{"id":58,"date":"2023-12-12T21:28:26","date_gmt":"2023-12-12T21:28:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppsccom1300communicationandpopularculture\/chapter\/television-through-time\/"},"modified":"2024-08-06T22:04:12","modified_gmt":"2024-08-06T22:04:12","slug":"television-through-time","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppsccom1300communicationandpopularculture\/chapter\/television-through-time\/","title":{"raw":"Television through Time","rendered":"Television through Time"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"218\"]\"Portrait Groucho Marx portrait, from user Insomnia Cured Here, CC BY.<\/a> Source: Flickr<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n

\u201cI find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.\u201d \u2014<\/em> Groucho Marx<\/h2>\r\n

Television Revolution<\/h2>\r\nWhen you talk to someone about life at home before television, they will probably tell you that they listened to the radio and read books, magazines, and newspapers. They may also mention spending time together telling old stories and listening to music on a record player.\r\n\r\nIt is no wonder that when television was first becoming America\u2019s medium of choice in the 1940s and \u201950s, plenty of thoughtful people questioned the influence it could have on society. Television\u2019s least-common-denominator sensibility concerned many, and some thought the entire entertainment industry was trying to turn the country Communist. Concerns about propaganda abounded. The previous chapter briefly covered the powerful cultural impact films can have. Of concern during the Cold War was that television would take that same power into people\u2019s homes on a platform that was constantly updated and sometimes broadcast live. Just as with film, the battle for control over the influence of television has existed as long as it has been a mass medium. It is difficult to underestimate television\u2019s cultural impact.\r\n\r\nBesides those who saw television as a threat to spread Communism throughout the West, there were others who were not so radically against television but who preferred to talk about the importance of reading instead. They saw television not as a tool of the intellectual, global left but as anti-intellectual. You will still encounter people who voice with pride \u2014 and often an air of superiority \u2014 that they do not watch television shows. They imply that everyone else may be rotting their brains, but not their family. Condescension about the television and its content dates back to the dawn of the medium. Groucho Marx, depicted above, was an early film and TV star, and even he joked about the lack of quality programming. Of course, television isn\u2019t all bad. At every stage of the medium\u2019s development, there have been thoughtful, intelligent shows and there has been [pb_glossary id=\"421\"]dr<\/strong>eck<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] \u2014 that is, waste or trash that serves to fill time but not to inform meaningfully.\r\n\r\nThis chapter discusses the nature of television content as the medium evolved throughout the second half of the 20th century. It then briefly discusses the role of the television industry in society by examining the ways we watch TV and its possible impacts on our health. Finally, this chapter covers the medium\u2019s influence on popular culture and explores how the 2000s and 2010s may have brought about the golden age of television while simultaneously opening up pathways for audience collaboration and shared cultural influence in what is perhaps the most culturally influential medium in human history.\r\n

Television Content in the 20th Century<\/h2>\r\nThis is a not dichotomy between the good old days of quality mass-market television and the modern garbage made to fill airtime on hundreds of digital channels. Rather, there has always been a dichotomy between informative programming and shows made purely for entertainment and distraction. As with all dichotomies, the boundary between the two is blurred.\r\n\r\nNot every show on the low end of the intellectual spectrum is dreck. Even intellectually stimulating programs have moments of pandering. Television content generally strives to be popular and profitable first, entertaining second, and informational third, if at all. Consider some of the top-rated shows of each decade in the 20th century after television became popular. There were informative, educational programs and there was silly and mundane fare in each decade. The 1940s saw the debut of Meet the Press<\/em>, a news discussion show that is still on the air, as well as Howdy Doody<\/em>, a children\u2019s puppet show that set the tone for future children\u2019s programming but lacked some of the educational elements that came with Sesame<\/em> Street<\/em> and similar shows. In the \u201950s, the masterful journalist Edward\r\n\r\nR. Murrow led a journalistic team of titans with See<\/em> it<\/em> Now<\/em>, a classic news documentary show. But he also hosted Person to Person<\/em>, a celebrity profile show that bordered on tabloid TV. In the 1960s, Murrow made Harvest of Shame<\/em>, a revolutionary television documentary about the oppression of farm workers. In the same decade, Mister Ed <\/em>featured a talking horse that cracked jokes through a barn door. Producers persuaded the horse, a gelding named Bamboo Harvester, to \u201ctalk\u201d by putting peanut butter on his teeth. At issue is not the existence of silly shows but their relative popularity. For every major in-depth documentary about poverty in America or some other heady topic, there were at least a dozen sitcom series that portrayed a peaceful, suburban, consumption-driven life even as American society underwent cultural and social upheaval.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"169\"]\"An An antique television displays an episode of The Munsters, a 1960s sitcom. Image by Michel Curi, CCBY. Source: Flikr[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn the 1970s, the sitcom M*A*S*H <\/em>gained great critical acclaim. It showed that a television show could entertain and inform. It satirized the Vietnam War through comedy, although it technically was a depiction of the Korean conflict. The show discussed war propaganda, PTSD, the honor of service and camaraderie in battle. It ran for 11 years, longer than the Korean and Vietnam Wars put together. M*A*S*H <\/em>can be compared to another classic \u201970s sitcom, Three\u2019s <\/em>Company<\/em>, a farcical show about three single people living together as roommates in post-60s sexual revolution Santa Monica, California. Both shows depicted social and cultural change, and both aired successfully for decades in reruns, but M*A*S*H <\/em>represents television in rare form, both entertaining and poignant.\r\n\r\nIn the 1980s, Hill<\/em> Street<\/em> Blues<\/em> was a serious, police drama that demonstrated the difficulty of fighting crime in an unnamed modern American city by tackling deep subjects and showcasing a gritty production style. In contrast, Married\u2026with Children <\/em>was a purposefully shallow show designed to offend by depicting a grotesque caricature of an American family. Hill<\/em> Street<\/em> Blues<\/em> ran for seven seasons. Married\u2026with <\/em>Children<\/em> ran for 11. In the 1990s, Homicide:<\/em> Life<\/em> on<\/em> the<\/em> Street<\/em> depicted grit, violence and crime fighting in Baltimore in the vein of Hill Street Blues<\/em>. Homicide <\/em>was based on a non-fiction book titled Homicide:<\/em> A<\/em> Year<\/em> on<\/em> the<\/em> Killing<\/em> Streets<\/em> by David Simon. Simon went on to create The<\/em> Wire<\/em>, one of the top-rated television shows of all time that also depicted crime and crime fighting in Baltimore. While Homicide <\/em>was popular, Friends<\/em> dominated American pop culture and had a global influence. Friends <\/em>showed an imaginary version of New York where six twenty-somethings, some of whom had no discernible employment, could afford spacious apartments and daily lattes. This is not to take issue with shows that paint a rosy picture of life. Instead, the point is that popular television content is made to entertain, not inform. The most entertaining and popular shows of the 20th century were not poorly made, nor were they necessarily detrimental to society as mainstays of the culture. They were, however, usually void of thoughtful social content. Television, the most popular mass medium in the world, often serves to distract.\r\n

Television and Society<\/h2>\r\nThe shallow nature of some of the most popular television content in the 20th century raises a broader question about mass-media content in capitalist society. Can we expect a media system based on profit-making to focus on serious issues? Perhaps we should not expect the majority of television content to be informative or to treat social issues with nuance. After all, in the chapter on film, it was noted that hard-working people attended movies in part because they craved instant gratification and movies were affordable. In the early days of television, the television set was expensive, but the content was free and delivered over the airwaves from broadcast towers to antennas. To make money in this media environment, producers considered popularity first. Advertisers supported the medium and cared, above all else, about how many \u201ceyeballs\u201d they could reach.\r\n\r\nScholars will often suggest that a \u201cbalanced\u201d television diet is best. In an era of streaming services that offer exciting and high-quality entertainment and informative shows, including shows with entire seasons dropped at once, figuring out how to achieve a balanced television diet can be tricky.\u00a0 In other words, we should not expect for-profit television producers to forego revenues to deliver mostly informational content. Rather it is on us as consumers to seek out quality programming and limit our \u201cguilty pleasures\u201d when viewing TV. Ratings suggest most people are just fine watching shallow television, and many will binge-watch TV for days.\r\n\r\nOn top of the numerous shows produced for streaming networks, a phenomenon in the age of streaming television is navigating which services to purchase and which to drop when we want to view a show. Social media posts bemoan the web searches to find out where a show is streaming and whether or not they subscribe to that specific service. As consumers, we will probably have more success holding ourselves to better consumption standards than we will have trying to hold producers to more positive social standards. In a crowded marketplace of broadcast, cable, satellite, and streaming television, quality content stands out.\r\n\r\nSince its inception as an integral part of American life in the 1950s, television has both reflected and nurtured cultural mores and values. From the escapist dramas of the 1960s, which consciously avoided controversial issues and glossed over life\u2019s harsher realities in favor of an idealized portrayal, to the copious reality TV shows in recent years, on which participants discuss even the most personal and taboo issues, television has held up a mirror to society. But the relationship between social attitudes and television is reciprocal; broadcasters have often demonstrated their power to influence viewers, either consciously through slanted political commentary, or subtly, by portraying controversial relationships (such as single parenthood, same-sex marriages, or interracial couplings) as socially acceptable. The symbiotic nature of television and culture is exemplified in every broadcast, from family sitcoms to serious news reports.\r\n

Cultural Influences on Television<\/h2>\r\nIn the 1950s, most television entertainment programs ignored current events and political issues. Instead, the three major networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) developed prime-time shows that would appeal to a general family audience. Chief among these types of shows was the\u00a0domestic comedy\u2014a generic family comedy that was identified by its character-based humor and usually set within the home. Seminal examples included popular 1950s shows such as\u00a0Leave It to Beaver, The Donna Reed Show<\/em>, and\u00a0The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet<\/em>. Presenting a standardized version of the White middle-class suburban family, domestic comedies portrayed the conservative values of an idealized American life. Studiously avoiding prevalent social issues such as racial discrimination and civil rights, the shows focused on mostly White middle-class families with traditional nuclear roles (mother in the home, father in the office) and implied that most domestic problems could be solved within a 30-minute time slot, always ending with a strong moral lesson.\r\n\r\nAlthough these shows depicted an idealized version of American family life, many families in the 1950s were traditional nuclear families. Following the widespread poverty, political uncertainty, and physical separation of the war years, many Americans wanted to settle down, have children, and enjoy the peace and security that family life appeared to offer. During the booming postwar era, a period of optimism and prosperity, the traditional nuclear family flourished. However, the families and lifestyles presented in domestic comedies did not encompass the overall American experience by any stretch of the imagination. As historian Stephanie Coontz (1992) points out, \u201cthe June Cleaver or Donna Stone homemaker role was not available to the more than 40 percent of black women with small children who worked outside the home.\u201d Although nearly 60 percent of the U.S. population was labeled middle class by the mid-1950s, 25 percent of all families and more than 50 percent of two-parent Black families were poor. Migrant workers suffered horrific deprivations, and racial tensions were rife. None of this was reflected in the world of domestic comedies, where even the Hispanic gardener in Father Knows Best<\/em>\u00a0was named Frank Smith (Coontz, 1992).\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"362\"]\"image\" Dennis S. Hurd \u2013\u00a0The Cleavers<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 Public Domain<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n

Most domestic comedies in the 1950s portrayed an idealized\u00a0version of family life and ignored social and political events.<\/p>\r\nNot all programs in the 1950s were afraid to tackle controversial social or political issues. In March 1954, journalist Edward R. Murrow broadcast an unflattering portrait of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy on his show\u00a0See It Now<\/em>. McCarthy, a member of the Senate Investigation Committee, had launched inquiries regarding potential Communist infiltration in U.S. institutions. Murrow thought that McCarthy\u2019s aggressive tactics were a potential threat to civil liberties. His portrait cast the senator from Wisconsin in an unflattering light by pointing out contradictions in his speeches. This led to such an uproar that McCarthy was formally reprimanded by the U.S. Senate (Friedman, 2008).\r\n\r\nEntertainment programs also tackled controversial issues. The long-running television western\u00a0Gunsmoke<\/em>, which aired on CBS from 1955 to 1975, flourished in a Cold War society, where U.S. Marshal Matt Dillon (James Arness) stood up to lawlessness in defense of civilization. The characters and community in\u00a0Gunsmoke<\/em>\u00a0faced relevant social issues, including the treatment of minority groups, the meaning of family, the legitimacy of violence, and the strength of religious belief. During the 1960s, the show adapted to the desires of its viewing audience, becoming increasingly aware of and sympathetic to ethnic minorities, in tune with the national mood during the civil rights era. This adaptability helped the show to become the longest-running western in TV history.\r\n

Violence and Escapism in the 1960s<\/h2>\r\nDuring the 1960s, television news broadcasts brought the realities of real-world events into people\u2019s living rooms in vivid detail.\u00a0The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite<\/em>, which debuted in 1962, quickly became the country\u2019s most popular newscast, and by the end of the decade, journalist Walter Cronkite was known as the most trusted man in America. Following John F. Kennedy\u2019s election to the presidency at the beginning of the decade, the 1960s took an ominous turn. Shocked viewers tuned into Cronkite\u2019s broadcast on November 22, 1963, to learn about the assassination of their president. During the next few days, viewers followed every aspect of the tragedy on television, from the tremor in Cronkite\u2019s voice as he removed his glasses and announced the news of Kennedy\u2019s death, to the frantic scenes from Dallas police headquarters where the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was gunned down by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, to the thousands of mourners lining up next to the president\u2019s flag-draped coffin.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1024\"]\"Kennedy, Television began to play a major role in U.S. politics during the presidency of John. F. Kennedy.Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 public domain.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nAround the same time as Kennedy\u2019s assassination, horrific images from Vietnam were streaming into people\u2019s living rooms during the nation\u2019s first televised war. [Trigger warning for this next section: violence and torture]<\/em><\/strong> With five camera crews on duty in the Saigon bureau, news crews captured vivid details of the war in progress. Although graphic images were rarely shown on network TV, several instances of violence reached the screen, including a CBS report in 1965 that showed Marines lighting the thatched roofs of the village of Cam Ne with Zippo lighters and an NBC news report in 1968 that aired a shot of South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a captive on a Saigon street. Further images, of children being burned and scarred by napalm and prisoners being tortured, fueled the antiwar sentiments of many Americans. In addition to the devastation caused by the president\u2019s death and the Vietnam War, Americans were also feeling the pressure of the Cold War\u2014the clash between the United States and the Soviet Union in the years following World War II. This pressure was especially great during periods of tension throughout the 1950s and 1960s, such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a confrontation that caused many people to fear nuclear war.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"362\"]\"Larry Escapist sitcoms like\u00a0I Dream of Jeannie\u00a0provided Americans with a much-needed diversion from the stressful events of the 1960s.Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 public domain.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nAs a result of the intense stress faced by many Americans during the 1960s, broadcasters and viewers turned to escapist programs such as\u00a0I Dream of Jeannie<\/em>, a fantasy show about a 2,000-year-old genie who marries an astronaut, and\u00a0Bewitched<\/em>, a supernatural-themed show about a witch who tries to live as a suburban housewife. Both shows typified the\u00a0situation comedy, or sitcom, a comedy genre featuring a recurring cast of characters who resolve zany situations based on their everyday lives. Other popular sitcoms in the 1960s included\u00a0The Beverly Hillbillies<\/em>, a show about a poor backwoods family who move to Beverly Hills, California, after finding oil on their land, and\u00a0Gilligan\u2019s Island<\/em>, the ultimate escapist comedy about seven characters shipwrecked on an uncharted island. None of the 1960s sitcoms mentioned any of the political unease that was taking place in the outside world, providing audiences with a welcome diversion from real life. Other than an occasional documentary, TV programming in the 1960s consisted of a sharp dichotomy between prime-time escapist comedy and hard news.\r\n

Diversity and Politics in the 1970s<\/h2>\r\nDuring the 1970s, broadcasters began to diversify families on their shows to reflect changing social attitudes toward formerly controversial issues such as single parenthood and divorce. Feminist groups including the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Women\u2019s Political Caucus, and the Coalition of Labor Union Women pushed for equality on issues such as pay and encouraged women to enter the workforce. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned women\u2019s right to abortion, giving them control over their reproductive rights (until this decision was reversed in 2022). Divorce rates skyrocketed during the 1970s, as states adopted no-fault divorce laws, and the change in family dynamics was reflected on television. Between 1972 and 1978, CBS aired the socially controversial sitcom Maude<\/em>. Featuring a middle-aged feminist living with her fourth husband and divorced daughter, the show exploded the dominant values of the White middle-class domestic sitcom and its traditional gender roles. Throughout its 7-year run,\u00a0Maude<\/em>\u00a0tackled social and political issues such as abortion, menopause, birth control, alcoholism, and depression. During its first four seasons, the show was in the top 10 in Nielsen ratings, illustrating the changing tastes of the viewing audience, who had come of age during the era of civil rights and Vietnam protests and developed a taste for socially conscious television. Other 1970s sitcoms took the same approach, including\u00a0Maude<\/em>\u2019s CBS predecessor,\u00a0All in the Family<\/em>, which covered issues ranging from racism and homophobia to rape and miscarriage, and\u00a0The Mary Tyler Moore Show<\/em>, which reflected changing attitudes toward women\u2019s rights by featuring television\u2019s first never-married independent career woman as the central character. Even wholesome family favorite\u00a0The Brady Bunch<\/em>, which ran from 1969 to 1974, featured a non-nuclear family, reflecting the rising rates of blended families in American society.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"279\"]\"Bill The popularity of controversial shows like\u00a0Maude\u00a0reflected the changing cultural and social values of the 1970s. Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 public domain.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn addition to changing family dynamics on sitcoms and other prime-time shows, variety and comedy sketch shows developed a political awareness in the 1970s that reflected audiences\u2019 growing appetite for social and political commentary.\u00a0Sketch comedy\u00a0show\u00a0Saturday Night Live<\/em>\u00a0(SNL<\/em>) premiered on NBC in 1975 and has remained on air ever since. Featuring a different celebrity guest host every week and relatively unknown comedy regulars, the show parodies contemporary popular culture and politics, lambasting presidential candidates and pop stars alike. Earlier NBC sketch comedy show\u00a0Laugh-In<\/em>, which ran from 1968 to 1973, also featured politically charged material, though it lacked the satirical bite of later series such as\u00a0SNL<\/em>. By the end of the decade, television broadcasting reflected a far more politically conscious and socially aware viewing audience.\r\n

The Influence of Cable Television in the 1980s<\/h2>\r\nUntil the mid-1980s, the top three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) dominated television broadcasting in the United States. However, as cable services gained popularity following the deregulation of the industry in 1984, viewers found themselves with a multitude of options. Services such as Cable News Network (CNN), Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN), and Music Television (MTV) profoundly altered the television landscape in the world of news, sports, and music. New markets opened up for these innovative program types, as well as for older genres such as the sitcom. During the 1980s, a revival of family sitcoms took place with two enormous hits:\u00a0The Cosby Show<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Family Ties<\/em>. Both featured a new take on modern family life, with the mothers working outside of the home and the fathers pitching in with housework and parental duties. Despite their success on network television, sitcoms faced stiff competition from cable\u2019s variety of choices. Between 1983 and 1994, weekly broadcast audience shares (a measure of the number of televisions in use that are tuned to a particular show) for network television dropped from 69 to 52, while cable networks\u2019 shares rose from 9 to 26 (Newcomb, 2004).\r\n\r\nWith a growing number of households subscribing to cable TV, concern began to grow about the levels of violence to which children were becoming exposed. In addition to regularly broadcast network programs, cable offered viewers the chance to watch films and adult-themed shows during all hours, many of which had far more violent content than normal network programming. One study found that by the time an average child leaves elementary school, they have witnessed 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of violence on television (Blakey, 2002). Although no conclusive links have been drawn between witnessing violence on television and carrying out violence in real life, the loosening boundaries regarding sexual and violent content on television is a persistent cause for concern for many parents.\r\n

Specialization in the 1990s and 2000s<\/h2>\r\n

Although TV viewership is growing, the vast number of cable channels and other, newer content delivery platforms means that audiences are thinly stretched. In recent years, broadcasters have been narrowing the focus of their programming to meet the needs and interests of an increasingly fragmented audience. Entire cable channels devoted to cooking, music, news, African American interests, weather, and courtroom drama enable viewers to choose exactly what type of show they want to watch, and many news channels are further specialized according to viewers\u2019 political opinions. This trend toward specialization reflects a more general shift within society, as companies cater increasingly to smaller, more targeted consumer bases. Business magazine editor Chris Anderson explains, \u201cWe\u2019re leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content. And we\u2019re entering the microculture era, when we are all into different things (Gunther, 2006).\u201d Just as cable broadcasters are catering to niche markets, Internet-based companies such as Amazon.com<\/a>\u00a0and Netflix are taking advantage of this concept by selling large numbers of books, DVDs, and music albums with narrow appeal.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Black Entertainment Television (BET)<\/h3>\r\nLaunched in 1980, Black Entertainment Television (BET) was the first television network in the United States dedicated to the interests of African American viewers. The basic-cable franchise was created in Washington, DC, by media entrepreneur Robert Johnson, who initially invested $15,000 in the venture. Within a decade, he had turned the company into a multimillion-dollar enterprise, and in 1991 it became the first Black-controlled company on the New York Stock Exchange. The company was sold to Viacom in 2003 for $3 billion.\r\n

Pre-dating MTV by a year, BET initially focused on Black-oriented music videos but soon diversified into original urban-oriented programs and public affairs shows. Although BET compensated somewhat for the underrepresentation of Blacks on television (African Americans made up 8 percent of the prime-time characters on television in 1980 but made up 12 percent of the population), viewers complained about the portrayal of stereotypical images and inappropriate violent or sexual behavior in many of the rap videos shown by the network. In a 2004 interview with BET vice president of communications Michael Lewellen, former BET talk show host Bev Smith said, \u201cWe had videos on BET in those days that were graphic but didn\u2019t proliferate as they seem to be doing now. That\u2019s all you do seem to see are scantily dressed women who a lot of African American women are upset about in those videos (Fox News, 2004).\u201d Despite the criticisms, BET remained the No. 1 cable network among Blacks 18 to 34 in 2010 and retained an average audience of 524,000 total viewers during the first quarter of the year (Forbes, 2010).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Television\u2019s Influence on Culture<\/h2>\r\nDespite entering a microculture era with a variety of niche markets, television remains the most important unifying cultural presence in the United States. During times of national crises, television news broadcasts have galvanized the country by providing real-time coverage of major events. When terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center towers in 2001, 24-hour TV news crews provided stunned viewers around the world with continuous updates about the attack and its aftermath. Meanwhile, network blockbusters such as\u00a0Lost<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a024<\/em>\u00a0have united viewers in shared anticipation, launching numerous blogs, fan sites, and speculative workplace discussions about characters\u2019 fates.\r\n\r\nTelevised coverage of the news has had several cultural effects since the 1950s. Providing viewers with footage of the most intense human experiences, televised news has been able to reach people in a way that radio and newspapers cannot. The images themselves have played an important role in influencing viewer opinion. During the coverage of the civil rights movement, for example, footage of a 1963 attack on civil rights protesters in Birmingham, Alabama, showed police blasting African American demonstrators\u2014many of them children\u2014with fire hoses. Coupled with images of angry White segregationist mobs squaring off against Black students, the news footage did much to sway public opinion in favor of liberal legislation such as the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Conversely, when volatile pictures of the race riots in Detroit and other cities in the late 1960s hit the airwaves, horrified viewers saw the need for a return to law and order. The footage helped create an anti-civil-rights backlash that encouraged many viewers to vote for conservative Republican Richard Nixon during the 1968 presidential election.\r\n\r\nDuring the past few decades, mass-media news coverage has gone beyond swaying public opinion through mere imagery. Trusted centrist voices such as that of Walter Cronkite, who was known for his impartial reporting of some of the biggest news stories in the 1960s, have been replaced by highly politicized news coverage on cable channels such as conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC. As broadcasters narrow their focus to cater to more specialized audiences, viewers choose to watch the networks that suit their political bias. Middle-of-the-road network CNN, which aims for nonpartisanship, frequently loses out in the ratings wars against Fox and MSNBC, both of which have fierce groups of supporters. As one reporter put it, \u201cA small partisan base is enough for big ratings; the mildly interested middle might rather watch\u00a0Grey\u2019s Anatomy<\/em>\u00a0(Poniewozik, 2010).\u201d Critics argue that\u00a0partisan news networks\u00a0cause viewers to have less understanding of opposing political opinions, making them more polarized.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Table 9.1 Partisan Profile of TV News Audiences in 2008<\/caption>\r\n
\r\n

News Channel<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Republican (%)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Democratic (%)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Independent (%)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Fox News<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

39<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

33<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

22<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Nightly Network<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

22<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

45<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

26<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

MSNBC<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

18<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

45<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

27<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

CNN<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

18<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

51<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

23<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

NewsHour<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

21<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

46<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

23<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

Source: \u201cPartisanship and Cable News Audiences,\u201d Oct. 30, 2009, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, a project of the Pew Research Center<\/p>\r\nAs the decade of the 2020s continues, television news consumption is encountering changes as more audiences turn to digital news. Audiences are consuming less news on local television networks, cable news networks have seen mixed viewership increases and declines since the pandemic, but advertising has remained stable in local television networks (Pew Research Center<\/a>, 2023).\r\n

Social Controversy<\/h2>\r\nThe issue of whether television producers have a responsibility to promote particular social values continues to generate heated discussion. When the unmarried title character in the CBS series\u00a0Murphy Brown<\/em>\u2014a comedy show about a divorced anchorwoman\u2014got pregnant and chose to have the baby without any involvement from the father, then\u2013Vice President Dan Quayle referenced the show as an example of degenerating family values. Linking the 1992 Los Angeles riots to a breakdown of family structure and social order, Quayle lambasted producers\u2019 poor judgment, saying, \u201cIt doesn\u2019t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today\u2019s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another \u2018lifestyle choice (Time, 1992).\u2019\u201d Quayle\u2019s outburst sparked lively debate between supporters and opponents of his viewpoint, with some praising his outspoken social commentary and others dismissing him as out of touch with America and its growing number of single mothers.\r\n

Similar controversy arose with the portrayal of openly gay characters on prime-time television shows. When the lead character on the ABC sitcom\u00a0Ellen<\/em>\u00a0came out in 1997 (2 weeks after Ellen DeGeneres, the actress who played the role, announced that she was gay), she became the first leading gay character on both broadcast and cable networks. The show proved to be a test case for the nation\u2019s tolerance of openly gay characters on prime-time TV and became the subject of much debate. Embraced by liberal supporters and lambasted by conservative objectors (evangelical Baptist minister Jerry Falwell infamously dubbed her \u201cEllen DeGenerate\u201d), both the actress and the show furthered the quest to make homosexuality acceptable to mainstream audiences. Although\u00a0Ellen<\/em>\u00a0was canceled the following year (amid disagreements with producers about whether it should contain a parental advisory warning), DeGeneres successfully returned to television in 2003 with her own talk show. Subsequent shows with prominent gay characters were quick to follow in\u00a0Ellen<\/em>\u2019s footsteps. According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), 18 lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender characters accounted for 3 percent of scripted series regulars in the 2009\u20132010 broadcast television schedule, up from 1.3 percent in 2006 (Mitchell, 2009). A decade later, the GLAAD Where We Are Today<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>2022-23 report found that there was a decrease of 22 characters in regularly occurring scripted primetime broadcast LGBTQIA+ characters from the previous year. In primetime scripted cable, there was an increase of one character from the 2021-22 report. There was a two character decrease from the previous year for streaming shows. GLAAD emphasizes a call for shows that innovate storytelling by presenting complex LGBTQIA+ narratives in shows (GLAAD, 2024).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Creating Stars via Reality Television<\/h2>\r\nEmerging out of the 1948 TV series\u00a0Candid Camera<\/em>, in which people were secretly filmed responding to elaborate practical jokes,\u00a0reality television\u00a0aimed to capture real, unscripted life on camera. The genre developed in several different directions, from home-video clip shows (America\u2019s Funniest Home Videos<\/em>,\u00a0America\u2019s Funniest People<\/em>) to true-crime reenactment shows (America\u2019s Most Wanted<\/em>,\u00a0Unsolved Mysteries<\/em>) to thematic shows based on professions of interest (Project Runway<\/em>,\u00a0Police Women of Broward County<\/em>,\u00a0Top Chef<\/em>). Near the turn of the millennium, the genre began to lean toward more voyeuristic shows, such as MTV\u2019s\u00a0The Real World<\/em>, an unscripted \u201cdocumentary\u201d that followed the lives of seven strangers selected to live together in a large house or apartment in a major city. The show drew criticisms for glamorizing bad behavior and encouraging excessive drinking and casual sex, although its ratings soared with each successive controversy (a trend that critics claim encouraged producers to actively stage rating-grabbing scenarios). During the late 1990s and 2000s, a wave of copycat reality TV shows emerged, including the voyeuristic series\u00a0Big Brother<\/em>, which filmed a group of strangers living together in an isolated house full of cameras in an attempt to win large amounts of cash, and\u00a0Survivor<\/em>, a game show in which participants competed against each other by performing endurance challenges on an uninhabited island.\u00a0Survivor<\/em>\u2019s success as the most popular show on television in the summer of 2000 ensured the continued growth of the reality television genre, and producers turned their attention to reality dating shows such as\u00a0The Bachelor<\/em>,\u00a0Temptation Island<\/em>, and\u00a0Dating in the Dark<\/em>. Cheap to produce, with a seemingly never-ending supply of willing contestants and eager advertising sponsors, reality TV shows continue to bring in big ratings. As of 2010, singing talent competition\u00a0American Idol<\/em>\u00a0is television\u2019s biggest revenue generator, pulling in $8.1 million in advertising sales every 30 minutes it is on the air (Bond, 2010).\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"291\"]\"image\" Banalities \u2013\u00a0SuBo Dreamed a Dream\u00a0\u2013 CC BY 2.0.<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n

The stress of appearing on reality television shows has proved detrimental to some contestants\u2019 health.\u00a0Britain\u2019s Got Talent<\/em>\u00a0star Susan Boyle suffered a nervous breakdown in 2009.<\/p>\r\nReality TV has created the cultural phenomenon of the instant celebrity. Famous for simply being on the air, reality show contestants are extending their 15 minutes in the spotlight. Kate Gosselin, star of\u00a0Jon & Kate Plus 8<\/em>, a cable TV show about a couple who have eight children, has since appeared in numerous magazine articles, and in 2010 she starred on celebrity reality dance show\u00a0Dancing with the Stars<\/em>.\u00a0Survivor<\/em>\u00a0contestant Elisabeth Hasselbeck became a co-host on TV talk show\u00a0The View<\/em>, and several\u00a0American Idol<\/em>\u00a0contestants (including Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood) have become household names. The genre has drawn criticism for creating a generation that expects to achieve instant wealth without having to try very hard and also for preying on vulnerable people whom critics call \u201cdisposable.\u201d When\u00a0Britain\u2019s Got Talent<\/em>\u00a0star Susan Boyle suffered a public meltdown in 2009 after the stress of transitioning from obscurity to stardom in an extremely short time period, the media began to point out the dangers of reality television. In 2009,\u00a0TheWrap.com<\/span><\/a>\u00a0investigated the current lives of former stars of reality shows such as\u00a0The Contender<\/em>,\u00a0Paradise Hotel<\/em>,\u00a0Wife Swap<\/em>, and\u00a0Extreme Makeover<\/em>, and found that at least 11 participants had committed suicide as an apparent result of their appearances on screen (Adams, 2009; Feldlinger).\r\n

Industry Shifts<\/h2>\r\nCable television started as a way to reach rural consumers and grew, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, into a nationwide service delivering paid content. It presented more options and a trustworthy wired connection \u2014 but at a cost. As cable networks consolidated into monopolies, costs went up and service quality often declined. Still, most Americans continue to consume broadcast and cable television. Market penetration of some form of television service, including over-the-air TV, stands at almost 96% according to Nielsen<\/a>, the television ratings specialists.\r\n

According to industry estimates<\/a>, pay television services (such as cable and satellite TV) are now in fewer than 80 percent of U.S. homes as people begin to \u201ccut the cord.\u201d Broadband internet service now reaches more than 80 percent of homes<\/a>, suggesting that it is displacing paid television service. American cable consumers may be comfortable transitioning to broadband because so much television content is now available online. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, HBO GO and other broadband- based streaming services deliver television content with high production value. YouTube, Vimeo, Twitch and other streaming services deliver niche video content. Certain platforms for television delivery may be in decline, but consumption of video content remains strong.<\/p>\r\n

Television\u2019s impact on society is debated by scholars. Long-term studies have associated higher rates of<\/a> television viewing with lower rates of high school completion<\/a>. Watching television has been shown<\/a> to make attention spans shorter<\/a>. Media studies scholars do not agree <\/a>on whether television \u201ccultivates\u201d a sense that the world is a violent, scary place, even when crime rates are low. Findings for that hypothesis seem to depend on how each study is carried out and how data analyses are structured. Alternatively, educational television can have a positive impact as an intervention for children in<\/a> poverty<\/a>. Too much television has the potential to affect us negatively. Doctors often recommend limiting screen time, particularly for children. The way we consume television has changed a great deal since the medium was introduced.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Appointment Viewing versus Binge-watching<\/h2>\r\n[pb_glossary id=\"366\"]Appoin<\/strong>tment viewing<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] refers to the phenomenon of people watching television shows at the same time each week or each day. When most people watched television broadcast over the air or on cable,they generally had two options. They could watch the show live as it aired, or, once the VCR was invented, they could record programs to watch later. A major concern during the mid-20th century when appointment viewing was most popular was that people might not watch serial narratives on television because they would have to wait a week between episodes. If they missed an episode or two, they could feel lost and stop watching the show.\r\n

Thus, appointment viewing and episodic TV went hand in hand for a majority of shows during the 20th century. [pb_glossary id=\"433\"]Episod<\/strong>ic<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] television shows usually featured a different story with each episode. Soap operas, however, were [pb_glossary id=\"530\"]se<\/strong>rialized<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary]. They told an ongoing story with several threads, and each episode picked up where the last one left off, but they aired almost every weekday, and the stories were not known for being complicated.<\/p>\r\nThe logic against making serial television dominated the 1980s and 1990s, but in the 2000s dramatic shows such as The Sopranos, The<\/em> Wire, Breaking Bad, MadMen, Deadwood, <\/em>Dexter, Boardwalk Empire,<\/em> Six<\/em> Feet<\/em> Under,<\/em> Lost,<\/em> 24<\/em>, Homeland,<\/em> Game<\/em> of <\/em> Thrones,<\/em> Westworld, Stranger<\/em> Things<\/em>, and The<\/em> Handmaid\u2019s<\/em> Tale<\/em> became increasingly popular. DVRs (digital video recorders) and streaming services contributed to the popularity of these dramas and to the habit of [pb_glossary id=\"368\"]binge-w<\/strong>atching<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] \u2014 consuming several hours of video content in a single viewing or in a very limited time frame.\r\n\r\nThe upside is that many shows now present intricate plots with long-building character arcs. Many former filmmakers, screenwriters and actors now prefer to do television rather than film because television allows for more intricate storytelling. Not everything in popular television needs to have the potential to reach a global audience interested in action, superheroes and sexy, simplistic love stories. While it is true that many independent films pursue visual storytelling as an art form, such releases are limited. In many ways, television (including shows broadcast on streaming services) now leads the way in attempting to make cultural and social impacts. Of course, instant gratification television still exists. So-called \u201creality television\u201d is still popular, as are game shows and myriad live sporting events, but it can still be argued that the highest form of the visual storytelling art may now be seen on the small screen.\r\n

Television and Health<\/h2>\r\nStreamable television content may be as socially relevant as ever, but it encourages binge-watching, which can contribute to health problems. The content itself might not harm your health, but binge- watching and general overconsumption lead to unhealthy sedentary lifestyles. Researchers have found links between increased television viewing and obesity, smoking rates, and generally low fitness levels. Netflix, Amazon and Hulu are engaged in a fierce competition to create the most binge-worthy content, which means that binge-watching is not going away any time soon. Again, mitigation of the social impact of television will fall on the consumer\u2019s shoulders.\r\n\r\nSocially, television is an incredibly powerful medium. Most media studies scholars agree that it has the potential to enable shared social understanding. Televised images of atrocities helped encourage the Civil Rights Movement and the end of the Vietnam War. Educational and informational programming is required of broadcasters, and many consumers find valuable shows amidst the information glut; however, the future of television might be darker than the present age of quality and variety.\r\n\r\nAs television content moves online and streaming services become more popular, there is a massive corporate push to give internet service providers (ISPs) the kind of control over content that cable television providers have had in the past. The end of net neutrality <\/a>could make streaming services more expensive, and though it is not likely to happen rapidly, internet access could be divided into tiers of websites and web services with ISPs charging more for the most popular sites. If the most binge- worthy, least intellectually valuable content becomes the affordable option for most people, the social impact of the new internet-television regime could be negative for generations to come.\r\n

Television and Culture<\/h2>\r\nThe cultural impact of television could be implied from the discussion of content through the decades. Regular television viewers make connections with storylines and characters. We can consume an eclectic mix of video content or focus only on the genre that interests us most. There are hundreds of digital channels and seemingly endless amounts of streaming content available at all time. The question is not whether there is something interesting to watch but what type of content interests us the most. There is more to the medium than the dramas and distractions of the 20th century. There is no single television culture emerging in the 21st century since mass audiences have an incredible variety of choices; however, for children of the 20th century, there are many shows that millions of people hold in common. Thus, we are transitioning from a time of a shared \u201cTV culture\u201d to a time of various digital content cultures.\r\n\r\nFor children of the 20th century, television is so ingrained in our culture there are shared references to shows that have not aired for 20 years, and there have even been shows about watching <\/em><\/a>TV<\/a>. Specifically, the HBO show Dream On <\/em>depicted a grown man who recalled old television shows when his short attention span sent him off into daydreams. Popular television shows in 20th-century American culture were so familiar to mass audiences that there are still common tropes from as many as 50 years ago that most viewers would recognize. The image of the dull husband and his feisty wife echoes through the decades from The<\/em> Honeymooners <\/em>through The<\/em> Simpsons<\/em>, King<\/em> of<\/em> Queens <\/em>and Family<\/em> Guy<\/em>. The crime procedural has been so popular for so long, it often seems as though an entire generation of TV stars have made at least one appearance on Law & Order<\/em>. Other tropes are noted in \u201cThe Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular,\u201d<\/a> another example of television culture referencing itself.\r\n\r\nWe now use all manner of devices to connect to television content. Over-the-air television is gaining in popular support as people cut the cable cord. Streaming services, as stated, are beginning to dominate the landscape. Smartphones and tablets offer ways of consuming streaming television as well as amateur video programs as well as the opportunity for a [pb_glossary id=\"527\"]second screen experience<\/strong>,<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] which refers to watching something on television and interacting with the show or with fans of the show on social media and other Web platforms. The convergence of media platforms opens up new ways of engaging with video content and the people who produce it.\r\n\r\nThe cultural implications of participatory or [pb_glossary id=\"380\"]collabo<\/strong>rative television<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] \u2014 the phenomenon in which content producers work with the audience to produce, alter or enhance content, including to decide the outcomes of televised competitions \u2014 are not yet known. It is expected, however, that the practice will continue to grow. Audiences often enjoy having a say in the direction or the outcome of a program. Digital platforms measure audience engagement as something they can market to advertisers, which encourages the practice. This also puts some responsibility on the part of consumers to positively influence the content they help shape.\r\n\r\nAs television and broadband internet services merge, it is worth noting that the prediction of the union of television and computers is as old as the personal computer. Internet-ready televisions might have become more popular than add-on streaming devices such as Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku, or Google Chromecast, but television manufacturers hesitated to add full internet functionality for fear of viruses. Also, consumer demand for connected TVs was not strong enough for manufacturers to offer built-in technology. For the consumer, it matters little whether the television connects directly to the internet or whether a relatively inexpensive add-on is needed. In whatever manner you connect to converged digital video content \u2014 that is, the media products formerly known as television \u2014 you have access to perhaps the most influential cultural tool in history.\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n
\"Portrait
Groucho Marx portrait, from user Insomnia Cured Here, CC BY.<\/a> Source: Flickr<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cI find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.\u201d \u2014<\/em> Groucho Marx<\/h2>\n

Television Revolution<\/h2>\n

When you talk to someone about life at home before television, they will probably tell you that they listened to the radio and read books, magazines, and newspapers. They may also mention spending time together telling old stories and listening to music on a record player.<\/p>\n

It is no wonder that when television was first becoming America\u2019s medium of choice in the 1940s and \u201950s, plenty of thoughtful people questioned the influence it could have on society. Television\u2019s least-common-denominator sensibility concerned many, and some thought the entire entertainment industry was trying to turn the country Communist. Concerns about propaganda abounded. The previous chapter briefly covered the powerful cultural impact films can have. Of concern during the Cold War was that television would take that same power into people\u2019s homes on a platform that was constantly updated and sometimes broadcast live. Just as with film, the battle for control over the influence of television has existed as long as it has been a mass medium. It is difficult to underestimate television\u2019s cultural impact.<\/p>\n

Besides those who saw television as a threat to spread Communism throughout the West, there were others who were not so radically against television but who preferred to talk about the importance of reading instead. They saw television not as a tool of the intellectual, global left but as anti-intellectual. You will still encounter people who voice with pride \u2014 and often an air of superiority \u2014 that they do not watch television shows. They imply that everyone else may be rotting their brains, but not their family. Condescension about the television and its content dates back to the dawn of the medium. Groucho Marx, depicted above, was an early film and TV star, and even he joked about the lack of quality programming. Of course, television isn\u2019t all bad. At every stage of the medium\u2019s development, there have been thoughtful, intelligent shows and there has been dr<\/strong>eck<\/strong><\/a> \u2014 that is, waste or trash that serves to fill time but not to inform meaningfully.<\/p>\n

This chapter discusses the nature of television content as the medium evolved throughout the second half of the 20th century. It then briefly discusses the role of the television industry in society by examining the ways we watch TV and its possible impacts on our health. Finally, this chapter covers the medium\u2019s influence on popular culture and explores how the 2000s and 2010s may have brought about the golden age of television while simultaneously opening up pathways for audience collaboration and shared cultural influence in what is perhaps the most culturally influential medium in human history.<\/p>\n

Television Content in the 20th Century<\/h2>\n

This is a not dichotomy between the good old days of quality mass-market television and the modern garbage made to fill airtime on hundreds of digital channels. Rather, there has always been a dichotomy between informative programming and shows made purely for entertainment and distraction. As with all dichotomies, the boundary between the two is blurred.<\/p>\n

Not every show on the low end of the intellectual spectrum is dreck. Even intellectually stimulating programs have moments of pandering. Television content generally strives to be popular and profitable first, entertaining second, and informational third, if at all. Consider some of the top-rated shows of each decade in the 20th century after television became popular. There were informative, educational programs and there was silly and mundane fare in each decade. The 1940s saw the debut of Meet the Press<\/em>, a news discussion show that is still on the air, as well as Howdy Doody<\/em>, a children\u2019s puppet show that set the tone for future children\u2019s programming but lacked some of the educational elements that came with Sesame<\/em> Street<\/em> and similar shows. In the \u201950s, the masterful journalist Edward<\/p>\n

R. Murrow led a journalistic team of titans with See<\/em> it<\/em> Now<\/em>, a classic news documentary show. But he also hosted Person to Person<\/em>, a celebrity profile show that bordered on tabloid TV. In the 1960s, Murrow made Harvest of Shame<\/em>, a revolutionary television documentary about the oppression of farm workers. In the same decade, Mister Ed <\/em>featured a talking horse that cracked jokes through a barn door. Producers persuaded the horse, a gelding named Bamboo Harvester, to \u201ctalk\u201d by putting peanut butter on his teeth. At issue is not the existence of silly shows but their relative popularity. For every major in-depth documentary about poverty in America or some other heady topic, there were at least a dozen sitcom series that portrayed a peaceful, suburban, consumption-driven life even as American society underwent cultural and social upheaval.<\/p>\n

\"An
An antique television displays an episode of The Munsters, a 1960s sitcom. Image by Michel Curi, CCBY. Source: Flikr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the 1970s, the sitcom M*A*S*H <\/em>gained great critical acclaim. It showed that a television show could entertain and inform. It satirized the Vietnam War through comedy, although it technically was a depiction of the Korean conflict. The show discussed war propaganda, PTSD, the honor of service and camaraderie in battle. It ran for 11 years, longer than the Korean and Vietnam Wars put together. M*A*S*H <\/em>can be compared to another classic \u201970s sitcom, Three\u2019s <\/em>Company<\/em>, a farcical show about three single people living together as roommates in post-60s sexual revolution Santa Monica, California. Both shows depicted social and cultural change, and both aired successfully for decades in reruns, but M*A*S*H <\/em>represents television in rare form, both entertaining and poignant.<\/p>\n

In the 1980s, Hill<\/em> Street<\/em> Blues<\/em> was a serious, police drama that demonstrated the difficulty of fighting crime in an unnamed modern American city by tackling deep subjects and showcasing a gritty production style. In contrast, Married\u2026with Children <\/em>was a purposefully shallow show designed to offend by depicting a grotesque caricature of an American family. Hill<\/em> Street<\/em> Blues<\/em> ran for seven seasons. Married\u2026with <\/em>Children<\/em> ran for 11. In the 1990s, Homicide:<\/em> Life<\/em> on<\/em> the<\/em> Street<\/em> depicted grit, violence and crime fighting in Baltimore in the vein of Hill Street Blues<\/em>. Homicide <\/em>was based on a non-fiction book titled Homicide:<\/em> A<\/em> Year<\/em> on<\/em> the<\/em> Killing<\/em> Streets<\/em> by David Simon. Simon went on to create The<\/em> Wire<\/em>, one of the top-rated television shows of all time that also depicted crime and crime fighting in Baltimore. While Homicide <\/em>was popular, Friends<\/em> dominated American pop culture and had a global influence. Friends <\/em>showed an imaginary version of New York where six twenty-somethings, some of whom had no discernible employment, could afford spacious apartments and daily lattes. This is not to take issue with shows that paint a rosy picture of life. Instead, the point is that popular television content is made to entertain, not inform. The most entertaining and popular shows of the 20th century were not poorly made, nor were they necessarily detrimental to society as mainstays of the culture. They were, however, usually void of thoughtful social content. Television, the most popular mass medium in the world, often serves to distract.<\/p>\n

Television and Society<\/h2>\n

The shallow nature of some of the most popular television content in the 20th century raises a broader question about mass-media content in capitalist society. Can we expect a media system based on profit-making to focus on serious issues? Perhaps we should not expect the majority of television content to be informative or to treat social issues with nuance. After all, in the chapter on film, it was noted that hard-working people attended movies in part because they craved instant gratification and movies were affordable. In the early days of television, the television set was expensive, but the content was free and delivered over the airwaves from broadcast towers to antennas. To make money in this media environment, producers considered popularity first. Advertisers supported the medium and cared, above all else, about how many \u201ceyeballs\u201d they could reach.<\/p>\n

Scholars will often suggest that a \u201cbalanced\u201d television diet is best. In an era of streaming services that offer exciting and high-quality entertainment and informative shows, including shows with entire seasons dropped at once, figuring out how to achieve a balanced television diet can be tricky.\u00a0 In other words, we should not expect for-profit television producers to forego revenues to deliver mostly informational content. Rather it is on us as consumers to seek out quality programming and limit our \u201cguilty pleasures\u201d when viewing TV. Ratings suggest most people are just fine watching shallow television, and many will binge-watch TV for days.<\/p>\n

On top of the numerous shows produced for streaming networks, a phenomenon in the age of streaming television is navigating which services to purchase and which to drop when we want to view a show. Social media posts bemoan the web searches to find out where a show is streaming and whether or not they subscribe to that specific service. As consumers, we will probably have more success holding ourselves to better consumption standards than we will have trying to hold producers to more positive social standards. In a crowded marketplace of broadcast, cable, satellite, and streaming television, quality content stands out.<\/p>\n

Since its inception as an integral part of American life in the 1950s, television has both reflected and nurtured cultural mores and values. From the escapist dramas of the 1960s, which consciously avoided controversial issues and glossed over life\u2019s harsher realities in favor of an idealized portrayal, to the copious reality TV shows in recent years, on which participants discuss even the most personal and taboo issues, television has held up a mirror to society. But the relationship between social attitudes and television is reciprocal; broadcasters have often demonstrated their power to influence viewers, either consciously through slanted political commentary, or subtly, by portraying controversial relationships (such as single parenthood, same-sex marriages, or interracial couplings) as socially acceptable. The symbiotic nature of television and culture is exemplified in every broadcast, from family sitcoms to serious news reports.<\/p>\n

Cultural Influences on Television<\/h2>\n

In the 1950s, most television entertainment programs ignored current events and political issues. Instead, the three major networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) developed prime-time shows that would appeal to a general family audience. Chief among these types of shows was the\u00a0domestic comedy\u2014a generic family comedy that was identified by its character-based humor and usually set within the home. Seminal examples included popular 1950s shows such as\u00a0Leave It to Beaver, The Donna Reed Show<\/em>, and\u00a0The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet<\/em>. Presenting a standardized version of the White middle-class suburban family, domestic comedies portrayed the conservative values of an idealized American life. Studiously avoiding prevalent social issues such as racial discrimination and civil rights, the shows focused on mostly White middle-class families with traditional nuclear roles (mother in the home, father in the office) and implied that most domestic problems could be solved within a 30-minute time slot, always ending with a strong moral lesson.<\/p>\n

Although these shows depicted an idealized version of American family life, many families in the 1950s were traditional nuclear families. Following the widespread poverty, political uncertainty, and physical separation of the war years, many Americans wanted to settle down, have children, and enjoy the peace and security that family life appeared to offer. During the booming postwar era, a period of optimism and prosperity, the traditional nuclear family flourished. However, the families and lifestyles presented in domestic comedies did not encompass the overall American experience by any stretch of the imagination. As historian Stephanie Coontz (1992) points out, \u201cthe June Cleaver or Donna Stone homemaker role was not available to the more than 40 percent of black women with small children who worked outside the home.\u201d Although nearly 60 percent of the U.S. population was labeled middle class by the mid-1950s, 25 percent of all families and more than 50 percent of two-parent Black families were poor. Migrant workers suffered horrific deprivations, and racial tensions were rife. None of this was reflected in the world of domestic comedies, where even the Hispanic gardener in Father Knows Best<\/em>\u00a0was named Frank Smith (Coontz, 1992).<\/p>\n

\"image\"
Dennis S. Hurd \u2013\u00a0The Cleavers<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 Public Domain<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Most domestic comedies in the 1950s portrayed an idealized\u00a0version of family life and ignored social and political events.<\/p>\n

Not all programs in the 1950s were afraid to tackle controversial social or political issues. In March 1954, journalist Edward R. Murrow broadcast an unflattering portrait of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy on his show\u00a0See It Now<\/em>. McCarthy, a member of the Senate Investigation Committee, had launched inquiries regarding potential Communist infiltration in U.S. institutions. Murrow thought that McCarthy\u2019s aggressive tactics were a potential threat to civil liberties. His portrait cast the senator from Wisconsin in an unflattering light by pointing out contradictions in his speeches. This led to such an uproar that McCarthy was formally reprimanded by the U.S. Senate (Friedman, 2008).<\/p>\n

Entertainment programs also tackled controversial issues. The long-running television western\u00a0Gunsmoke<\/em>, which aired on CBS from 1955 to 1975, flourished in a Cold War society, where U.S. Marshal Matt Dillon (James Arness) stood up to lawlessness in defense of civilization. The characters and community in\u00a0Gunsmoke<\/em>\u00a0faced relevant social issues, including the treatment of minority groups, the meaning of family, the legitimacy of violence, and the strength of religious belief. During the 1960s, the show adapted to the desires of its viewing audience, becoming increasingly aware of and sympathetic to ethnic minorities, in tune with the national mood during the civil rights era. This adaptability helped the show to become the longest-running western in TV history.<\/p>\n

Violence and Escapism in the 1960s<\/h2>\n

During the 1960s, television news broadcasts brought the realities of real-world events into people\u2019s living rooms in vivid detail.\u00a0The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite<\/em>, which debuted in 1962, quickly became the country\u2019s most popular newscast, and by the end of the decade, journalist Walter Cronkite was known as the most trusted man in America. Following John F. Kennedy\u2019s election to the presidency at the beginning of the decade, the 1960s took an ominous turn. Shocked viewers tuned into Cronkite\u2019s broadcast on November 22, 1963, to learn about the assassination of their president. During the next few days, viewers followed every aspect of the tragedy on television, from the tremor in Cronkite\u2019s voice as he removed his glasses and announced the news of Kennedy\u2019s death, to the frantic scenes from Dallas police headquarters where the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was gunned down by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, to the thousands of mourners lining up next to the president\u2019s flag-draped coffin.<\/p>\n

\"Kennedy,
Television began to play a major role in U.S. politics during the presidency of John. F. Kennedy.Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 public domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Around the same time as Kennedy\u2019s assassination, horrific images from Vietnam were streaming into people\u2019s living rooms during the nation\u2019s first televised war. [Trigger warning for this next section: violence and torture]<\/em><\/strong> With five camera crews on duty in the Saigon bureau, news crews captured vivid details of the war in progress. Although graphic images were rarely shown on network TV, several instances of violence reached the screen, including a CBS report in 1965 that showed Marines lighting the thatched roofs of the village of Cam Ne with Zippo lighters and an NBC news report in 1968 that aired a shot of South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a captive on a Saigon street. Further images, of children being burned and scarred by napalm and prisoners being tortured, fueled the antiwar sentiments of many Americans. In addition to the devastation caused by the president\u2019s death and the Vietnam War, Americans were also feeling the pressure of the Cold War\u2014the clash between the United States and the Soviet Union in the years following World War II. This pressure was especially great during periods of tension throughout the 1950s and 1960s, such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a confrontation that caused many people to fear nuclear war.<\/p>\n

\"Larry
Escapist sitcoms like\u00a0I Dream of Jeannie\u00a0provided Americans with a much-needed diversion from the stressful events of the 1960s.Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 public domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As a result of the intense stress faced by many Americans during the 1960s, broadcasters and viewers turned to escapist programs such as\u00a0I Dream of Jeannie<\/em>, a fantasy show about a 2,000-year-old genie who marries an astronaut, and\u00a0Bewitched<\/em>, a supernatural-themed show about a witch who tries to live as a suburban housewife. Both shows typified the\u00a0situation comedy, or sitcom, a comedy genre featuring a recurring cast of characters who resolve zany situations based on their everyday lives. Other popular sitcoms in the 1960s included\u00a0The Beverly Hillbillies<\/em>, a show about a poor backwoods family who move to Beverly Hills, California, after finding oil on their land, and\u00a0Gilligan\u2019s Island<\/em>, the ultimate escapist comedy about seven characters shipwrecked on an uncharted island. None of the 1960s sitcoms mentioned any of the political unease that was taking place in the outside world, providing audiences with a welcome diversion from real life. Other than an occasional documentary, TV programming in the 1960s consisted of a sharp dichotomy between prime-time escapist comedy and hard news.<\/p>\n

Diversity and Politics in the 1970s<\/h2>\n

During the 1970s, broadcasters began to diversify families on their shows to reflect changing social attitudes toward formerly controversial issues such as single parenthood and divorce. Feminist groups including the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Women\u2019s Political Caucus, and the Coalition of Labor Union Women pushed for equality on issues such as pay and encouraged women to enter the workforce. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned women\u2019s right to abortion, giving them control over their reproductive rights (until this decision was reversed in 2022). Divorce rates skyrocketed during the 1970s, as states adopted no-fault divorce laws, and the change in family dynamics was reflected on television. Between 1972 and 1978, CBS aired the socially controversial sitcom Maude<\/em>. Featuring a middle-aged feminist living with her fourth husband and divorced daughter, the show exploded the dominant values of the White middle-class domestic sitcom and its traditional gender roles. Throughout its 7-year run,\u00a0Maude<\/em>\u00a0tackled social and political issues such as abortion, menopause, birth control, alcoholism, and depression. During its first four seasons, the show was in the top 10 in Nielsen ratings, illustrating the changing tastes of the viewing audience, who had come of age during the era of civil rights and Vietnam protests and developed a taste for socially conscious television. Other 1970s sitcoms took the same approach, including\u00a0Maude<\/em>\u2019s CBS predecessor,\u00a0All in the Family<\/em>, which covered issues ranging from racism and homophobia to rape and miscarriage, and\u00a0The Mary Tyler Moore Show<\/em>, which reflected changing attitudes toward women\u2019s rights by featuring television\u2019s first never-married independent career woman as the central character. Even wholesome family favorite\u00a0The Brady Bunch<\/em>, which ran from 1969 to 1974, featured a non-nuclear family, reflecting the rising rates of blended families in American society.<\/p>\n

\"Bill
The popularity of controversial shows like\u00a0Maude\u00a0reflected the changing cultural and social values of the 1970s. Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 public domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In addition to changing family dynamics on sitcoms and other prime-time shows, variety and comedy sketch shows developed a political awareness in the 1970s that reflected audiences\u2019 growing appetite for social and political commentary.\u00a0Sketch comedy\u00a0show\u00a0Saturday Night Live<\/em>\u00a0(SNL<\/em>) premiered on NBC in 1975 and has remained on air ever since. Featuring a different celebrity guest host every week and relatively unknown comedy regulars, the show parodies contemporary popular culture and politics, lambasting presidential candidates and pop stars alike. Earlier NBC sketch comedy show\u00a0Laugh-In<\/em>, which ran from 1968 to 1973, also featured politically charged material, though it lacked the satirical bite of later series such as\u00a0SNL<\/em>. By the end of the decade, television broadcasting reflected a far more politically conscious and socially aware viewing audience.<\/p>\n

The Influence of Cable Television in the 1980s<\/h2>\n

Until the mid-1980s, the top three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) dominated television broadcasting in the United States. However, as cable services gained popularity following the deregulation of the industry in 1984, viewers found themselves with a multitude of options. Services such as Cable News Network (CNN), Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN), and Music Television (MTV) profoundly altered the television landscape in the world of news, sports, and music. New markets opened up for these innovative program types, as well as for older genres such as the sitcom. During the 1980s, a revival of family sitcoms took place with two enormous hits:\u00a0The Cosby Show<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Family Ties<\/em>. Both featured a new take on modern family life, with the mothers working outside of the home and the fathers pitching in with housework and parental duties. Despite their success on network television, sitcoms faced stiff competition from cable\u2019s variety of choices. Between 1983 and 1994, weekly broadcast audience shares (a measure of the number of televisions in use that are tuned to a particular show) for network television dropped from 69 to 52, while cable networks\u2019 shares rose from 9 to 26 (Newcomb, 2004).<\/p>\n

With a growing number of households subscribing to cable TV, concern began to grow about the levels of violence to which children were becoming exposed. In addition to regularly broadcast network programs, cable offered viewers the chance to watch films and adult-themed shows during all hours, many of which had far more violent content than normal network programming. One study found that by the time an average child leaves elementary school, they have witnessed 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of violence on television (Blakey, 2002). Although no conclusive links have been drawn between witnessing violence on television and carrying out violence in real life, the loosening boundaries regarding sexual and violent content on television is a persistent cause for concern for many parents.<\/p>\n

Specialization in the 1990s and 2000s<\/h2>\n

Although TV viewership is growing, the vast number of cable channels and other, newer content delivery platforms means that audiences are thinly stretched. In recent years, broadcasters have been narrowing the focus of their programming to meet the needs and interests of an increasingly fragmented audience. Entire cable channels devoted to cooking, music, news, African American interests, weather, and courtroom drama enable viewers to choose exactly what type of show they want to watch, and many news channels are further specialized according to viewers\u2019 political opinions. This trend toward specialization reflects a more general shift within society, as companies cater increasingly to smaller, more targeted consumer bases. Business magazine editor Chris Anderson explains, \u201cWe\u2019re leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content. And we\u2019re entering the microculture era, when we are all into different things (Gunther, 2006).\u201d Just as cable broadcasters are catering to niche markets, Internet-based companies such as Amazon.com<\/a>\u00a0and Netflix are taking advantage of this concept by selling large numbers of books, DVDs, and music albums with narrow appeal.<\/p>\n

Black Entertainment Television (BET)<\/h3>\n

Launched in 1980, Black Entertainment Television (BET) was the first television network in the United States dedicated to the interests of African American viewers. The basic-cable franchise was created in Washington, DC, by media entrepreneur Robert Johnson, who initially invested $15,000 in the venture. Within a decade, he had turned the company into a multimillion-dollar enterprise, and in 1991 it became the first Black-controlled company on the New York Stock Exchange. The company was sold to Viacom in 2003 for $3 billion.<\/p>\n

Pre-dating MTV by a year, BET initially focused on Black-oriented music videos but soon diversified into original urban-oriented programs and public affairs shows. Although BET compensated somewhat for the underrepresentation of Blacks on television (African Americans made up 8 percent of the prime-time characters on television in 1980 but made up 12 percent of the population), viewers complained about the portrayal of stereotypical images and inappropriate violent or sexual behavior in many of the rap videos shown by the network. In a 2004 interview with BET vice president of communications Michael Lewellen, former BET talk show host Bev Smith said, \u201cWe had videos on BET in those days that were graphic but didn\u2019t proliferate as they seem to be doing now. That\u2019s all you do seem to see are scantily dressed women who a lot of African American women are upset about in those videos (Fox News, 2004).\u201d Despite the criticisms, BET remained the No. 1 cable network among Blacks 18 to 34 in 2010 and retained an average audience of 524,000 total viewers during the first quarter of the year (Forbes, 2010).<\/p>\n

Television\u2019s Influence on Culture<\/h2>\n

Despite entering a microculture era with a variety of niche markets, television remains the most important unifying cultural presence in the United States. During times of national crises, television news broadcasts have galvanized the country by providing real-time coverage of major events. When terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center towers in 2001, 24-hour TV news crews provided stunned viewers around the world with continuous updates about the attack and its aftermath. Meanwhile, network blockbusters such as\u00a0Lost<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a024<\/em>\u00a0have united viewers in shared anticipation, launching numerous blogs, fan sites, and speculative workplace discussions about characters\u2019 fates.<\/p>\n

Televised coverage of the news has had several cultural effects since the 1950s. Providing viewers with footage of the most intense human experiences, televised news has been able to reach people in a way that radio and newspapers cannot. The images themselves have played an important role in influencing viewer opinion. During the coverage of the civil rights movement, for example, footage of a 1963 attack on civil rights protesters in Birmingham, Alabama, showed police blasting African American demonstrators\u2014many of them children\u2014with fire hoses. Coupled with images of angry White segregationist mobs squaring off against Black students, the news footage did much to sway public opinion in favor of liberal legislation such as the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Conversely, when volatile pictures of the race riots in Detroit and other cities in the late 1960s hit the airwaves, horrified viewers saw the need for a return to law and order. The footage helped create an anti-civil-rights backlash that encouraged many viewers to vote for conservative Republican Richard Nixon during the 1968 presidential election.<\/p>\n

During the past few decades, mass-media news coverage has gone beyond swaying public opinion through mere imagery. Trusted centrist voices such as that of Walter Cronkite, who was known for his impartial reporting of some of the biggest news stories in the 1960s, have been replaced by highly politicized news coverage on cable channels such as conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC. As broadcasters narrow their focus to cater to more specialized audiences, viewers choose to watch the networks that suit their political bias. Middle-of-the-road network CNN, which aims for nonpartisanship, frequently loses out in the ratings wars against Fox and MSNBC, both of which have fierce groups of supporters. As one reporter put it, \u201cA small partisan base is enough for big ratings; the mildly interested middle might rather watch\u00a0Grey\u2019s Anatomy<\/em>\u00a0(Poniewozik, 2010).\u201d Critics argue that\u00a0partisan news networks\u00a0cause viewers to have less understanding of opposing political opinions, making them more polarized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 9.1 Partisan Profile of TV News Audiences in 2008<\/caption>\n
\n

News Channel<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Republican (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Democratic (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Independent (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fox News<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nightly Network<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

MSNBC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

CNN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

51<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

NewsHour<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Source: \u201cPartisanship and Cable News Audiences,\u201d Oct. 30, 2009, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, a project of the Pew Research Center<\/p>\n

As the decade of the 2020s continues, television news consumption is encountering changes as more audiences turn to digital news. Audiences are consuming less news on local television networks, cable news networks have seen mixed viewership increases and declines since the pandemic, but advertising has remained stable in local television networks (Pew Research Center<\/a>, 2023).<\/p>\n

Social Controversy<\/h2>\n

The issue of whether television producers have a responsibility to promote particular social values continues to generate heated discussion. When the unmarried title character in the CBS series\u00a0Murphy Brown<\/em>\u2014a comedy show about a divorced anchorwoman\u2014got pregnant and chose to have the baby without any involvement from the father, then\u2013Vice President Dan Quayle referenced the show as an example of degenerating family values. Linking the 1992 Los Angeles riots to a breakdown of family structure and social order, Quayle lambasted producers\u2019 poor judgment, saying, \u201cIt doesn\u2019t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today\u2019s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another \u2018lifestyle choice (Time, 1992).\u2019\u201d Quayle\u2019s outburst sparked lively debate between supporters and opponents of his viewpoint, with some praising his outspoken social commentary and others dismissing him as out of touch with America and its growing number of single mothers.<\/p>\n

Similar controversy arose with the portrayal of openly gay characters on prime-time television shows. When the lead character on the ABC sitcom\u00a0Ellen<\/em>\u00a0came out in 1997 (2 weeks after Ellen DeGeneres, the actress who played the role, announced that she was gay), she became the first leading gay character on both broadcast and cable networks. The show proved to be a test case for the nation\u2019s tolerance of openly gay characters on prime-time TV and became the subject of much debate. Embraced by liberal supporters and lambasted by conservative objectors (evangelical Baptist minister Jerry Falwell infamously dubbed her \u201cEllen DeGenerate\u201d), both the actress and the show furthered the quest to make homosexuality acceptable to mainstream audiences. Although\u00a0Ellen<\/em>\u00a0was canceled the following year (amid disagreements with producers about whether it should contain a parental advisory warning), DeGeneres successfully returned to television in 2003 with her own talk show. Subsequent shows with prominent gay characters were quick to follow in\u00a0Ellen<\/em>\u2019s footsteps. According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), 18 lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender characters accounted for 3 percent of scripted series regulars in the 2009\u20132010 broadcast television schedule, up from 1.3 percent in 2006 (Mitchell, 2009). A decade later, the GLAAD Where We Are Today<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>2022-23 report found that there was a decrease of 22 characters in regularly occurring scripted primetime broadcast LGBTQIA+ characters from the previous year. In primetime scripted cable, there was an increase of one character from the 2021-22 report. There was a two character decrease from the previous year for streaming shows. GLAAD emphasizes a call for shows that innovate storytelling by presenting complex LGBTQIA+ narratives in shows (GLAAD, 2024).<\/p>\n

Creating Stars via Reality Television<\/h2>\n

Emerging out of the 1948 TV series\u00a0Candid Camera<\/em>, in which people were secretly filmed responding to elaborate practical jokes,\u00a0reality television\u00a0aimed to capture real, unscripted life on camera. The genre developed in several different directions, from home-video clip shows (America\u2019s Funniest Home Videos<\/em>,\u00a0America\u2019s Funniest People<\/em>) to true-crime reenactment shows (America\u2019s Most Wanted<\/em>,\u00a0Unsolved Mysteries<\/em>) to thematic shows based on professions of interest (Project Runway<\/em>,\u00a0Police Women of Broward County<\/em>,\u00a0Top Chef<\/em>). Near the turn of the millennium, the genre began to lean toward more voyeuristic shows, such as MTV\u2019s\u00a0The Real World<\/em>, an unscripted \u201cdocumentary\u201d that followed the lives of seven strangers selected to live together in a large house or apartment in a major city. The show drew criticisms for glamorizing bad behavior and encouraging excessive drinking and casual sex, although its ratings soared with each successive controversy (a trend that critics claim encouraged producers to actively stage rating-grabbing scenarios). During the late 1990s and 2000s, a wave of copycat reality TV shows emerged, including the voyeuristic series\u00a0Big Brother<\/em>, which filmed a group of strangers living together in an isolated house full of cameras in an attempt to win large amounts of cash, and\u00a0Survivor<\/em>, a game show in which participants competed against each other by performing endurance challenges on an uninhabited island.\u00a0Survivor<\/em>\u2019s success as the most popular show on television in the summer of 2000 ensured the continued growth of the reality television genre, and producers turned their attention to reality dating shows such as\u00a0The Bachelor<\/em>,\u00a0Temptation Island<\/em>, and\u00a0Dating in the Dark<\/em>. Cheap to produce, with a seemingly never-ending supply of willing contestants and eager advertising sponsors, reality TV shows continue to bring in big ratings. As of 2010, singing talent competition\u00a0American Idol<\/em>\u00a0is television\u2019s biggest revenue generator, pulling in $8.1 million in advertising sales every 30 minutes it is on the air (Bond, 2010).<\/p>\n

\"image\"
Banalities \u2013\u00a0SuBo Dreamed a Dream\u00a0\u2013 CC BY 2.0.<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The stress of appearing on reality television shows has proved detrimental to some contestants\u2019 health.\u00a0Britain\u2019s Got Talent<\/em>\u00a0star Susan Boyle suffered a nervous breakdown in 2009.<\/p>\n

Reality TV has created the cultural phenomenon of the instant celebrity. Famous for simply being on the air, reality show contestants are extending their 15 minutes in the spotlight. Kate Gosselin, star of\u00a0Jon & Kate Plus 8<\/em>, a cable TV show about a couple who have eight children, has since appeared in numerous magazine articles, and in 2010 she starred on celebrity reality dance show\u00a0Dancing with the Stars<\/em>.\u00a0Survivor<\/em>\u00a0contestant Elisabeth Hasselbeck became a co-host on TV talk show\u00a0The View<\/em>, and several\u00a0American Idol<\/em>\u00a0contestants (including Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood) have become household names. The genre has drawn criticism for creating a generation that expects to achieve instant wealth without having to try very hard and also for preying on vulnerable people whom critics call \u201cdisposable.\u201d When\u00a0Britain\u2019s Got Talent<\/em>\u00a0star Susan Boyle suffered a public meltdown in 2009 after the stress of transitioning from obscurity to stardom in an extremely short time period, the media began to point out the dangers of reality television. In 2009,\u00a0TheWrap.com<\/span><\/a>\u00a0investigated the current lives of former stars of reality shows such as\u00a0The Contender<\/em>,\u00a0Paradise Hotel<\/em>,\u00a0Wife Swap<\/em>, and\u00a0Extreme Makeover<\/em>, and found that at least 11 participants had committed suicide as an apparent result of their appearances on screen (Adams, 2009; Feldlinger).<\/p>\n

Industry Shifts<\/h2>\n

Cable television started as a way to reach rural consumers and grew, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, into a nationwide service delivering paid content. It presented more options and a trustworthy wired connection \u2014 but at a cost. As cable networks consolidated into monopolies, costs went up and service quality often declined. Still, most Americans continue to consume broadcast and cable television. Market penetration of some form of television service, including over-the-air TV, stands at almost 96% according to Nielsen<\/a>, the television ratings specialists.<\/p>\n

According to industry estimates<\/a>, pay television services (such as cable and satellite TV) are now in fewer than 80 percent of U.S. homes as people begin to \u201ccut the cord.\u201d Broadband internet service now reaches more than 80 percent of homes<\/a>, suggesting that it is displacing paid television service. American cable consumers may be comfortable transitioning to broadband because so much television content is now available online. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, HBO GO and other broadband- based streaming services deliver television content with high production value. YouTube, Vimeo, Twitch and other streaming services deliver niche video content. Certain platforms for television delivery may be in decline, but consumption of video content remains strong.<\/p>\n

Television\u2019s impact on society is debated by scholars. Long-term studies have associated higher rates of<\/a> television viewing with lower rates of high school completion<\/a>. Watching television has been shown<\/a> to make attention spans shorter<\/a>. Media studies scholars do not agree <\/a>on whether television \u201ccultivates\u201d a sense that the world is a violent, scary place, even when crime rates are low. Findings for that hypothesis seem to depend on how each study is carried out and how data analyses are structured. Alternatively, educational television can have a positive impact as an intervention for children in<\/a> poverty<\/a>. Too much television has the potential to affect us negatively. Doctors often recommend limiting screen time, particularly for children. The way we consume television has changed a great deal since the medium was introduced.<\/p>\n

Appointment Viewing versus Binge-watching<\/h2>\n

Appoin<\/strong>tment viewing<\/strong><\/a> refers to the phenomenon of people watching television shows at the same time each week or each day. When most people watched television broadcast over the air or on cable,they generally had two options. They could watch the show live as it aired, or, once the VCR was invented, they could record programs to watch later. A major concern during the mid-20th century when appointment viewing was most popular was that people might not watch serial narratives on television because they would have to wait a week between episodes. If they missed an episode or two, they could feel lost and stop watching the show.<\/p>\n

Thus, appointment viewing and episodic TV went hand in hand for a majority of shows during the 20th century. Episod<\/strong>ic<\/strong><\/a> television shows usually featured a different story with each episode. Soap operas, however, were se<\/strong>rialized<\/strong><\/a>. They told an ongoing story with several threads, and each episode picked up where the last one left off, but they aired almost every weekday, and the stories were not known for being complicated.<\/p>\n

The logic against making serial television dominated the 1980s and 1990s, but in the 2000s dramatic shows such as The Sopranos, The<\/em> Wire, Breaking Bad, MadMen, Deadwood, <\/em>Dexter, Boardwalk Empire,<\/em> Six<\/em> Feet<\/em> Under,<\/em> Lost,<\/em> 24<\/em>, Homeland,<\/em> Game<\/em> of <\/em> Thrones,<\/em> Westworld, Stranger<\/em> Things<\/em>, and The<\/em> Handmaid\u2019s<\/em> Tale<\/em> became increasingly popular. DVRs (digital video recorders) and streaming services contributed to the popularity of these dramas and to the habit of binge-w<\/strong>atching<\/strong><\/a> \u2014 consuming several hours of video content in a single viewing or in a very limited time frame.<\/p>\n

The upside is that many shows now present intricate plots with long-building character arcs. Many former filmmakers, screenwriters and actors now prefer to do television rather than film because television allows for more intricate storytelling. Not everything in popular television needs to have the potential to reach a global audience interested in action, superheroes and sexy, simplistic love stories. While it is true that many independent films pursue visual storytelling as an art form, such releases are limited. In many ways, television (including shows broadcast on streaming services) now leads the way in attempting to make cultural and social impacts. Of course, instant gratification television still exists. So-called \u201creality television\u201d is still popular, as are game shows and myriad live sporting events, but it can still be argued that the highest form of the visual storytelling art may now be seen on the small screen.<\/p>\n

Television and Health<\/h2>\n

Streamable television content may be as socially relevant as ever, but it encourages binge-watching, which can contribute to health problems. The content itself might not harm your health, but binge- watching and general overconsumption lead to unhealthy sedentary lifestyles. Researchers have found links between increased television viewing and obesity, smoking rates, and generally low fitness levels. Netflix, Amazon and Hulu are engaged in a fierce competition to create the most binge-worthy content, which means that binge-watching is not going away any time soon. Again, mitigation of the social impact of television will fall on the consumer\u2019s shoulders.<\/p>\n

Socially, television is an incredibly powerful medium. Most media studies scholars agree that it has the potential to enable shared social understanding. Televised images of atrocities helped encourage the Civil Rights Movement and the end of the Vietnam War. Educational and informational programming is required of broadcasters, and many consumers find valuable shows amidst the information glut; however, the future of television might be darker than the present age of quality and variety.<\/p>\n

As television content moves online and streaming services become more popular, there is a massive corporate push to give internet service providers (ISPs) the kind of control over content that cable television providers have had in the past. The end of net neutrality <\/a>could make streaming services more expensive, and though it is not likely to happen rapidly, internet access could be divided into tiers of websites and web services with ISPs charging more for the most popular sites. If the most binge- worthy, least intellectually valuable content becomes the affordable option for most people, the social impact of the new internet-television regime could be negative for generations to come.<\/p>\n

Television and Culture<\/h2>\n

The cultural impact of television could be implied from the discussion of content through the decades. Regular television viewers make connections with storylines and characters. We can consume an eclectic mix of video content or focus only on the genre that interests us most. There are hundreds of digital channels and seemingly endless amounts of streaming content available at all time. The question is not whether there is something interesting to watch but what type of content interests us the most. There is more to the medium than the dramas and distractions of the 20th century. There is no single television culture emerging in the 21st century since mass audiences have an incredible variety of choices; however, for children of the 20th century, there are many shows that millions of people hold in common. Thus, we are transitioning from a time of a shared \u201cTV culture\u201d to a time of various digital content cultures.<\/p>\n

For children of the 20th century, television is so ingrained in our culture there are shared references to shows that have not aired for 20 years, and there have even been shows about watching <\/em><\/a>TV<\/a>. Specifically, the HBO show Dream On <\/em>depicted a grown man who recalled old television shows when his short attention span sent him off into daydreams. Popular television shows in 20th-century American culture were so familiar to mass audiences that there are still common tropes from as many as 50 years ago that most viewers would recognize. The image of the dull husband and his feisty wife echoes through the decades from The<\/em> Honeymooners <\/em>through The<\/em> Simpsons<\/em>, King<\/em> of<\/em> Queens <\/em>and Family<\/em> Guy<\/em>. The crime procedural has been so popular for so long, it often seems as though an entire generation of TV stars have made at least one appearance on Law & Order<\/em>. Other tropes are noted in \u201cThe Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular,\u201d<\/a> another example of television culture referencing itself.<\/p>\n

We now use all manner of devices to connect to television content. Over-the-air television is gaining in popular support as people cut the cable cord. Streaming services, as stated, are beginning to dominate the landscape. Smartphones and tablets offer ways of consuming streaming television as well as amateur video programs as well as the opportunity for a second screen experience<\/strong>,<\/strong><\/a> which refers to watching something on television and interacting with the show or with fans of the show on social media and other Web platforms. The convergence of media platforms opens up new ways of engaging with video content and the people who produce it.<\/p>\n

The cultural implications of participatory or collabo<\/strong>rative television<\/strong><\/a> \u2014 the phenomenon in which content producers work with the audience to produce, alter or enhance content, including to decide the outcomes of televised competitions \u2014 are not yet known. It is expected, however, that the practice will continue to grow. Audiences often enjoy having a say in the direction or the outcome of a program. Digital platforms measure audience engagement as something they can market to advertisers, which encourages the practice. This also puts some responsibility on the part of consumers to positively influence the content they help shape.<\/p>\n

As television and broadband internet services merge, it is worth noting that the prediction of the union of television and computers is as old as the personal computer. Internet-ready televisions might have become more popular than add-on streaming devices such as Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku, or Google Chromecast, but television manufacturers hesitated to add full internet functionality for fear of viruses. Also, consumer demand for connected TVs was not strong enough for manufacturers to offer built-in technology. For the consumer, it matters little whether the television connects directly to the internet or whether a relatively inexpensive add-on is needed. In whatever manner you connect to converged digital video content \u2014 that is, the media products formerly known as television \u2014 you have access to perhaps the most influential cultural tool in history.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

definition<\/span>