Chapter Six

1. Do you think the must-carry rules violate a cable company's First Amendment rights? Why or why not?
I don't believe this violates the First Amendment at all. To begin with, a cable company is not a person in itself. I think that because the cable company submits to the FCC and relies on the FCC for permission to continue their business, they have no real right to complain about the must-carry rule. I think that the must-carry rule is actually a way to guarantee the First Amendment rights to everyone, not just those with the most power. With the must-carry rule, not only does the cable company have the right to put whatever they want on the majority of their networks, but local agencies have the right to a few networks in order to have their own voices heard without having to fight larger companies. Local networks would never have a prayer when it comes to fighting for the rights of channels if they were constantly up against stations such as MTV or CNN. However, with a few allocated stations, everyone benefits from the First Amendment.

2. CNN and MTV have changed our society as well as global culture. Have these changes been positive or negative? Explain.
I think it could be argued that CNN and MTV have changed society and altered our global culture for the worse because I think that many of the stereotypes and sexist ideals are enforced through these types of media outlets on a regular basis. However, as a whole, I think that these two networks along with many others have positively changed our society and global culture more than it has negatively. For one thing, both of these networks inform viewers on news, entertainment and current events. Informing viewers is a positive thing that leads to more educated viewers. Another thing about these networks is that they both appeal to young viewers. When many news stations gear themselves towards adults and older generations, it's refreshing to see two networks that appeal to younger crowds and engage them in events that matter. While entertainment is an obvious main point, especially when it comes to MTV, they integrate popular culture with news in a way that makes the station both diverse and easily attractive to younger demographics.

3. Some critics argue that citizens no longer participate in traditional neighborhood activities and that cable has played a role in fragmenting society, keeping us in our homes. Do you agree or disagree? What has cable done well, and in what ways has it adversely affected society? 
Cable has obviously distracted our society from going outside of our homes because now our society has another option for entertainment. Before cable, we were limited with things to do. Yes, radio was captivating but it wasn't nearly as indulgent as sitting in front of the TV and getting lost in the pictures. Kids especially wanted to go play with their friends outside, adults had barbecues and card nights. It was a society that depended on one another for entertainment that now has no reason to rely on the company of others. With the flip of a switch, cable connects us to the world and keeps us occupied and keeps us on the couch. Cable has done many things well, however. We're a more informed society because of the news and educational cable shows, and we're also well rounded because cable allows us to experience different channels devoted to different parts of our culture (cooking, dancing, history, etc.).  Cable has also inundated our society with programs that promote sexual promiscuity, sexism, drug use, and other negative things that are glorified on the small screen.  Cable has made what was once unacceptable, acceptable and has disengaged our society from real life. The positives have always triumphed the negatives when it comes to cable, however, leaving it successful and flourishing.