1960s vs Today: The Style

In any piece of literature, having a certain style is what can give a text character, so to speak.  In this article, the author goes on to describe the differences between the start of the era of television to what we have today.  By bringing in specific examples (most notably the quotes from a variety of sources), the author is able to back up their claim that TV did, in fact, have a limited beginning.  However, the author did not mean to convey an idea that TV was a waste; quite the opposite in fact.  Although there were in fact just three channels, those were enough to make nearly all households have at least one TV.  As time progressed, more channels were added, further increasing the the likelihood that individuals would own a TV (also, prices for the pieces of hardware would fall too overtime).

One key stylistic approach that the author took for his article was to look at how the shows of the time period were portraying current events.  In short, they didn't portray the events nearly as well as compared to TV today.  Major events might still be broadcasted (Presidential Debate, NASA Missions, Vietnam War), but it would take time before TV took over the news.  By comparing examples of TV from the present to the past, the author allows us to see what really changed, and that allows us to better gauge the importance of the new, revolutionary product.

@author - Anderson Lee

Visual Elements of the 3 Cs: Culture, Commercials and Censorship

Have you ever seen a pro-smoking commercial on TV? The answer is probably no unless you grew up in the 60s or possibly watched this commercial:

The video integrates tobacco smoking into the cartoon as a casual pastime that is effortless compared to the exhausting workload of women- which is shown at the start of the commercial. Barney implies that Winston cigarettes are the best ways to relax and re-energize compared to naps through the phrase "I got a better idea..." As a result, the bandwagon fallacy is applied when Betty and Wilma become envious of the men and join them smoking.

It is hard to come to grips with the fact that a beloved children's show like the Flinstones would promote a mortal threat such as smoking. The content would be exceedingly criticized if the commercial was advertise today, which demonstrates the cultural shift of Americans since the 60s. Back then, it was cool to smoke and the smoking culture was much prominent compared to today. With the awareness of its numerous health effects, Americans now frown upon the activity by the blatant restrictions of smoking designated areas or the unpronounced side eye individuals give to smokers.


In 2013, our university became a smoke-free campus to promote the community's "health and wellbeing" as stated by President Loh. This policy reiterates the consensus of the UMD family- and the younger generation at large- that we should take active measures to say no to smoking; a contradiction of the cultural message of TV in the 60s.

So blending smoking ads in kid's television shows is not a good idea, but why can't one find a cigarette ad on TV? Because they were banned in the 70s! In this age, one would think that the censorship of television is almost nonexistent because of the display of abusive, sexual and graphic scenes on the screen, but TV still filters some of its messages.

This is a typical cigarette commercial of today:

Captioned "The Real Cost Commercial:Bully", this add clearly contradicts the pro-smoking commercial. Firstly, the title "Real Cost" suggests that the first commercial sells a pretense story to the viewers, whereas this one unveils the reality of smoking. This video portrays the irony of  miniature people (representing cigarettes) having more power and controlling enormous people. Additionally, the ad villainizes the cigarettes as interrupting a favorite pastime (watching TV) rather than contributing to a pastime like the pro-smoking ad illustrates.

The visual elements of both commercials can give a strong indication of the public's cultural values and stance on censorship.

-Njillan Sarre

Audience Analysis of 1960s TV

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/showbiz/tv/sixties-five-things-television/

The 1960s allowed for a much more widespread audience to be introduced into the world of television. Prior, TVs were more of a luxury and not many families were able to have one. In the 60s this all changed when television became a staple in the home. Because there were no "for mature audiences only" warnings, most shows were family oriented such as "Leave it to Beaver". If there was not a wholesome program on, it was the news on one of three channels which was mostly aimed toward adults. In modern times, there are a variety of shows and so many are not appropriate for the entire family. With the hundreds of channels offered now, it seems like there is something for everyone. Later in the 60s more variety entered television to reach more accepting audiences, "Star Trek" introduced the first interracial kiss/ relationship on TV. This touched more diverse audiences, and allowed for more African American viewers. With all of the technology available now, TV is falling behind, but in the 1960s it was definitely the front runner.
-Kara Gans

Attention to Audience

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/showbiz/tv/sixties-television-then-now/

In regards to viewers, TV producers of the 60s missed the mark tremendously, and it’s no surprise that the term “wasteland” has been used by the former Federal Communication Commission chairman to describe our preferred form of entertainment.  
According to this article,  the consideration of audience in terms of content, genre, and language was weak. The programmers only targeted a small pool of people, hence failing to make the connections between the viewers- that exists today.

As much as television of the 60s is considered a breakthrough decade in terms of broadcasting live events, critiques claim that TV did not fully reflect what was going on in the country. The conservative nature of the 50s still lingered on and programmers felt the need to provide “dumb-down” shows or present the news in a “gingerly” fashion. The social movements were  not well televised as expected for a major community, whereas today's news channels would relish in the opportunity to broadcast a controversial topic of interest or curiosity, that would attract TV ratings. TV producers made the general assumption that the viewers wanted lightweight shows (comedies, fiction), which demonstrates the minor comprehension of their audience. The changing values and attitudes of the 60s was not well captured on the screen, and this was finally recognized when the Vietnam War was televised and the attention of the audience was caught. This televised moment proved that the public could handle more that programmers initially assumed.

Television today is doing much better than the 60s because programmers have a better understanding of their audience, and therefore have become sensitive to their needs. That explains the astounding popularity of the Kardashians who have become the face of reality TV, a relatively new genre that has gained a strong following over the years.
-Njillan Sarre

Logos in 1960s TV

Logos appeals are used to defend an argument with hard facts and reality. The 1960s demonstrated this well with the use of technology. It was only logical that citizens of the US during this decade needed a television. Not only did hit help with the spread of communication, it gave a face to many famous people and events. People could watch real events from the Vietnam War, see commercials about jobs, and watch the news. When the color TV came to be there was an even larger reason to get a television, it made people feel like they were more in the action.
-Kara Gans

In the article which talks about the first presidential debate (here, or on the sidebar), the author goes into detail about how the visual aspects that were introduced into the presidential campaigns changed the whole game, so to speak.

Appearances, especially in modern campaigns, have become increasingly important.

With higher definition TVs, audiences can get a closer look at the candidates,

clearly seeing any unpleasant visuals (sweat, twitching, etc.)

 

Ever since the 1960 campaign where Kennedy faced Nixon, candidates have been wary to make a better appearance on TV than their counterparts.  An example today can be how Chris Christie has been losing weight so that he may have a better appearance come 2016 elections, if he so chooses to run. 

The target audience for this piece is anyone who can vote for a US president.  The author proceeds to raise questions regarding how we see our future leaders on TV.  Should we place a large emphasis on appearance?  Perhaps we should worry about what they have to say instead.  The author then opens a discussion on how we as Americans should view our presidents, asking for opinions from both sides.  By being open to all ideas, the author establishes a fair ground for discussion, allowing for the free flow of opinions.   

...

The largest take-away from this article is that appearance matters, and it has become increasingly more important for politicians, or just about anyone else looking for public approval.  How far its' influence will reach is unknown, but we do know that it's here to stay.

@author : Anderson Lee

Ethos of First Televised Presidential Debate

This debate pitted John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon.  This was a revolutionary debate in many ways.  For the first

time, T.V. was a factor in voting.  By the 1960's, T.V. had become a mass media product.  It was in nearly every U.S. 

household.  Kennedy won mainly because he prepared better.  Kennedy knew these debates were going to be important.  

He put make-up on and tanned himself.  Meanwhile, Nixon thought this was just another debate.  He refused to put 

make-up on, got his knee banged up while getting out of the car.  As a result, he looked pale due to a recent 

hospitalization.  Thus, television was very credible back then.  The better prepared you are, the better you are going to do.  

Logically, Kennedy won the debates while Nixon lost.

TV's Appeal to Pathos

The 1960s introduced a whole new world in terms of technology. Though, television had already been invented and used in many homes in the 1950s, the new decade had brought along an improvement that changed many lives. TV was now in color as well as live.
Most people would assume that this had little to no affect to the beliefs and/or emotions of the public but it truly did. Live TV allowed for events such as the presidential race with John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon to really touch people in a new way. Most people would go their whole life only seeing pictures of the president. But, for the first time, they could hear and see the candidates and often times, the use of those senses appeals very strongly to our emotions because hearing and feeling sincerity is easier with the visual aspect. Plus, this often gave off a sense of ease or comfort knowing the faces of possible leaders. Obviously, looks and appearances began to go a long way too.
Also, the use of television helped to inform the public of the true happenings of many movements. This included, the women's rights, civil rights, anti-Vietnam War, and hippie movements. For example, people could see real footage of the dangerous and horrendous war zone in Vietnam. This lead for many to get in touch with their honest opinions of the war because seeing the horrible sights made them feel uncomfortable or even scared.
-Kara Gans

TV’s appeal to ethos: How the presidential campaign was forever changed

In our current society, millions of Americans watch the presidential debates that occur every four years. This trend was first started when John F. Kennedy debated with Richard Nixon over live TV. Television sets were becoming more popular in homes, and the broadcasting of the debate led even more people to buy into the new technology, since they were effectively being advertised indirectly by the future leaders of the US. What better reason should a family have to get a TV when the most influential men in the world are arguing against one another live?

The result of this debate was that the relatively unknown senator Kennedy became wildly popular overnight, since he appeared to do perform much better the sickly-looking Nixon. The results were so profound in fact, that Nixon never debated on live TV for any other presidential campaign.

As more and more events became spread across TV channels, more people bought into its’ influence, since powerful individuals and events were being broadcasted, which essentially marketed the TV itself.

- Anderson

Pathos of First Presidential Debate

Again, unlike any other presidential debate, T.V. revealed things that the radio and other media at the time could not.  For 

example, T.V. viewers noticed that Nixon was sweating.  No one would have noticed that on the radio because you can 

only hear the news on it.  In addition, T.V. viewers noticed that Nixon did not put any make-up on.  As a result, John F. 

Kennedy looked better prepared for the situation than Nixon.  Thus, the people that watched the televised debates were

emotionally convinced that Kennedy was the better candidate, even though Nixon's arguments were better.  

Kairos of technology; Is television headed in the right direction?

The Samsung 4K S Ultra-HD Smart TV  lives up to the compelling expectation as suggested by its name. The curve design of the television is one of numerous features that could make you jump to the moon. Seriously.  Today’s television experiences has more pizzazz- with the aid of higher resolution displays and better connectivity- that brings viewers closer to the source. Therefore people will always have a special bond with their TVs because this form of mass communication is a central aspect of our American lives. 

But greatness has always been parallel with sacrifice, and so it’s time people recognize the sacrifices being made before the new innovations wipe out our cherishable qualities.

TV has completely changed the dialogue amongst people, families and friends. The topic of discussion has progressed from a single TV set for an entire street, to the number of TVs in a household and now the “smartness” of a TV. In some instances, the television set is the blame for the nonexistent dialogue which results to couch potatoes- people who have sacrificed the exchange with the world for an interactive “smart” screen. Back in the 1960s when there were simply three TV channels (NBC, ABC & CBS) displayed from a cumbersome TV, at least children had the opportunity to live a full childhood of running, jumping around and interacting with nature.

As we deepen our relationship with TVs, we trade off our uniqueness and creativity in the long run. TVs are filled with commercials and shows targeted to follow the masses, which is quite cult-like. It is obvious that modernism is driven by ingenuity, and if we continue to allow the ongoing brainwashing we are setting the young generation up for failure, as they will become unequipped to solve arising issues.

The issues of TVs cannot be swept under the rug no more. We have a small time frame to protect the key values that are the reasons of our existence.

- Njillan Sarre