Core Response, Week 2

Feuer discusses the interaction between television’s assumed ontological state, particularly ‘live’ broadcasts, as a metadiscourse often enacted to generate (or satisfy) viewership. With the help of Raymond Williams’ concept of flow, she is able to analyze the apparent fragmentation in a superficially ‘live’ program like, Good Morning America. Rather than perceive these various segments as parts of a whole, the article aims to point out the fragmentation that is created within the telecast, and how it (David Hartman) anchors the show’s ‘live’ slant. In arguing the show packs both ideology of ‘live’ coupled with unity of the family and nation, she explores its methods and concludes with questions and topics that preoccupy her research, but is still unsure of what these questions or topics even are.

Analyzing a show like Good Morning America is a smart choice in its overt interest (also ABC as a network) for a particular audience, and thus, advertising. David Morley’s use of Steven Neale’s “ideological problematic” and “mode of address” is useful in identifying ideological interests of news formats. For a show like Good Morning America, these interests match up; the ideological problematic is its mode of address (family and national unity). While reading I wondered how much Good Morning America has changed since Feuer wrote this article (seems awhile since Hartman was on ABC), and how we can look at ABC’s morning line up as a whole to further interpret the flow, how it’s expanded and how ideology has changed or stayed the same. Today, Good Morning America is in its first hour a straight news hour similar to what would be seen on World News Tonight, followed by a second hour that more closely fits segments described in Feuer’s article. Broadcast then begins to shift to more popular news headlines, including “how to’s,” spotlights on current trends (both domestic and celebrity), health trends, etc. This is an easy lead in for the next show, Live with Kelly and Ryan (entirely entertainment), with brief discussion of popular headlines from the hosts, while interestingly enough, carries the headline of ‘live’ and a kind of familial unity through its hosts and the audience (phone calls to fans). Finally, before ABC switches to local news, there is an hour of The View, another ‘live’ broadcast (I’m not sure if this is always done live), which combines discussion of news topics with an emphasis of familial cohosts (The View “family”). Deeper analysis of these three hours of broadcasts boasts ABC’s intent for the same ideological points Feuer discusses, with further revelatory aspects ripe for exploration.