Ursula Core Post #3 (?)

John Caldwell's article did a clear job in connecting industry practices to changing contexts and environments. His explanation of how the rise of cable led to a multiplicity of channels that then, through a series of mergers, reconsolidated marketshare among major corporations mirrors the contradictions of new media Jenkins articulates at the start of his article. While Jenkins focuses on the role of consumer, Caldwell demonstrates convergence television through industry decisions in the face of challenges. Although the audience/consumer cannot truly be removed from the equation, Caldwell's description of the television networks' choices raises questions in my mind about how key an active consumer is in the drive for media convergence.

Additionally, I appreciated gaining a greater understanding of the legal-political-economic structure of the recent television, and by extension the whole entertainment system, through these readings. In film history courses I have taken before, the 1948 Paramount Decree would be continually reinforced as a major touchstone of the film industry, but the conversation would rarely move into discussions of the present media landscape. As both Holt and Caldwell detail, the multi-media conglomerates of present day operate as vertically integrated mechanisms brought about through deregulation and a shifting media landscape. I think what we are currently witnessing with the proliferation of streaming sites is in some ways the inevitable conclusion of these practices. With Disney, NBC, and Warner Media all operating their own individual streaming services blatantly fulfills the distribution and exhibition aspect of vertical integration as well as solidifies television industry response to the internet and digital distribution.