- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:39 pm
#36568
Passage Discussion
Paragraph 1 Overview
The author begins the first paragraph of this passage with the presentation of a consensus view to be
later refuted. In this case, the “almost unanimous” assertion among communication specialists is that
with television programming exports, industrialized countries tend to overwhelm developing nations’
cultures. The author is quick to point out that this belief has no real empirical foundation. In fact,
developing nations’ television industries are rarely threatened by such imports, and most viewers
tend to show a preference for domestic programming.
Paragraph 2 Overview
The second paragraph begins with a restatement of the assertion that the “specialists” are off base.
The author discusses an anthropological study which notes the popularity of domestic serial dramas,
comparing them to oral poetry used at gatherings to publicly discuss events of interest.
Paragraph 3 Overview
The third paragraph opens with the assertion that communications specialists should use an
empirical approach to this topic, much like that of anthropologists. The fifi rst inquiry, according to
the author, must concern the proper model to represent the relationship between imported cultural
productions and domestic ones: Perhaps cultures are enriched by absorbing imported productions,
or perhaps imports only connect with local culture where mutually relevant themes, situations, or
characters provide some cultural overlap.
Paragraph 4 Overview
In this paragraph the author continues the discussion of relevant considerations for communications
specialists, underscoring the importance of assessing the particular experiences of diverse individual
viewers, and in particular the experiential contexts and the manner in which such productions’
meanings are ascribed.
SUMMARY: The main point of this passage is to present and dispute a consensus view regarding the
phenomenon of television productions’ export from industrialized to developed nations, providing a
different model from which to understand the phenomenon. The author’s attitude is that the cultural
imperialism perspective adopted by most experts, the belief that the referenced export results in the
detrimental overwhelm of the developing culture, lacks empirical basis, and appears to run contrary
to available evidence. The author believes that communication specialists should develop their
understanding of the complex relationship between imported and domestic productions, and that a
new perspective should be based on empirical evidence, as would be the case with an anthropologist-like
approach. The proper model is vital, as are considerations of diverse individual preferences and
ascriptions of meaning.
Passage Structure
Paragraph 1 Overview
The author begins the first paragraph of this passage with the presentation of a consensus view to be
later refuted. In this case, the “almost unanimous” assertion among communication specialists is that
with television programming exports, industrialized countries tend to overwhelm developing nations’
cultures. The author is quick to point out that this belief has no real empirical foundation. In fact,
developing nations’ television industries are rarely threatened by such imports, and most viewers
tend to show a preference for domestic programming.
Paragraph 2 Overview
The second paragraph begins with a restatement of the assertion that the “specialists” are off base.
The author discusses an anthropological study which notes the popularity of domestic serial dramas,
comparing them to oral poetry used at gatherings to publicly discuss events of interest.
Paragraph 3 Overview
The third paragraph opens with the assertion that communications specialists should use an
empirical approach to this topic, much like that of anthropologists. The fifi rst inquiry, according to
the author, must concern the proper model to represent the relationship between imported cultural
productions and domestic ones: Perhaps cultures are enriched by absorbing imported productions,
or perhaps imports only connect with local culture where mutually relevant themes, situations, or
characters provide some cultural overlap.
Paragraph 4 Overview
In this paragraph the author continues the discussion of relevant considerations for communications
specialists, underscoring the importance of assessing the particular experiences of diverse individual
viewers, and in particular the experiential contexts and the manner in which such productions’
meanings are ascribed.
SUMMARY: The main point of this passage is to present and dispute a consensus view regarding the
phenomenon of television productions’ export from industrialized to developed nations, providing a
different model from which to understand the phenomenon. The author’s attitude is that the cultural
imperialism perspective adopted by most experts, the belief that the referenced export results in the
detrimental overwhelm of the developing culture, lacks empirical basis, and appears to run contrary
to available evidence. The author believes that communication specialists should develop their
understanding of the complex relationship between imported and domestic productions, and that a
new perspective should be based on empirical evidence, as would be the case with an anthropologist-like
approach. The proper model is vital, as are considerations of diverse individual preferences and
ascriptions of meaning.
Passage Structure
- Paragraph 1: Introduces consensus opinion among specialists regarding the imperialistic
view of the effects of industrialized programming’s overwhelm of domestic
culture. Refutes this view based on lacking empirical evidence, pointing out
that the viability of domestic programming is generally not threatened by
imports, and that there is usually a preference for domestic programming.
Paragraph 2: Reasserts that specialists’ assertions are off base and points to anthropological
study regarding the popularity of serial dramas, comparing them to oral
poetry.
Paragraph 3: Argues that communication specialists should use an empirical approach
like that of the anthropologists, fi rst seeking the proper model to develop
an understanding of the relationship between domestic and imported
cultural productions. Presents two possible perspectives on this relationship:
absorption/enrichment, and domestic selection based on mutual relevance.
Paragraph 4: Offers a second important consideration of the assessment of individuals,
their diverse experiences, the contexts in which they experience the imported
productions, and how they ascribe meanings to them.