KEY WORDS

People sometimes say that today's news programmes are infotainment, a mixture of
information, and entertainment, something that people watch or listen to for
pleasure. Another example of infotainment is docudrama where real events are
dramatised and re- enacted by actors. This is a combination of documentary and
drama: a documentary is a serious factual radio or TV programme.
1. d - chat-show or talk-show: a well-known host invites guests to talk, often
about something they are trying to sell or promote, like their latest book.
чат-шоу або ток-шоу
2. g - game show: a contest of skill, intelligence, or knowledge. The term
includes quiz shows.
гейм-шоу
3. f - God slot: religious programme.
ефірний час, відведений для релігійних телепрограм
4. e - phone-in: a host invites people to phone in and put questions to a studio
guest, or just give their opinions about something.
телефонний дзвінок
5. g - quiz show: contest involving answering questions.
вікторина
6. c - sitcom: short for situation comedy. Comedy series based around a
character or group of characters, often an 'ordinary' family.
ситком
7. b - soap opera or soap: series about the lives of a group of people.
мильна опера

There is, of course, a lot of competition between broadcasting organisations. Most

TV and radio networks want to increase the size of their audience, or their ratings,
at the expense of other networks.
Good ratings are especially important during prime- time or peak-time, the time of
day, or slot, when most people watch TV. Slot also means any short period in
broadcasting reserved for a specific purpose.
High audience figures attract more advertising or commercials to be shown in
commercial breaks between programmes. Commercials are also known as spots.
 The media often talk about ratings battles or ratings wars between networks when
discussing competition in the industry.
Звичайно, між телерадіоорганізаціями існує велика конкуренція. Більшість
телерадіокомпаній прагнуть збільшити розмір своєї аудиторії або свої
рейтинги за рахунок інших мереж.
Хороші рейтинги особливо важливі в прайм-тайм або піковий час - час доби,
або слот, коли більшість людей дивляться телевізор. Слот також означає
будь-який короткий період мовлення, зарезервований для певної мети.
Високі показники аудиторії приваблюють більше реклами або рекламних
роликів, які показують у рекламних паузах між програмами. Рекламні ролики
також відомі як споти.
ЗМІ часто говорять про рейтингові битви або рейтингові війни між
мережами, коли обговорюють конкуренцію в галузі.

THREE BLIND MICE

ТРИ СЛІПИХ МИШІ, Кен Аулетта

Протягом багатьох років ABC, CBS та NBC були найпотужнішими інституціями в американських
медіа, а можливо, і в усьому американському житті.

Але в 1985-6 роках, коли їхні прибутки падали, а глядачі дедалі частіше зверталися до "шведського
столу" кабельного телебачення та відеомагнітофонів, мережі перейшли під контроль ділків з Уолл-
стріт, які вважали, що ними можна керувати ефективніше. Зіткнення культур було настільки ж
драматичним, як і будь-яке інше в історії бізнесу. Панові Аулетті вдалося побачити все це з
рідкісного ракурсу, і він підготував приголомшливий репортаж.

Він розповідає про те, як пан Tisch підступно поглинув CBS, не помітивши цього, а також про
драконівські атаки на витрати його та інших власників. Цей "злий карлик", як його прозвали
колеги, настільки ощадливий, що каже голові звукозаписної компанії CBS, яка щойно отримала 160
мільйонів доларів прибутку, що не може з'їсти бублик у готелі "Беверлі-Хіллз", бо він коштує надто
дорого. З його описами такого божевілля, величезною кількістю персонажів і яскравими
портретами егоманії деяких представників телевізійної індустрії, історія пана Олетти має сильні
натяки на Бальзака і Діккенса.

Це історія, розказана в цифрах, які показують довгий, повільний, невблаганний марш смерті
мереж: зменшення частки аудиторії з 92% у 1976 році, 75% у 1984 році до 60% сьогодні; падіння
прибутків з 800 мільйонів доларів у 1984 році до (ймовірно) нуля цього року; збільшення кількості
каналів у чотири рази з середини 1970-х років; наявність відеомагнітофонів у 70% усіх домівок. Пан
Тіш та його колеги можуть не любити телебачення і навіть не дивитися його, але для таких
любителів підраховувати цифри, як він сам, ці дані досить очевидні.

1. Yes, a smorgasbord restaurant offers a lot of choice.

2. b) video cassette recorder
3. The clash is between the culture of traditional network television and the
culture of Wall Street dealmakers who took over the networks.
4. Yes, stunning reporting is impressive.
5. If you do something craftily, you do it in a clever way, perhaps without people
noticing.
6. a) a strong one
7. No, someone's nickname is not their real name.
8. No, frugal people are careful with their spending and do not spend a lot of
money.
9. Auletta gives the example of Mr. Tisch telling the head of CBS's record
company that he cannot have a bagel at the Beverly Hills Hotel because it
costs too much as an example of lunacy.
10.Yes, if something is inexorable, it will continue.
11.Auletta is talking about ABC, CBS, and NBC in his book.
12.b) four times as big
13.a) other TV bosses
14.Number-crunchers analyze and work with numerical data, typically in a
financial or statistical context.
15.a) clear
People watching TV are viewers. Viewers who watch a lot of television without
caring what they watch are couch potatoes. If you zap between channels, you
use your remote control or zapper to change channels a lot, perhaps looking
for something interesting to watch, and perhaps not succeeding. A zapper is
also a person who zaps. Informal words for television are the tube in the US,
and the box or the telly in Britain.

SORTING OUT CHANNELS

1Article 1 ("Going for a big break"):

 Title: Going for a big break

 Sections: a, d, e, f, g, i

Article 2 ("Shouting at the box"):

 Title: Shouting at the box

 Sections: b, c, h, j, k

 2
 In Article 1:
 Section a: "turn the telly off."
 Section f: "switch off "
 In Article 2:
 Section b: "change channels"
 Section c: "channel-hop"
 Flip over
 Channel over
  Section j: "shouting 'three, three, three' for the news," "screaming 'six, six, six' for
Sky," switch itself off"

TV gore
TV is often accused of showing too much violence or mayhem: scenes of
fights, assault, murder and so on. Violence on TV and in films is often referred
to as gore, especially when blood is visible. A film with a lot of violence and
blood in it is gory.
Телебачення часто звинувачують у тому, що воно показує забагато насильства чи хаосу: сцени
бійок, нападів, убивств тощо. Насильство на телебаченні та у фільмах часто називають
"кривавістю", особливо коли видно кров. Фільм, у якому багато насильства і крові, є кривавим.

1-no

2. If your eyes are downcast, you are looking downward.

3. If you deny something, you say that it isn't true. If you concede something,
you admit that it is true.
4. An advisory is a form of warning.
5. The pre-emptive strike by the TV moguls was carried out to pre-empt
federally-imposed reforms.
6. Restrictions would raise howls of protest from defenders of free speech.
7. If something is palpable, it is obvious and visible. The law-makers felt
relieved because they believed that the networks' voluntary action might
prevent the need for more restrictive government regulations
8. If the flow of blood is unstaunchable, it cannot be easily stopped.
9. If you apply a Band-Aid to a problem, you do not address the real causes
of the problem.
10. There are three objections to the networks' plans in this paragraph.
 The networks will decide for themselves which shows require warning flags,
potentially leading to subjective and inconsistent warnings.
 The plan assumes the presence of a parent to switch the channel, which doesn't
account for unsupervised children or those with bedroom sets.
 Critics argue that the advisories are just a faster road map to the violent material,
making it easier for children to find and watch.

11. Channel-surfing is another expression for zapping.

ПРАКТИКУМ
1. Individual Vulnerability vs. General Impact: It's a common misconception to
believe that violent media doesn't affect oneself but does harm others. However,
research suggests that the impact of violent media can vary among individuals,
and it's not as simple as being immune to its effects. Everyone, regardless of age,
can be influenced to some extent by exposure to violence in media.
2. Media Responsibility: The media indeed play a role in shaping societal attitudes
and behaviors, including those related to violence. While they may not be solely
 responsible for negative effects, they do contribute to the overall context and can
influence individuals, especially when consumed over extended periods.
3. Media as a Reflection of Society: It's true that violence in media often reflects
real-world violence. However, this relationship is complex. While media can
mirror aspects of society, it can also magnify or distort them, potentially
reinforcing harmful stereotypes and behaviors.
4. Market Demand vs. Responsibility: The argument that the media merely
respond to market desires is partially accurate. Media outlets do cater to
audience preferences, but they also have a social responsibility to consider the
potential harm their content can cause, especially when it comes to violence.
5. Solutions to Real-life Violence: Reducing the amount of violence in media and
implementing rating systems and v-chips can be part of a multifaceted approach
to addressing real-life violence. However, they are not standalone solutions. Real-
life violence is influenced by numerous factors, including social, economic, and
cultural aspects, which cannot be entirely mitigated by media regulation alone.
6. Causal Link and Aggressive Behavior: Research has consistently shown a
connection between the viewing of televised violence and subsequent aggressive
behavior and attitudes in children. The influence can vary depending on factors
such as frequency of exposure, attractiveness of aggressors, and the absence of
consequences. This evidence highlights the importance of limiting violent
content, especially for young viewers.
7. "Mean-World" Mentality: Frequent exposure to violence in media can indeed
lead to an exaggerated fear of violence in the real world. This "mean-world"
mentality can contribute to increased self-protective behaviors and mistrust of
others. It underscores the need for media literacy and responsible content
creation to counterbalance these effects and promote a more accurate
perception of the world.
8. Emotional Desensitization and Reduced Empathy: Prolonged exposure to
violent media content has been associated with emotional desensitization
towards real-life violence and a reduced willingness to help others in distress.
This phenomenon highlights the desensitizing effect of violent media and its
potential to affect our empathy and compassion for others.
9. Debates in Scientific Research: It's true that there is ongoing debate among
scientists regarding the connection between watching violence and real-world
aggression. Some studies suggest a link, while others do not. The relationship is
complex, and it's important to consider various factors that can contribute to
aggressive behavior. It's not solely about the amount of exposure to TV brutality
but also includes real-world violence, family attitudes, social class, and individual
psychological factors. This complexity underscores the need for a nuanced and
comprehensive approach to understanding the impact of media violence on
behavior.

Listening. Task 1
 1. Do people who spend more time watching television tend to be more
violent?

It notes the long-standing question of whether increased television consumption

correlates with higher levels of violence, challenging the oversimplified nature of
this inquiry. George Gerbner's pioneering work in content analysis is highlighted
as a turning point, revealing that television often portrays more victims of violence
than aggressors. You've got 70% of all characters each week involved in violence. If imitation
was going to be the most likely consequence, we wouldn't need to do research. We'd all be dead.
You know, everybody doesn't respond to what they see by going, shooting and killing their
neighbors. Right. But what Gerbner reasoned and what the data then showed was that people
who spend more time watching television are not going to be more violent. They're going to be
more afraid, they're going to be more mistrustful. They're going to be more apprehensive of other
people. They're more concerned about violence being done to them. So it turns the whole debate
on its head. It's a much more pervasive effect.

This shift prompts consideration of whether viewers are more likely to identify
with victims rather than imitate aggressors. Furthermore, the speaker emphasizes
the pervasive presence of violence in television content, with multiple acts
occurring every hour. It calls for a reevaluation of the conventional approach to
studying media violence, suggesting that a focus on victim identification may
provide a more nuanced understanding of its impact on individuals and society as
a whole.
2. What is overstimulation according to the guest speaker?
According to the guest speaker, overstimulation refers to an excessive and
exaggerated response to fear or perceived threats. It involves an extreme level of
caution, heightened mistrust of others, an increase in gun ownership, and
excessive security measures such as locking doors beyond what is objectively
necessary for safety. This state of overstimulation leads to a pervasive sense of
insecurity and apprehension, which may be used to justify the suspension of civil
liberties if it is believed to provide a greater sense of security. In essence,
overstimulation is an extreme reaction to fear that can have wide-ranging
consequences for individual behavior and societal policies.
 3. How are media and cultural values interrelated?
Media and cultural values are closely interrelated, with media playing a significant role in both
reflecting and perpetuating these values. Rather than originating cultural values, media amplifies
and reinforces existing cultural tendencies, positions, and values. Media acts as a conduit
through which these values are shared, strengthened, and cultivated repeatedly. These values
encompass a wide range of aspects, including cultural norms, political ideologies, and economic
principles. Essentially, media serves as a powerful tool within the broader cultural framework,
acting as the cultural arm of the industrial order that perpetuates and disseminates these values
to a wider audience.

4. Why is there so much violence in mass media?

The prevalence of violence in mass media, particularly on television, is often attributed to its
profitability. Violence in media is highly profitable, especially when it comes to international
markets. A significant portion of revenue generated by television programs comes from
syndication, and a considerable share of syndication deals is international. Unlike comedy, which
may rely on culture-specific humor and doesn't always translate well across different countries,
violence is relatively cheap to produce and is often formulaic. It can be easily understood and
appreciated by audiences worldwide, making it a lucrative commodity for syndication and sale
to other countries. As a result, the economic incentives for producing and distributing violent
content contribute to its prevalence in mass media.

5. How do mass media create and reinforce stereotypes?

Mass media can create and reinforce stereotypes through various means, and your
statements provide examples of how this process occurs:

1. Selective Portrayal: Media outlets often selectively portray certain racial or ethnic
groups, focusing on specific behaviors or characteristics. For instance, when Latinos are
consistently depicted as violent or when all Arabs and Muslims are presented as
terrorists, it reinforces harmful stereotypes. This selective portrayal narrows the
perception of these groups, overshadowing their diversity and complexity.
2. Repetition and Amplification: Repetition is a key element in the reinforcement of
stereotypes. When media repeatedly showcases certain narratives, such as Latinos as
violent or Arabs/Muslims as terrorists, it amplifies these stereotypes. The constant
exposure to such portrayals leads viewers to associate these characteristics with entire
communities, regardless of their accuracy.
3. Fear-Based Narratives: Media often employ fear-based narratives to capture attention
and generate ratings. Your example of fear surrounding political changes and gun sales
 illustrates how media can exploit concerns by linking them to specific events. This fear-
mongering tactic can further reinforce stereotypes by implying that certain groups are
threatening, thereby promoting the need for defensive measures like increased gun
ownership.
4. Generalization and Simplification: Stereotypes thrive on generalizations and
simplifications. When media generalize the behavior of an entire group based on the
actions of a few individuals, it simplifies complex social realities. For example,
characterizing Hispanic Americans as consistently violent based on the actions of a small
minority perpetuates an unjust stereotype.
5. Channeling Fear: Media can channel fear in very specific directions by consistently
portraying particular groups as sources of danger or threats. This is evident in the
example you provided, where specific groups are framed as violent or associated with
criminality. This can lead to an unjustified fear of these groups and can contribute to
societal divisions and prejudice.

6. Is the effect of video games and movies more significant on children

than on adults?
«haven't found that. We've found that it's pretty stable across the board.
We don't study young children. Other research does that because they
don't quite have the skills needed to participate in our research. But from
we've studied young adolescents and over and haven't found any particular
differences.»

7. Are there any factors that can mitigate the effects of media?
The passage suggests that mitigating the effects of media, particularly in terms of its
influence on fear, apprehension, and mistrust, is challenging and dependent on various
factors, including education and media exposure. Here are some key takeaways:

1. Education as a Factor: The level of education appears to play a role in mitigating the
effects of media. People with higher levels of education tend to be less fearful,
apprehensive, and mistrustful, even when they consume media. In contrast, individuals
with lower levels of education tend to exhibit higher levels of these negative emotions,
regardless of their television viewing habits.
2. Media Exposure vs. Education: The passage highlights an interesting finding that
suggests a convergence or homogenization of attitudes when it comes to television
viewing and its impact on fear and mistrust. Specifically, individuals with higher
education who watch a lot of television can exhibit attitudes similar to those with lower
education levels who also watch television extensively. This implies that media exposure
can override the mitigating effects of education.
3. Lack of Exposure as a Mitigating Factor: The passage suggests that, rather than
identifying specific factors that mitigate the effects of media exposure, the most
effective way to mitigate these effects is by reducing exposure itself. In other words,
individuals who consume less television tend to be less affected by the negative
emotions associated with media exposure.

8. Is there any way to completely shield someone from media influence?

No. Shielding someone completely from media influence is virtually
impossible in today's interconnected world. As the passage suggests, even
if individuals themselves do not engage with media, they are part of a
culture where media permeates daily life. Here are some key reasons why
complete isolation from media influence is challenging:
1. Social Interaction: People are social beings, and they interact with others
who are exposed to media. Conversations, references, and discussions
often revolve around media content, making it challenging to avoid
exposure even if one refrains from direct media consumption.
2. Media's Ubiquity: Media is pervasive in modern society. It is not limited to
television or the internet but includes billboards, advertisements, music,
and even casual conversations. These elements are ingrained in everyday
life, making complete avoidance difficult.
3. Work and Education: Many professions and educational institutions rely on
media for communication, research, and information dissemination. This
means that even in work and educational settings, exposure to media
content is almost unavoidable.
4. Cultural Integration: Media is deeply integrated into culture and society. It
reflects and shapes cultural norms, values, and behaviors. Avoiding media
entirely often means disengaging from cultural life, which is a significant
challenge.
5. Internet and Social Media: The internet and social media have further
amplified media's influence. Information, news, and entertainment are
readily accessible online, making it nearly impossible to completely shield
someone from these platforms.

9. Is violence typical of fiction programs only?

Storytelling is a very critical process in any culture. It's the process by which people learn about
the world. It's a process by by which people learn about becoming human and becoming part of a
society. There's always been violence in stories. There's violence in Shakespeare, there's violence
in the Bible. There's violence in every legend and fairy tale you can come up with. What's
different now is the fact not that there's violence in the stories, but we've never had so much
 exposure to so much violence as there is now. And storytelling has been taken over by a small
handful of commercial corporations. So it's not that there are violent stories out there. It's that
storytelling has been dominated by a small number of corporations, conglomerates, and that
because we don't enforce antitrust laws, media ownership has gotten more and more
concentrated. So it's not a question of having fewer violent stories. It's allowing more people to
tell stories..

The fire, the murder, the rape, the disappearance can be in local news. But
interestingly, there've been a number of studies that have shown very clearly that
the amount of violence in local news in a community is not related to the amount
of violence in that community and the levels of fear and mistrust and apprehension
in that community are related more to the news than to the actual amount of
violence.

10.What other specific consequences of the cultural fear are created by

mass media (except for buying more and more guns)?
1. People that watch more TV were more in support in war
2. People believe more in propaganda
3. They accept violence more in real world

Reading. Task 1
main problem(s) under discussion

1. Misleading Conclusions:
The concern here is that the conclusions drawn in the surgeon general's report are
misleading because they oversimplify a complex issue. While media can certainly
influence behavior and attitudes, portraying it as the primary cause of violence can
divert attention from addressing deeper societal problems. This can be particularly
problematic as it may lead policymakers and the public to believe that the solution to
violence lies solely in regulating media content, when in fact, there are multifaceted
contributors such as economic disparities, mental health issues, and social instability.
2. Media as the Central Cause:
The argument against media being the central cause of violence is grounded in the idea
that violence is not distributed evenly across society. Those exposed to violent
neighborhoods and family environments are statistically more likely to perpetrate or be
victims of violence. This view underscores that media, while influential, operates within a
larger context. Overemphasizing its role can divert resources and attention away from
 addressing systemic issues like poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and
unemployment that contribute to violence in marginalized communities.
3. Generalization of Violence:
The statement critiques the lumping together of various forms of media content as
"violent" without considering context and meaning. It raises valid points about the
ability of individuals, even young children, to differentiate between fantasy and reality in
media. It also questions why state-sanctioned violence, such as military training or the
portrayal of violence by authorities, is often overlooked in discussions. This critique
suggests that the focus should be on the impact of different types of media content
rather than a broad label of "violence."
4. Correlation vs. Causation:
The statement cautions against the common mistake of assuming causation based
solely on correlation. It suggests that people predisposed to violence may be drawn to
violent media, creating a correlation between media consumption and real-world
violence. This nuanced perspective calls for a more thorough examination of the
relationship between media exposure and aggressive behavior to determine causation
accurately.
5. Debate in Social Science Circles:
It is crucial to recognize that the debate regarding the media-violence connection
extends beyond the entertainment industry. Social scientists themselves have differing
opinions on this matter, but these disagreements often do not receive the same
attention as sensational headlines. This indicates the need for a balanced and well-
informed discussion, acknowledging that the topic is far from settled within the
academic community.
6. Societal Responsibility and Solutions:
The statement also touches upon the potential motivations behind continually
emphasizing the role of media in discussions about violence. It suggests that this focus
could be a way to shift responsibility away from systemic issues and onto individuals
and parents. This oversimplification may lead to ineffective solutions, such as relying
solely on parental control tools like V-chips, instead of addressing broader problems like
gun violence, education reform, and economic disparities.