excessive amount of re-runs. Yet, these media giants continue to prosper so they must be doing something right. Their size is really what has has helped them stay on top. Being bigger means more capital to finance big projects by exploiting "synergy" and transforming books into movies, and TV series making a bunch of money through larger capital.

Cultural Studies Debate - Grossberg vs. Garnham

In Lawrence Grossberg’s article, Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy: Is Anybody Else Bored with this Debate?, he repeatedly criticizes Nicholas Garnham’s inability to define and discuss cultural studies. Garnham makes several criticisms about cultural studies in his essay. His first criticism is that it “celebrates popular culture and gives up any oppositional role”, due to the fact that cultural studies ignores the institutions of cultural production (626). Secondly, “because cultural studies ignores cultural production, it is incapable of understanding the real structures of power, domination, and oppression in the contemporary world” (626).

Grossberg completely disagrees with Garnham’s criticisms… He believes that cultural studies did not reject political economy, but instead, it rejected the way some political economists practice political economy. However, Grossberg agrees somewhat that some parts of cultural studies have become too celebratory of culture. Although Grossberg shoots down many of Garnhams opinions on the matter, he also seems to agree occasionally with him.

Grossberg VS. Garnham

Lawrence Grossberg criticizes Nicholas Garnham’s attempt to define and discuss cultural studies in his words.  Grossberg rips apart what he believes cultural studies really means and what it represents.  Grossberg states what Garnham tries to say about cultural studies and then each time, blows it out of the water with his facts and rebuttal.  Grossberg is tired of politic economists attacking what he believes and knows of cultural studies.

The first criticism that Garnham mentions is cultural studies celebrating merely popular culture and not understanding mature things such as; power, domination, and oppression in the contemporary world (626).  Garnham’s criticisms are often way off track and sometimes sound stupid because he does know entirely know what he is trying to say and does not have the respected sources.  For example he states that “cultural studies sees gender and race along with other potential markers of difference, as alternative structures of domination” to class.  Grossberg fights back explaining that any difference including race, gender, or class are articulated to and by other differences. 

            Garnham bases his interpretations of cultural studies by “sampling by convenience” (627).  He selectively presents and does not have a wide range of work to back up his arguments.  He believes that cultural studies focus too much on the aspect of consumption and not enough on the production of the work itself.  Grossberg highly disagrees with this argument and states that the consumption and leisure are, in the end, a part of the political economy.  Grossberg emphasizes that Garnham does not address the appropriate questions and simply throws out grey facts.  The most important question is, what is it that mobilizes opposition and Garnham does not ask this question 630).

            Grossberg discusses the real differences between political economy and cultural studies.  He states that cultural studies are opposed to capitalism, but that does not mean that it ever became involved in political economy as a model of cultural explanation (651).   He argues that neither cultural studies nor political economy is a meaningful political enterprise and open to change. 

            This article is not trying to say that cultural studies revolves around perfection, it admits that sometimes people are “duped” by what they see in the media and learn from certain studies.  It says that sometimes people are manipulated and often lied to. 

In conclusion, it is stated that cultural studies did not reject political economy; it simply denied versions of political economy as inadequate (635).  The article ends with the point that people shouldn’t try to return to some imaginary relationship that never existed and not to try to force reconcile.  

Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy

In his article, Lawrence Grossberg’s dissects Nicholas Garnham’s critique of cultural studies and political economy, and completely contradicts everything Garnaham tried to argue. Grossberg explains the fact that the relationship between the two is in no way like the explanation that Garnham presented, but that Cultural studies only rejected the way some political economists go about practicing political economy. Cultural studies wont venture too deeply into the economic, which is a factor of criticism in political economy. But this is only because of the effect of the reductionist models, and the consequence of getting trapped in this terminology. The question of articulation is a main difference in the two fields, “which is, of course, the principle way in which the relations between production, consumption, politics, and ideology are theorized in cultural studies. The self-production of culture is the main point of cultural studies. Very similar to the studies in sociology, this conveys the way people present themselves by the means of their cultures. Culture is the main face of the human race, and it is the key factor that shapes people into who they are and what they become.

Decline in Television

The article "The New Media Giants," dealt with the merger of CBS and Viacom. This merger was strictly for business reasons and made most of the programming that Viacom originally produced, a lot worse than it originally was. This merger along with many other company mergers I have seen, mostly always go down hill in terms of entertainment. The 20th century was known as the largest media growth of our time and is still growing today.

Today, television has almost run out of ideas. There are more reality television shows on air, than daytime dramas. As our society has been changing, we want more and more of these reality TV shows. Channels that did not originally have reality shows, now have started to broadcast these shows. For example MTV, and even FOX are now flooded with nighttime reality TV shows. It almost seems like more people tune into new episodes of Jersey Shore, instead of watching live sports. We seem to care more about what happens to Snooki or Ronnie next, than what is going on in the games of our sports teams. Its just pathetic how people like watching people do stupid things on TV, and getting paid for being dumb. But as America, we love this stuff, and we love to criticize these people for acting foolish on TV. As bad as it sounds, I do too like to criticize people while they are making a fool of themselves.

Instead of watching sports or sitcoms, people are more into watching American Idol or Dancing with the Stars every week. Its sad to say, that people that vote for the contestants on these shows, do not even go out and vote in the presidential election, nor know who is running. We as America care more about these types of media, than listening to important matters like politics. Media has completely shaped out culture in so many ways, and it will only continue too in our generation.

Is Anyone Bored With Blogging About Debates?

Lawrence Grossberg critiques Nicholas Garnham's failed recognition of cultural studies and the political economy being the same. One criticism Granham mentions is that cultural studies looks at pop culture and gives up any other different role. Second, cultural studies ignores economics because it doesn't look at the structures of power, domination, and oppression in the world. What he doesn't realize is that the political economy and cultural studies look at articulation. Both the political economy and cultural studies can express what they want but still be in power to do it.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/CCTP748/appliedtheory.jpg

(you'll have to click on the link because it is SO huge, but the diagram shown here shows how culture and politics are connected institutionally and in the media)

Also, he doesn't recognize that consumption in cultural studies is complex and doesn't deny the exploitation of the dominating market which is also relevant to the economy. Garnham believes that cultural studies focus too much on the consumption and leisure and not enough on the production of work and institutions, but Grossberg argues that consumption and leisure are apart of the political economy, because isn't it the people who consume goods to make money for the economy? Garnham believes that maybe cultural studies is overemphasized with pop culture and consumption; he thinks it isn't true that cultural studies doesn't look at the dominant culture…it's like contemporary capitalism. I think cultural studies totally looks at dominant cultures…cause it is called CULTURAL studies in the first place.

The increase control of better living relates to the political economy because that means people are money conscious as well and cultural studies is willing to explore that. To Garnham, he believes that the political economy are not very stable or closed in terms of it being an enterprise. Furthermore, Grossberg doesn't understand Garnham's analysis on gender and race in cultural studies and political economy having nothing to do with the economy. But capitalism does due to the maintenance between the upper class, middle class, and lower class.

economic relations and practices are what eventually holds the cultural practices together, because they appear to be the bottom line of every problem that cultural studies looks at. It holds everything together and makes everything what it is. As Grossberg describes, cultural studies are interests in themselves that are produced and are involved with political struggles of particular subject groups to the certain interests. Capitalism is dependent on wage labor which means that the culture is increasingly modified.

The Changing Media Industry

In the article, The New Media Giants written by David Croteau and William Hoynes talks about how the TV industry has changed throughout the years through bigger corporations buying out smaller ones and even how technology has changed the industry. New technology is one of the key elements facilitating industry changes (29). When CBS and Viacom merged there was only three national broadcast networks and by the end of the century there was six. Now TV wasn’t the only place for the media. Internet played a huge role in the media world. “Because of the apparently low cost of entry and virtually no-cost distribution, it was thought to be a way to level the playing field between large media conglomerates and smaller independent producers” (29). Now, with the Internet, everyone can essentially put his or her media and idea on the web. Although the Internet has changed the TV industry already, I believe that its going to change it to an ever greater extent. Today, you can essentially watch any TV show that you’re looking for or even the news live online. What will happen to the media industry if everything becomes online and you don’t need a TV?

Symbolic Synergy

In the article “The New Media Giants: Changing Industry and Structure”, authors Croteau and Hoynes discuss the growing assortment of companies that merge, and the politics behind it all. One focus of the article is synergy which “refers to the dynamic where components of a company work together to produce benefits that would be impossible for a single, separately owned and operated unit of the company” (23). The article also states that synergy in the media world is when a whole chain of events happen to produce various types of media all connected to one single concept. For example, Spider Man who was first featured in several comic books, then the character starred in his own comic “The Amazing Spider Man”, and eventually became a T.V. show, and then a series of hit blockbuster movies – all of which provided the market for the assortment of toys and posters created with a Spider Man theme. Media is not the only place where synergy exists. The image to the right is an example of human synergy. Both people are too short to reach the apple, so they combine their heights (by sitting on one’s shoulders) to be able to reach the apple – the apple being the product of their synergy. Without one another neither person would be able to reach the apple themselves.

The Changing Industry Structure

It has always been a huge deal when famous media/industry/corporations merge ownership or partnership. In The New Media Giants, David Croteau and William Hoynes argue about the evolution of media and the affect it has on the public. The market perspective and the public sphere perspective introduce two different but very important concepts to keep in mind when analyzing media.

http://myportfolio.usc.edu/waca/DisneyTV.gif
This photo on the top left shares some examples of some of the major media companies Walt Disney owns.


From the market perspective, these media giants merging or selling out to another company can be "understood as the rational actions of media corporations attemping to maximize sales, create efficiencies in production, and position themselves strategically to face potential competitors" (22). The growth and evolution of media conglomerates is unstoppable and to this day it is expanding to include everything from radio, television, to computer games, CD's, movies, the Internet etc. These multiple revenue generates from this expansion. With so many big media players buying out other big media players, more and more corporations are owning a vast majority of media. It is scary in a way because no one thinks to know that Disney owns almost everything from the Disney channel to ABC family to Lifetime to ESPN to SOAP etc. The list goes on vertically and horizontally allowing Disney (for example) to own many different types of media products as well as a variety of ways of distribution, production, and exhibition of their product(s). The digital platform "encompasses all forms of media" making it easier "for companies to create and promote their different products" (33).

The public sphere perspective ties with what has been mentioned concerning the market perspective. As said before, big media companies buying out other big media companies is seen to act as beneficial to the companies and its success. However, from the public sphere perspective, "growth in the number of media outlets does not necessarily ensure content that serves public interest" (22). In other words, when there is a vast majority of media or a high selection of different forms and genres of media, the public have choices of different media to choose from depending on interest, mood etc. People associate with whatever media attracts them because they find an interest in it. If Disney, for example, were to own every single possible form of media in this world, the diversity of expression will lack because of the dominance of one particular outlet. It would leave out so much if Disney ruled the world.

As a result of this merging phase, so many more channels have been created (added) and new forms of media have been developed, allowing people to watch their favorite shows on the computer instead of the tv, or listen to their favorite songs on youtube instead of the radio or i-pod for example. However, Croteau and Hoynes point out that "more content does not necessarily mean different content" (29). This method is not the only one out there to make big media giants successful. The idea of globalization is another strategy media conglomerates follow to maintain success. The outside countries actually have a huge affect on big media corporations. These companies rely on the interest of other countries and keep in mind how their products will sell outside of the United States. This demonstrates that media companies (very few big giants) "dominate the entire (global) mass communication industry" (36). With that said, much of our media not only shapes our perspectives but outside countries' perspectives. Our cultures, although very different, share the affect of the media's influence to our lifestyles.

http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home%20Page/Disney-war.jpg
I personally thought this picture was interesting. I suggested what if all of media was controlled by Disney and this picture demonstrates that imagined idea perfectly.

The Evolution of the Media Industry

In The New Media Giants, Changing Industry Structure, David Croteau and William Hoynes discuss the media industry and how it has been affected by merging, which is a result of deregulation in the past few decades. In particular, the authors follow CBS from it’s peak in the 60’s until it was purchased by Viacom, which was originally created as a spin-off of CBS when the FCC attempted to “limit network control over television programming and thereby encourage the development of a diversity of programs…” (“financial interest and syndication rules”-page 28). The argument behind this thinking is that “media giants” should not monopolize the industry because to do so would inhibit diversity. However, since Reagan’s presidency, the economy has experienced a conservative, pro-business shift that discourages regulations. When the FCC regulations were relaxed, Viacom and CBS merged, along with numerous other businesses listed on pages 24-28. Croteau and Hoynes attribute these changes in the media industry to growth, integration, globalization and concentration of ownership. Huge growth allows integrated media conglomerates to utilize “synergy,” which refers to the “dynamic where components of a company work together to produce benefits that would be impossible for a single, separately owned unit of the company.” (page 23). Advances in technology, such as the Internet, (which follows TV’s trend of being dominated by media giants), went hand in hand with deregulation and the expansion of the industry. Horizontal integration (owning different types of media products) and vertical integration (owning assets involved in various stages of the production, distribution, and sale of a type of media product), have also been catalysts for change. Companies see international markets vital to future growth and channels such as MTV and Nickelodeon experience huge success abroad. While there is a debate about how much truth there is in claiming that a few companies dominate the industry, the overall tone of this piece supports this concept. Then again, the writing ends by examining new media as wasted potential. The image I chose (above) displays the revenue segment for UTV software Communications Ltd, now owned by Disney. It represents horizontal integration by illustrating how the company owns various types of media products (movies, television, broadcasting, new media, and games content). Disney is an interesting company to read about because it owns so many other channels such as ABC and ESPN, which I don’t typically associate with traditional “Disney.”

"Technology + Politics = Deregulation"

In The New Media Giants, David Croteau and William Hoynes discuss how the major merge between Viacom and CBS transform the structure of the media industry toward the end of the 20th century. Throughout the 1960’s, CBS controlled the majority of network broadcasting. CBS owned nine of the ten prime-time shows. As the 70’s rolled along, new regulations were introduced that required “networks to purchase their programs from independent producers. The rules meant that networks could not own their new programs and could not sell the right to air reruns of their old programs.” Viacom was created by CBS to fit the new FCC regulations and the rest is history. Thirty years later, CBS owned 15 TV stations, more than 160 radio stations, and many Internet sites. Viacom grew rapidly as they purchased several companies along the way. One of their many billion dollar spendings included Paramount, MTV, Nickelodeon, Showtime,and TNN. Several of these cable channels went on to be an international success. Nickelodeon and MTV continue to operate through cable network on a global level. Nickelodeon broadcasts its programming to over 100 countries. Growing up, I distinctly remember watching Nickelodeon in the kitchen of my grandmother’s home in Argentina. Both Crouteau and Hoynes voice the universal questions, “Why was a much smaller media company being broken up in 1971 under the fear of monopoly, while a much larger company was allowed to keep growing in 1999?”

Taking Over TV

In the "The New Media Giants" the export of American television is addressed. (Bodroghkozy anyone?) Just like the export of any cultural creation I see this as a dangerous practice because it risks undermining local custom and tradition. A constant barrage of American culture is bound to have some influence on a foreign audience. In some Asian countries, the introduction of American professional wrestling is credited with drastically increasing the rate of violence. It is also likely that American programming is much more commonly received than that from any other nation. This might create the perception for those in more isolated lifestyles and locations that the rest of the world is akin to what you see on American television.

On a related point, what, if any, aspects of the text that is being viewed abroad are being changed for the viewing audience. Language would be an easy change, but you can't re-film every episode of a tv show to reflect the dress, diet, social practices, and nuances of each of the countries in which it is broadcast.

I also wanted to point out that the US has adopted multiple foreign born shows and made them staples in American media. It is evident that American media companies are not worried about being pushed out of the market by foreign competitors like those competitors are in their own country. If Americans like an idea it is brought over, revamped and pumped out into the public without the majority of viewers ever knowing that their beloved show started elsewhere.

The site realtvaddict.com reveals a few Americanized foreign born shows and it is interesting to note the wild popularity of the shows which weren't conceived in the US but are now undoubtedly American shows.

New Media Giants

Croteau and Hoynes’ article mainly talks about the merger between two major television companies, Viacom and CBS. It was the largest merger in history by a long shot. Merging media companies has four main developments – growth, integration, globalization, and concentration of ownership.

During this merger, the television shows changed tremendously. A great example is MTV. Not too long ago, it used to be exactly what its name says – music television. Music videos and talk about music were the only things you would tune into MTV for, versus now being a reality television show advocate. On another note, MTV also became a global phenomenon. “Over three-quarters of households that receive MTV are outside the United States” (35). Expanding a station globally like that also gives its network a better name.

The New Media Giants

The New Media Giant reading talks about how Viacom came to be and how it became a large media company. Viacom was created from CBS's compliance to the FCC's new regulations in 1970. Basically, CBS had to create a new corporate entity, separate from their network if they wanted to air reruns of shows like I Love Lucy. So they came up with Viacom in order to do that. Viacom owns all, or most of the channels you see on TV like MTV, Comedy Central, H-1, Showtime etc… Viacom's media business has a global component. For example, Nickelodeon distributes its programming all over the world. Latin America, Turkey, and Australia to name a few. This helps Viacom's percentages of income and has become a major media player in the industry and international world.

this is a nickelodeon commercial in Latin America, to show that it is a program world wide.

Making sense of mergers

The article "The New Media Giants" deals with mergers of companies. The two that are focused the most are CBS and Viacom. From personal experience, I can say that these mergers seriously effected the quality of some of Viacom's channels. The article goes on and on about the business behind all of the mergers, but the most important thing though is the entertainment value they are supposed to provide.


Nickelodeon is a clear example of a channel seriously effected by the merge in 1999. They used to have great shows, that kids around 8-15 or so could like, and the quality of the cartoons and shows were much better. I remember though at the turn of the millennium, the shows went downhill, and I didn't understand why, but after reading this article I can see the probable cause. Today, Nickelodeon is a festering mess of horrible shows, and I feel bad for the kids that are subject to awful broadcasting.

The good old days of Rugrats.


What on earth happened?



MTV, another channel owned by Viacom, obviously is nowhere near the channel that it was 10 years ago, and even then it started to branch from its musical routes. During late 1990s though they started to branch into reality shows such as The Real World and Stunt show "Jackass." The Jersey Shore is a relatively new show and it clearly goes against all intentions of the purpose of the channel itself- which was to originally be a channel associated with music.


A lot of channels both associated with CBS/Viacom and others that are not, are guilty of changing too much of a channel around. I am sure this happens because of monetary and business reasons, where paychecks come first and quality television comes second.

Happily Ever After

The first text Women Read the Romance conveys the findings of a series of interviews done in order to gather information concerning romance novels and their readers. Based on the conclusions of these studies one can easily establish that romance novels are most popular among mothers, the majority of whom are looking for an escape from the “pressures” of their everyday lives. According to the responses of the women who participated in this study, mothers not only look to romance novels as a means to “take their minds off everyday matters,” (69) but they also seek a sense of hope, pleasure and contentment from these books. Women look to romance novels as a way to relieve themselves of the disappointment they feel when they realize they have lost a grasp on what it is that makes them unique. They look to these books as a means to establish a sense of self through the stories of heroines and their nurturing and masculine lovers who continuously reassure them of their “special status and unique identity.”

The novel based film “The Notebook” is a perfect example of a romantic tale that provides women with an escape from their everyday lives. This story features Noah a both masculine and nurturing her who never forgets about his one true love, Allie, despite the fact that for many years the world tour them apart. Throughout this novel Noah’s constant obsession with his long lost love acts as a continuous reassurance that her unique traits make her irreplaceable. Eventually the two are reunited and are able to embark on a long life together, however with the conclusion of this story the two pass away together in each other’s arms. This romantic and almost fairytale ending provides, almost perfectly, the audience and/or reader with the sense of contentment they were seeking at the beginning of the film.

The second text, Cathartic Confessions or Emacipatory Texts?, delves into day time television, namely “talk shows.” In this reading the author discusses the concepts and general make-up of talk shows specifically in regards to the Oprah Winfrey Show. The author, Sujata Moorti, explains that shows like this one are all based on the confrontations of individuals and their problems. Moorti also describes how talk show hosts like Oprah strategically ask their guests difficult and often times emotionally painful questions in order to evoke emotions and eventually participation from the audience. By doing so, Oprah also seeks to act as a kind of therapist to these guests, which eventually allows her to bring about a solution. In addition, Oprah focuses on traumatic individualized stories, such as the victims of rape, in order to give these people a voice that they typically would not have had.

Similarly to Romance novels, day time television, is geared to “stay-at-home moms.” Both Romance novels and daytime television give mothers a chance to escape into the lives of others. Although the places these two mediums take them may be very different they both in the end offer a sense of contentment and pleasure because most often than not both theses shows and novels have happy endings. These “happy endings” give hope to women who don’t feel completely satisfied with there own lives and are therefore seeking to find a solution. Soap Operas, another form of daytime television, also provide women with a means of escape. These highly dramatized television series’ allow women to delve into the much more exciting lives of fictional others. In addition, the fact that most soap operas are parts of a series allows women to follow the characters through their lives over a much longer period of time.