Week 3: Is it commercialization or just laziness?

As I read the chapter on Commercialization this week I found myself agreeing with Mckee quite a bit. Although the argument can be made that commercialization is detrimental because it makes trivial information largely available to lower-class society, the implication often is that political or financial information is less accessible. This actually isn't true. It is the consumers fault if they find themselves numb and disinterested in issues that are catered towards upper class and educated citizens because publications and broadcasts about these issues are just as readily available. There has been a laziness spreading throughout culture in America and it is clearly evidenced but that doesn't mean that shows such as the Real World or Jerry Springer are to be blamed. They can in fact, as Mckee points out, have a positive impact: "I would argue that these programs are an important part of the public sphere, raising the question of how people from different social groups should judge each other's cultures"(Mckee 67).


There is an abundance of news stations broadcasting specific information about stocks, jobs, or politics continuously all day, people often choose to ignore these things and pursue the 'eye-candy' that is easier to take in and relax with. The strength of our media, I would argue, is its diversity. Capitalism has not had the effect that modernists would like to say that it has because every citizen has equal access to each type of media and has an individual choice as to what they would like to consume.