Why do you think that Thomas Streeter titles his essay the way he does? What do “blue skies” and “strange bedfellows” have to do with 1960s discussions about the possibilities of cable television? Does the language used around cable at that time sound similar to the way new media technologies are discussed today? Explain.
Categories
2 replies on “Blue Skies and Strange Bedfellows”
Thomas Streeter’s title of “blue skies” and “strange bedfellows” seems to encapsulate two main arguments he discusses. “Blue skies” refers to the 1960s discussions about how cable offered “awe-inspiring strategic and social importance to the nation as a whole” (Streeter, 234). There was an optimistic air surrounding cable, and people seemed to believe that the rise of cable could fix inequalities and all manner of other problems, creating a clear, “blue sky.” This positive message was a key role in cable’s climb back into the good graces of the public as the hopeful messaging had more of an impact than any true policy proposal. In the end, however, few if any of the solutions cable promised actually came to pass; it is still an oligopoly and still offers reused content. “Strange bedfellows” refers to the unique coalition that ended up backing cable’s rise. Groups such as the ACLU, ADA, cable operators, and think-tanks like the RAND corporation, while often on opposite sides of the political spectrum, had a similar message when it came to cable. Cable “transformed over the opposition of powerful enemies into the cure for the ills of modern urban American society” (Streeter, 234). It was partially the fact that opposition groups held cable in a positive light that convinced Americans that it would be able to solve all of their broadcasting problems.
Personally, today I find a very similar set of discourse to be happening around AI. It is promised by the big companies like OpenAI or Meta that AI offers the American people great opportunities and solutions for problems, from help with work, to help planning trips, to increasing quality of life. This is that “blue sky” mentality that cable had in the 1960s. “Strange bedfellows” is a little less emphasized, but the push towards AI is embraced by companies seen as in opposition and even embraced by some education institutes. In the end, I believe AI will have the same result as cable did: it will make us all pay more for things we already had, and it will not deliver meaningfully on any of its promises.
Blue Skies and Strange Bedfellows. A title I wish I came up with myself. Streeter discusses the utopic discourse surrounding cable. It was a big new catalyst for change. The shortcut to growth. Everyone would be able to climb together with this new technology. The naivety was not just peculiar in a vacuum, but became even stranger when looking at who this discourse was coming from. Across the political spectrum, cable became everyone’s mantra for different reasons, yet all equally convinced.
Regulators spoke in soaring terms about “wired cities” that would bring direct democracy into the home; activists imagined neighborhood channels where communities could represent themselves outside corporate media; corporations promised a limitless “information highway” that would break the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum; educators envisioned two-way interactive systems that would revolutionize learning. Even though these groups clashed on every media policy issue, they all adopted the same blue-skies language, calling cable “the future of democracy,” “the next educational revolution,” or “the end of monopolistic broadcasting.” These grand promises, coming from such unsuspecting places, are the “strange bedfellows” Streeter highlights, showing how cable became a blank screen onto which every faction projected its own hopes. Unfortunately, cable couldn’t erase the problems that existed. Even if cable made people for forget, the animosity did not go away.