Readings, Week 4: Hollywood & Consumerism

Introduction to Week 4

Welcome to Week 4.

In Week 4, we examine the pop culture mecca known as Hollywood: how it began, who its founders were, what it represents, and how it is and has always been symbolic of and entirely connected to consumerism. We will examine author Neal Gabler‘s concept of Hollywoodism (aetv) and how its message is rooted in the American Dream.

Obama: 'Reclaiming the American Dream' speech

Obama: ‘Reclaiming the American Dream’ speech

We will also examine in detail the group of multinational corporations who own Hollywood entities, from the means of production through each and every medium through which people consume Hollywood’s films and products. These media giants, also called the Big Six, control 90% of all media consumed in North American culture.

Hollywood and its icons are and have been so influential throughout the world, most privileged individuals and sub-cultures worldwide willingly emulate the values and lifestyle of Hollywood. By understanding Hollywood and its pervasive messages and symbols, we may understand how the Hollywood culture is, whether intentional or not, America’s non-violent means of world conquest.

  • The World is a Business
  • Hollywood and the American Dream? What is Consumerism?
  • How are Hollywood and Consumerism connected?
  • Explain Gabler and Jacobovici’s two-part theory known as “Hollywoodism.”
  • History of early Hollywood
  • Who were the Hollywood moguls?
  • Who are the Big Six?
  • What is vertical integration?  What are the positive aspects of vertical integration?  What are its problematic issues?
  • Terms you should know
  • Powerpoint: THE BIG SIX

The World is a Business

Remember in Week 1 when we saw a clip from Sidney Lumet’s multi-Oscar-award-winning 1976 classic film, Network? When we last saw the character of newsman Howard Beale (Peter Finch), he has had a strange vision in the middle of the night. He believes that God speaks to him. In the vision, God tells Howard Beale that from now on, he must tell the public the truth on his newscasts. When Beale asks God, “Why me?”, God replies, “Because you’re on television, dummy.”

Howard Beale, Mad as Hell, Network, 1976

Howard Beale, Mad as Hell, Network, 1976

We saw a great example of Beale telling the truth when he walks into the TV station looking crazed and overtired. He delivers the news, often pointing angrily at the camera and shouting. He said we sit in our living rooms, week after week, watching television and hoping no one will bother us. “Just leave me alone,” he mocks us. “Well, I’m not going to leave you alone,” he says. “I want you to remain mad as hell.”

Well, it turns out that Beale gets in trouble for telling his version of the truth. His boss, Mr. Jensen {played by veteran actor Ned Beatty}, implies that Howard is telling the wrong truth. In fact, says Mr. Jensen, “the world is a business. It has been since man crawled out of the slime.”

The Corporate Cosmology

Ned Beatty as Jensen, Network, 1976

Ned Beatty as Jensen, Network, 1976

The so-called ‘corporate cosmology’ of Arthur Jensen (Network, 1976) goes as follows:

Mr. Jensen: “You have meddled with the primary forces of nature, Mr Beale, and I won’t have it! Is that clear?

You think you merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tide and gravity. It is ecological balance!

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples.

There are no ‘Nations’. There are no ‘Peoples.’ There are no ‘Russians.’ There are no ‘Arabs.’ There are no ‘Third Worlds.’ There is no ‘West.’

There is only one holistic system of systems. One vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-varied, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rands, rubles, pounds and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic, and sub-atomic and galactic structure of things today.

And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature. And you… will… atone!

Am I getting through to you, Mr Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen… and howl about America… and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy.

There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their Councils of State? Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, mini-max solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr Beale. The world is a… college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bye-laws of of business. The world is a business, Mr Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime.

And our children will live, Mr Beale, to see that … perfect … world in which there is no war nor famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company for whom all men will work to serve a common profit. In which all men will hold a share of stock.

All necessities provided. All anxieties tranquilized. All boredom amused.

And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.”

Beale: “Why me?”

Jensen: “Because you’re on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.”

Beale: “I have seen the face of God.”

Jensen: “You just might be right, Mr. Beale.”

In a sense, the idea that “the world is a business” is one of the special thesis points of our course, “Pop Culture: Politics of Media Literacy.” We think of our artforms and media in sacred and pure ways, usually assuming that their purpose is divorced from the concerns of business and free enterprise. Yet, as we shall see today, 90% of the media we consume in North America is managed and distributed by a very small group of multintional corporations. Yes, the realms of all arts are governed by the foundations and principles of business.

As Mr. Jensen maintains, “the World is a Business.”

“More than ever before, Hollywood is a place where business comes first, entertainment second, and art . . . well, art is a distant third. Money is the score card in Hollywood these days.” (Brokaw, in Mathews, 1990)

Schematic: The World is a Business

A number of visual learners from the in-class pop culture course asked me, over the years, if ‘the world is a business’ is one of the thesis points of this course, how does that look on paper? Is it possible to provide a “world is a business” diagram or schematic?

Thus, here is a diagram explaining much of the subject matter of this course from the perspective of the “world is a business” aphorism.

Note that the left side of the diagram visually portrays the benign part of pop culture to which we refer as ‘entertainment.’ This is that to which Ramsey Clark refers as the “non-violent ,eans” of world domination. As we have discussed, this kind of media serve as distractors in our culture, the bread and circuses if you will. The benign media distract most people from even consciously noticing the right side of the diagram.

On the right side of the diagram, for those who are noticing, are the news media, which in America reiterate patriotic slogans and ideology. These news media program listeners, through messages such as ‘we are morally right’ and ‘war is essential’, to go along with America’s militarization of its foreign policy. Through news media, the largest corporations in America, the defense contractors, convince Americans that America should be the world’s policeman. In this way, the Military Industrial Complex may, without debate, implement that which Ramsey Clark calls the “non-violent means” of world conquest.

Hollywood and the American Dream

“The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility achieved through hard work. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, ‘life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement’ regardless of social class or circumstances of birth. The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the United States Declaration of Independence which proclaims that “all men are created equal” and that they are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights” including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Wiki, The American Dream)

What is the American Dream? When I ask students this question, usually I get an answer that appears to be largely based on Hollywood’s iconography. For example, the American Dream, for many, consists of a series of icons and ideological concepts.

White picket fence image, from

White picket fence image, from

The initial impressions that many offer about the American dream include: lots of money, 2.5 kids, a nice house, a white picket fence, a nice neighbourhood, a dog, two cars in the driveway, a job that you like, a handsome/beautiful partner, some degree of success, fame or celebrity, and so on.

  • How many more icons of the American Dream can you think of? When I teach this in-class, students fill an entire blackboard with responses. Test yourself, for fun.
American Dream 'wordle', from (2012). English Day-by-Day

American Dream ‘wordle’, from (2012). English Day-by-Day

Then, when you ask people to dig deeper and to offer those fourth level semiotic answers, eventually you get the kinds of profound values and ideologies suggested in the Wiki definition above and, indeed, in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: democracy, life, liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, power, and so on.

There is, as the Wiki definition suggests, also an unspoken mythology embedded in the American Dream. It is the idea that, because “all men are created equal,” then all Americans have the opportunity to advance in society, through hard work and determination. By virtue of the American ideology, even the “little man” can get a leg up, if only he tries hard enough. While we know that this isn’t true in reality, since racism, sexism, and classism are the rampant downside of American life, this mythology is widely held, and most Americans believe it to be true.

Bust of George Washington at GW University, Washington, DC. (Photo by Reeves Medaglia-Miller)

Bust of George Washington at GW University, Washington, DC. (Photo by Reeves Medaglia-Miller)

While these definitions of the American Dream readily come to mind now, it hasn’t always been this way, at least for the average person. Though George Washington and the founding fathers conceived of all of those deeper fourth level responses when they formulated America back in 1776, it wasn’t until the 20th century that the very specific ‘American Dream’ icons we first think of–money, cars, houses, and even the triumph of the little guy, known as the rags-to-riches narrative–came into the mainstream public consciousness.  How were these ideas articulated and widely disseminated? How is it that we all agree that this iconography is the symbol system of the American Dream? How is it that we share this particular system of values?

Most pop culture experts and cultural historians agree that these values and their related iconography come to us through our common consumption of media, particularly through movies and television in the twentieth century. Before these media were shared by a huge common demographic, most people were ideologically unclear as to the ‘meanings’ of America, apart from vague notions of freedom, liberty, and other esoteric values associated with American patriotism.

Washington Monument and Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC. (Photo by Reeves Medaglia-Miller)

Washington Monument and Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC. (Photo by Reeves Medaglia-Miller)

According to Neal Gabler (1988), in the 1930s and 1940s, 75% of all Americans attended the movies each week. Gabler asserts that it was not until this Hollywood era, when American movies presented its unified cannon of visual symbols and values to a majority of Americans, that an entire nation began to agree on the meaning and iconography of the American Dream.


“[The movie] Hollywoodism makes us look at American cinema from a startling new perspective. It reveals how the American Dream of white picket fences, virtuous heroes, little guys fighting the odds, and the outsider who becomes an insider, was born in tiny European Jewish villages. The film boldly states that the American Dream, as defined by Hollywood, was a Jewish invention.” (Stuart Samuels Productions, 2008)

Neal Gabler, author of "An Empire of Their Own"

Neal Gabler, author of “An Empire of Their Own”

In Neal Gabler‘s (1988) An Empire of their Own, he posits a radical hypothesis that, if misunderstood,  might be considered a racist assertion, if not for the rock-solid sources from which he gleaned the theory: from Jewish media scholars and the Jewish descendants of the moguls who began Hollywood.

Once you examine the theory at length, it becomes clear that it is not racist. On the contrary, it exposes the injustices and atrocities that were perpetrated against a large group of European Jews over a century ago. These were injustices from which a few industrious individuals rose to form a new empire of movies and media, sincerely intended to be free from discrimination of any kind.

Visit Neal Gabler's A Empire of Their Own at Amazon

Visit Neal Gabler’s A Empire of Their Own at Amazon

If you can’t get a hold of the book, don’t worry. I’ll summarize it here.

“Adolph Zukor, founder of Paramount, Carl Laemmle of Universal, Louis B. Mayer, of MGM, William Fox of 20th Century Fox, and Harry Cohn of Columbia were all immigrants (or children of immigrants) who reinvented themselves as Americans. In the process, they transformed America.” (Stuart Samuels Productions, 2008)

The theory of Hollywoodism goes something like this. As is described, both by Gabler in his Empire of their Own, and by director Simcha Jacobovici in Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies, and the American Dream (a documentary about Gabler’s theory), the moguls who started Hollywood all were sons of poor Jewish men and women who lived within a 500 mile radius of one another in Eastern European Jewish shtetls.

Shtetls were poor ghettos that segregated Jews away from the general population, much like our systemically racist Canadian system of reserves that segregates First Nations Canadians.

Shtetl in Lakhva, Poland, 1926

Shtetl in Lakhva, Poland, 1926

About 120 years ago, Jews in Eastern Europe were persecuted by a number of oppressive, anti-Semitic regimes, including Poland, Hungary, the Ukraine, and Tsarist Russia. By persecution, we are not merely talking about racist slurs and prohibitions. Many shtetl communities of Jews who lived in this part of the world were regularly victimized by pogroms, violent organized attacks against ghettoized Jews.

“A pogrom is a violent massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews. The term, a Yiddish variation on a Russian word meaning “thunder”, originally entered the English language to describe 19th and 20th-century attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire (mostly within the Pale of Settlement in present-day Ukraine); similar attacks against Jews at other times and places also became retrospectively known as pogroms.” (Wiki, pogrom)

The Hollywoodism theory posits that, for Jews at the turn of the century, to escape this violent persecution, there were only three options available: either (1) to move to Palestine in search of the promised land (a new Israel), (2) to stay and fight as a member of one of the Communist revolutionary groups of the time, or (3) to move to America, a land where, it was promised, the streets were paved with gold. As the film Hollywoodism suggests, “the smart money was on America.” Instead of waiting for ‘a cavalry that would never come,’ the families of the moguls came to America to build new lives.

When the parents of the moguls brought their families to America, they expected to find a land where the little man could get a break. Instead, they found a culture steeped in the myth of white, Protestant supremacy, a culture that systemically discriminated against the Jewish immigrants, and indeed, many other so-called racial groups. They were blocked from participation in any of the ‘nobler’ professions, like doctor or lawyer.

Thus, the determined young men, before they became moguls, made their first fortunes as salesmen of dry goods, garments, furs, and so on, professions from which they were not prohibited.

When they discovered the exhibitor industry of Nickelodeons, still in its infancy, each of the men eagerly got involved. They recognized a good business opportunity when they saw it: a business where the consumer pays the fee before even receiving the goods.

Front of Comique movie theatre. The theatre operated from 1908 to 1914. The admission price was 5 cents. Theatre was located on Yonge Street. In 2007, this location was occupied by the Hard Rock Cafe. (Toronto Archives).

Front of Comique movie theatre. The theatre operated from 1908 to 1914. The admission price was 5 cents. Theatre was located on Yonge Street. In 2007, this location was occupied by the Hard Rock Cafe. (Toronto Archives).

While the “Hollywood Jews” (as Gabler calls the moguls) remained involved only in exhibition of movies, the status quo of moviemaking, led by American uber-inventor Thomas Edison, left them alone to do business. But once they began to get involved in the production of their own pictures, that is when Edison tried to stop them. The Motion Picture Patents Company (also called the Edison Trust) was formed by Edison to prevent the Hollywood Jews from making movies. Edison even reinforced his prohibition by sending goon squads to places where the Jews were making pictures, then threatening, and sometimes beating up directors and crew of the allegedly illegal film.

Thomas Edison, from Library of Congress

Thomas Edison, from Library of Congress

Once again, the moguls found themselves discriminated against in a land that was supposed to be run democratically. After reporting the new injustices to unresponsive police who were in the pay of Edison and his cronies, the Hollywood Jews, quite independently of one another, made a critical decision. Instead of sticking around and hoping things would improve, they packed up their filmmaking equipment and left for California.

There, in a little town called Hollywood, a suburb of Los Angeles, they had immediate success. There, they were politically and physically free to do as they pleased. Each filmmaker created his own moviemaking neighbourhood (or town, really), a kind of golden shtetl. In these golden shtetls, with lofty names like Universal Pictures or Paramount Pictures, the moguls retained professionals who worked in every aspect of the moviemaking business, from cinematographers to lighting men to actors to drivers. The big studios even had their own post offices and police forces. In the beginning of Hollywood, according to Gabler, there were as many as 30,000 men and women working in the film industry.

The essence of the Hollywoodism theory pertains to the message of the kinds of films made by the moguls once they attained their creative freedom in Hollywood. Gabler suggests that, because the moguls controlled every level of the making of a film, it was easy for them to build their own heartfelt values into the picture and its icons, from top down. Because they were oppressed in their home countries, the moguls’ America of Hollywood films became an overcompensation of sorts, a land where the little guy always wins and the stranger is always welcomed to dinner, a place where family is strong and all folks really are created equal.

“Gabler’s main thesis is that these producers (whom Gabler terms ‘Hollywood Jews’) generally came from poor, fatherless backgrounds, and felt like outsiders in America because of their Jewishness. In Hollywood, these producers were able to run their own industry, assimilate into the American mainstream, and produce movies that fulfilled their vision of the American dream. Gabler asserts that the nature of their business and their movies can often be traced back to their feelings of alienation as immigrants. The book also explains that the business background of the ‘Hollywood Jews’ in theatre-ownership, retail distribution, and the garment industry shaped the approach these studio owners took to crafting movies for a popular audience, one similar to the marketing of films as commodities as well as works of art.” (Wiki, An Empire of their Own)

But what was the shared conception of the American Dream for the moguls, according to Gabler? How is the iconography of Hollywood inexorably linked to that of the American Dream?

Gabler writes: “The Hollywood Jews created a powerful cluster of images and ideas– so powerful that, in a sense, they colonized the American imagination…. Ultimately, American values came to be defined by the movies the Jews made.” (Gabler, 1988).

The Hollywood Moguls

The Hollywood Moguls

“It’s Gabler’s thesis that the Hollywood of Harry Cohn (Columbia), William Fox (20th Century Fox), Carl Laemmle (Universal), Louis Mayer (MGM), Jack Warner (Warner Bros.), and Adolph Zukor (Paramount) ‘was a dream, dreamt by Jews, fleeing a nightmare.’ As they reinvented themselves in the ‘raw social environment’ of the Far West — ‘from Poland to polo in a single generation’ was the joke — these moguls also reinvented the way the rest of us pictured ourselves. Their big-screen images of an over-the-rainbow ‘shadow America’ — of strong fathers, supportive mothers, rebellious sons, the common man, the picket fence, integration, assimilation, Andy Hardy, Gary Cooper, and Jimmy Stewart — ‘devoured’ what we had previously thought was real.” (Leonard, 1998).

“…the moguls created the images, icons, and the visual forms that we identify with the American way of life,” says the narrator of Jacobovici’s Hollywoodism. Yet, tragically, due to a virulent American anti-semitism that is still alive and well today, the Hollywood Jews were denied entry to many elite circles, institutions, and clubs in America. With all the money and power they possessed, they still could not tear down the walls of racism that continued to oppress them, even in the land of opportunity.

So, according to Gabler, the grand irony of Hollywood is as follows:

“They created their own America which is not the real America, it’s their own version of the real America. But, ultimately this shadow America becomes so popular and so widely disseminated that its images and its values come to devour the real America. And so the grand irony of all of Hollywood is that Americans come to define themselves by the shadow America that was created by eastern European Jewish immigrants who weren’t admitted to the precincts of the real America.” (Click to hear this soundbite of Neal Gabler, Youtube)

The Hollywood Moguls

Who were the Hollywood Moguls talked about in Simcha Jacobovici and Neal Gabler’s Hollywoodism?

The Hollywood Moguls

The Hollywood Moguls

Several are named by Leonard (It Came from Minsk) on the previous page of this module:

Leonard names most of them. But it is important to note that Jack Warner was the youngest of a clan of Warners called the Warner Brothers (company formed in 1912). He inherited the leadership of Warner Brothers later, after his brothers stepped down.

Other moguls included Jesse Lasky, Adolph Zukor’s partner in Parmount Pictures through the Famous Players-Lasky incorporation.

Another important player worth mentioning is Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Pictures, the most powerful independent producer in Hollywood for some time.

Gabler offers careful psychological analyses of each of the moguls and finds their backgrounds and life experiences to be remarkably similar.

” ‘The Hollywood Jews, at least the first generation that built the industry, were a remarkably homogeneous group with remarkably similar childhood experiences,’ writes Gabler. An undeniable factor they had in common, was a ‘patrimony of failure.’ They grew up in extreme poverty and privation. Their fathers, (with the exception of Zukor, fatherless from a young age) were luftmenshen– men who could not hold on to a job, and often short of funds. The sons, who speak lovingly of their mothers, are either silent or distinctly hostile toward their fathers.” (Mazornet, 2013)

The darker side of the Hollywoodism story tells of how the Hollywood Jews, still feeling oppressed by anti-semitism, went to great lengths to hide their “Jewishness.” Several of them divorced their Jewish wives and married more ‘acceptable’ Protestant wives. Sam Goldfish even changed his named to Goldwyn.

Samuel Goldfish

Samuel Goldfish

The Hollywood moguls are depicted frankly, by Gabler and Jacobovici, as ruthless businessmen in an equally ruthless industry. Yet, like most people, each of the men had decent, sensitive sides to them, the sides of their personalities that enabled them to helm such passionate portrayals of the American everyman as those found in The Grapes of Wrath or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The Hollywoodism film notes that Louis B. Mayer, for example, was so sentimental he would cry at the drop of a hat. It is suggested that this particular combination of ruthlessness and sensitivity was a key component in early Hollywood’s compassionate portrayal of everyman and in the early moguls themselves, businessmen powerful enough to convey, without obstacles, this remarkably unified vision of America.

Who are the Big Six? What is Vertical Integration?

What became of the Hollywood moguls? What became of their vision of Hollywood? Is Hollywood still an essentially “Jewish industry,” as it once was?

If you ride the information highway with any regularity, you will find numerous post-modern posts that unveil bizarre racist conceptions of Hollywood, painted with a bigoted palette of anti-semitic, conspiracist tools.

As before mentioned, when we study Hollywood and Racism next week, we will examine scientific data that forever dismantles the kinds of generalization and essentialism that is so common today in anti-semitic and other kinds of racist rhetoric. If you are unclear on these ideas, you can get a headstart by looking at the third item on the main menu (on the left) called “Safe Environment: Caution.”

To answer the above questions, the Hollywood moguls themselves became players in the legalities of free enterprise. In the end, the major studios became only parts of empires so large that they were illegal, violating American antitrust laws. The Paramount Consent Decrees of 1948 ruled that the large movie corporations had to divest themselves of their exhibitors, the movie theater chains they had created in order to display their movie products to the public. This was the beginning of the end of the old studio system.

Today, ownership in Hollywood is distributed among many nationalities and many racial groups: the Japanese, the Germans, the Australians, the British, the French, and the Americans alike.

  • Comcast, new owner of NBC Universal
  • Disney, whose subsidiaries include ABC, Miramax, Pixar, Touchstone, Walt Disney Studios, and Walt Disney Theatrical (Robert Iger) {also: Pixar}
  • Viacom, which owns Paramount, MTV Networks, and DreamWorks (CEO: Sumner Redstone) {also: Philippe Dauman; Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg [Dreamworks];
  • CBS Corporation: CBS Entertainment (Leslie Moonves}
  • General Electric, which owned NBC Universal until January 2010 (CEO: Jeffrey Immelt)
  • Time Warner, parent company of Warner Bros., HBO, half of the CW (co-owned with CBS Corp.), CNN, and AOL (CEO: Jeff Bewkes)
  • News Corporation, owner of 20th Century Fox, Fox Broadcasting, MyNetworkTV, FX Networks, and MySpace (CEO: Rupert Murdoch; also: Peter Chernin).
  • Bertelsmann, whose holdings include Sony and BMG Music Publishing (CEO: Carl Bertelsmann) {also: Sony America CEO: Howard Stringer}
  • Sony: Sony Corporation (Sony Electronics in the U.S.), Sony Pictures EntertainmentSony Computer Entertainment, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Ericsson and Sony Financial Holdings.

Just to change things up a bit, I’d like you to view, using Power Point, our examination of the new Hollywood giants and their vertically-integrated styles of business. You will see that any theorist who now refers to Hollywood as “a Jewish industry” is using antiquated data, usually to support racist theories. The Big Six and its ownership is as diverse and international a set of entities as you can imagine.


Gabler, Neal (1989)

Jacobovici, Simcha (1998).

Hollywoodism, Simcha Jacobovici's film about Gabler's 'An Empire of their Own' theory

Hollywoodism, Simcha Jacobovici’s film about Gabler’s ‘An Empire of their Own’ theory

Who are the Big Six?  read more…

For more on “Who owns what?,” check out these:


Definitions found in above text:

Network, Howard Beale, Ned Beatty, Peter FinchethosUnited States, social mobilityJames Truslow Adamssocial classUnited States Declaration of Independenceall men are created equalAmerican Dream, Declaration of IndependenceConstitution of the United Statesracism, sexism, classism, founding fathers, 1776Neal Gabler, An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, mogul,  shtetlCanadian system of reservesFirst Nations Canadiansantisemitism, Pale of Settlementpogrom, movie theaterNickelodeon, Thomas EdisonThe Motion Picture Patents Company, Hollywood, Harry Cohn, Columbia Pictures, William Fox, 20th Century Fox, Carl Laemmle, Universal Pictures, Louis B. Mayer, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Jack Warner, Warner Brothers, Adolph Zukor, Paramount Pictures, integration, assimilationAndy HardyGary Cooper, Jimmy StewartWarner BrothersHarry WarnerAlbert WarnerSam WarnerJack WarnerJesse Lasky, Famous Players-LaskySamuel GoldwynGoldwyn Pictures, The Grapes of WrathMr. Smith Goes to Washingtonconspiracism, U.S. antitrust lawParamount Consent Decrees

Definitions seen on Mass Media Giants Power Point:

Disney, Viacom, General ElectricTime WarnerNews CorporationBertelsmannCBSComcast, Media cross-ownership in the United States Concentration of media ownership, vertical integration, Touchstone Pictures,Buena VistaParamount ParksStudio CanalWarner BrothersNew Line Productions,Twentieth Century FoxFox SearchlightSony Pictures ClassicsSony Pictures EntertainmentColumbia PicturesColumbia TriStarNBC Universal, conglomerate, cable TVmergeracquisitionconsolidationmultinationalsSonyEMI Music PublishingVivendiUniversal Music GroupEMI’s recorded music businessthe Beatlesthe Rolling StonesQueenDavid BowiePink Floydmedia mogulsCharles LewisCentre for Public IntegrityFox NewsNBCmonoculture,consumerismproduct placementMarshall McLuhanpropagandaadvertisementbackward integrationforward integrationmedia consolidationmedia concentrationNECmajor Hollywood film studiochannelssweatshopwindows of exhibitionThe Monster that ate HollywooddistributorsSteven SpielbergDreamworksMiramaxCastle RockGeorge Lucas, LucasfilmindependentSpike Lee, Paramount,  antitrustUS vs. Paramount PicturesParamount Consent Decrees, studio systemRonald ReaganABCAOL Time WarnerAOLSteve CaseTurner BroadcastingCNN, TCI,SeagramAT&TLiberty MediaVivendi-UniversalFacebookMark ZuckerbergRupertMurdochMyspaceGoogleYouTubeYahooMicrosoftComcast,  NikeMonsters Inc.,The SmurfsShrekmerchandiseThe Big Bang Theory