Jensen Core Response #2

    The readings for this week offered interesting analyses of the role of television in society, with each proposing their findings in unique stylistic fashions. 

    Morse's article discusses the relationship of the "nonspace" of television and how the "distraction" which comes from that space interacts within the cultural sphere of America and how it is largely dictated by market economics. I found the author's breakdown of the terms useful in comprehending the rather abstract content of the article, and their comparison of television with freeways was fascinating to say the least.

    McCarthy's article discusses how television dictates the temporal schedules for many spaces (both domestic and regional) and showcases many case studies of how televisions are positioned in public spaces, such as doctor's offices, bars, or hospitals. In doing so, the author aligns the introduction of televisions into "waiting spaces" as a legitimizing factor for the complacent act of watching, and also describes how the content played in these spaces is focused on spreading certain social or economic messages (the doctor's office shows advertisements for medications, bars play sports games, etc.).

    The final article by Colomina was perhaps the most interesting for me, as war films are what I study academically. The author describes how warfare has permeated the domestic sphere through a multitude of aspects, such as hygiene, architecture, and most importantly television. They describe how due to the contemporary asymmetric/nuclear nature of warfare, these elements are introduced into the domestic space to further prepare and control the population in the event of conflict. Then, after going through a seemingly misplaced discourse involving cabinets, the author concludes that the domestic space becomes a place for both broadcasting and receiving military influence. 

    This article by Colomina raises some questions for me, the first being has the nature of warfare actually changed? Historically warfare has been an element of human existence from its genesis and has constantly permeated into everyday life, and while the end of WWII and the introduction of weapons of mass destruction have certainly prompted less conventional warfare tactics I would not say the nature of warfare had necessarily "changed." Next, the author points out how many of the technological devices we use come from military research (heck, the Internet came from the military and that's how we're having school currently!), yet condemns this as manipulation by military hierarchies. I would argue that it is a good thing for populations to be familiar with such technological advances in the event a conflict affects them, which historically speaking is a likely probability for any community from a household to a nation. In regards to the original intent of these technologies, the competitive nature of the world we live in demands constant strives towards technological advancement for every community, often most importantly in that community's military to ensure its survival.