It seems as though McKee seems to support the idea of different groups having their own fragmented public spheres and I'd tend to agree with him on their relevence. For those who identify themselves in some sort of sub-cultural social group, I think fragmentation is a good means of strengthening solidarity with the groups' own public spheres. However, I think there is also some importance in having an unbiased (if that's even possible), homogenous public sphere that relates to all groups. I support a multi-faceted public sphere that is able to accomodate the fragmented spheres of specific group audiences (i.e. black, queer, women) and adds a more universal sphere to unite the groups. Maybe that's a bit too ambitious.
I liked what McKee mentioned in the chapter about the importance of TV programming regarding the issue of fragmentation. He discussed the seperations of social groups in programming and added that the TV was a good venue for exploring other cultures without putting yourself or your values at too much risk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment