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.

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.