536 Appendix B Understanding Mass and Mediated Communicationlandscape of television during the last twenty years has actually gotten
“smarter.” He notes that, although there is much popular content on TV that
remains highly conventional, the past two decades have seen a huge increase in
critically acclaimed and popular TV shows with narrative complexity—com-
plicated plots and connections between characters, a blurring of reality and
fantasy, and time that is not always linear or chronological. Beginning with
innovative shows like The X-Files (1993–2002) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer
(1997–2003) and continuing with programs like 24 (2001–2010; restarted
in 2014), Doctor Who (since 2005), and Game of Thrones (since 2011), intri-
cate plots, subplots, and “story arcs” weave between stand-alone episodes and
continuous serial storytelling (Mittel, 2006). Many of these shows give you a
cognitive “workout” because you must think carefully to make sense of what is
happening (Johnson, 2005).
What spurred this trend? The explosion of media choices—through cable
channels, DVDs, and now online streaming—has allowed audiences to become
more demanding, and there is money to be made in meeting that demand
(Johnson, 2005). Many of these are hit shows, after all. But even without major
hits, uniquely appealing shows are possible because of another major industry
trend. Narrowcasting (also called niche marketing) is the process of targeting
narrower, more specific audiences. With the diverse array of specialty mediaTHINK
ABOUT
THIS❶ Does the likelihood of
getting caught matter in
your decision whether or
not to download? Why or
why not? Does it matter
that illegal downloading is
widespread?
❷ What do you think about
Zach’s argument that steal-
ing from a “corporation”
is more defensible than
stealing from an individual
artist or band? Is that rea-
sonable? And regardless of
that, what adverse impacts
might there also be for the
artists themselves?
❸ Does it make a differ-
ence that some bands
are struggling new artists,
while others are multimil-
lionaires? Why or why not?Music Piracy
You and your friend Zach are really into a local band called Spikefish. You’ve
attended their concerts and bought their T-shirts. Spikefish has begun to
gather a larger following as well, and their songs are now available to pur-
chase through online music sites, such as iTunes and Amazon. Zach tells you
that you don’t have to buy the songs—he’s found a Web site that allows you
to download them for free. Of course, it’s illegal not to buy the songs, but
Zach says that everybody does it, and as long as you don’t download too
much too often, you’re probably not going to get caught. He gets a lot of his
music this way, from struggling new bands like Spikefish as well as mega-
successful established artists like U2.
Zach’s argument is that you’re not really hurting the band by illegally
downloading music because it’s the corporations—the record labels—that
make the real money, and he doesn’t care about them. He also says that in
some ways, illegal downloading helps the bands—by making people more
interested in their music, more likely to attend their concerts, and perhaps
more likely to buy some of their music legally in the future. You think that
bands deserve to earn the fruit of their labors and talents, and you know
that it’s wrong to engage in what is clearly illegal conduct. But you also really
want your music and it seems so easy to get away with illegal downloading.
What should you do? What do you say to Zach?EVALUATINGCOMMUNICATIONETHICS
19_OHA_45766_App_B_530_556.indd 53619_OHA_45766_App_B_530_556.indd 536 13/10/14 5:39 PM13/10/14 5:39 PM