creation of the media: pgs. 113-150

This week's reading was of particular interest to me, as copyright laws and sensationalism tend to pop up in just about every research interest I have. Currently, I'm in the middle of work on my thesis, which deals with intellectual property and copyright as it relates to derivative texts (ie: fanfiction)-- so seeing where some of these conversations began was helpful in my thinking. I was particularly interested in the comment on pg. 121 about derivative works and abridgments:

"In Wheaton and other cases, the courts were skeptical of claims of copyright infringement by derivative works, such as abridgments. According to an 1853 decision, a translation of a work did not infringe on the copyright of the original and an author had no property right in a book's fictional characters." (121)

My, how things have changed! This passage stuck out to me because it serves as a nod to the shift in the general perception of intellectual property that has occurred over time. In many of the texts I've been reading on fan culture, it is pointed out that the ownership of a text or its characters is a relatively recent development, and prior to copyright laws such as these, people would add to existing stories and borrow characters without a second thought as to who "owned" them. It was interesting to see the regulations clarified and the steps it took to get to our current idea of ownership today.

I also found the development of the gossipy, sensationalist press to be fascinating. It was no surprise, really, that Americans were into murder and scandalous details, but it was interesting to see how the penny press adapted in format to suit its readership, and how the English and French press compared to the developments in American techniques.

I was also interested in the beginnings of advertising "plugs", as referenced on pg. 146: "In response to demands from advertisers, many nineteenth-century papers inserted paid 'reading notices' into their regular news columns and published 'puffs' for products (including laudatory book reviews for publishers)".

Finally, I just have to say that I'm somewhat glad we're moving away from Starr. While I really enjoyed the reading, I admittedly know very little about American history, and Starr's American exceptionalism was unsettling because I remained so unsure of what to take seriously, and what to chalk up to his bias. However, this has been a very good reminder to read with skepticism. :)