- By using this example, that took something that appeared to be bad and showed how it ended up good, Johnson showed how society has always thought TV as bad, but now he is turning the tables to show the apposing angle on how good TV is.
- The charts visually show the threads that might not have been apparent. Readers that have never seen the shows can still confirm what he said with the evidence of the charts. The charts couldn’t stand alone, because at first sight the boxes could confuse the reader when not explained first.The explanation is needed to make a stronger case.
- Yes; multiple threading, flashing arrows and social networks match up with the need to follow several narrative threads. Multiple threading goes with retention, because you have to understand what is happening to add onto the complexity of the storyline. Multiple threading also uses attention in the aspect of hooking you in to where you don’t know what’s going to happen next and have to keep watching. You also have to stay patient to know what is happening. Flashing arrows hold the watchers attention on the story. Flashing arrows make the retention so much easier because they are so obvious. Flashing arrows don’t relate to patients because they are so obvious that they are not even require patients to figure them out. (social networks?)
- Johnson demonstraights the counter arguments that some people don’t agree with him with a quick follow-up of his argument. He does this through the use of facts from TV shows to try to help his own argument (even bad TV is better,pg. 773, for example).
- Johnson explains that by making more intellectually challenging TV shows, they can be watched several times and can get something new out of it each time. The more the show or movie gets watched the more money they get made.
under: Uncategorized
