lecture #1

Television: Culture and History

CROSSFIRE: Does TV Kill?
Does it have an actual impact on people's life? Class starts with a 20-minute debate between students representing the Pro and Con.

• Pro… A test by Herbert Krugman indicates a significantly high level of endorphins in the brain of high-TV watchers… a heavy TV watcher exhibits six symptoms affiliated with substance abuse: (1) they use it as a sedative, (2) they use it indiscriminately, (3) they feel a loss of control when watching, (4) they feel angry at themselves for watching too much, (5) they are unable to stop, (6) they're miserable when they're not doing it.
• Con… Does watching TV violence have a causal effect on real world violence? No. The correlation does not prove causation. (These two sides have opened with arguments that completely talk past each other: chemical addiction vs influence on violence. Rest of the debate follows the latter issue.)
• Pro: so many correlations!
• Con: they don't prove causation.
• Con: (interesting point)- hypothetically, if watching TV violence does influence aggression, we should infer a cumulative effect (the more you watch, the more aggressive you get). So to prove the causation, the aggression should rise in the teenage years over time- but the longitudinal studies do not see this effect. Justification Theory- People will watch TV because it justifies their own violent actions.
• Con: (best argument of the day)- Let's set aside aggression and look at actual violent crimes. The violent crime rate dropped 61% from 1993-2005. Since the violence on TV has not decreased in that period, we need to assume that, to prove causality, the violent crime numbers would increase or stay constant in that period. But that hasn't been the case at all. According to Nielsen, violence on TV is higher… violence among kids though is precipitously lower. TV violence can't induce people to Kill.
• Professor: If you argue that we are impervious to to these negative messages, you can't argue for positive impacts either (rebutting Con girl who mentions learning English from Sesame Street.)e are impervious to these negative messages, you can't argue for positive impacts either (rebutting Con girl who talked about learning English from Sesame Street.)
• Professor: Remember Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions- Science is discourse, it is an argument made by people with an interest. We think that science is free from human bias, but that is not the case. Let's not buy into the data as if it carries universal truth.
• student: Japanese TV is crazily violent but it's a nation without much violent crime- if TV violence was causal Japan would be much more violent to live in.
• Pro: We're not saying TV is the cause of all violence, we are saying it is A cause.
• student: TV can be an influence but it needs to be coacting with other factors.
• Con: it's about the relationships at home, not the TV.
• a thing or two I'm thinking about now: we need to examine TV's ability to influence violence, not by showing mere violence, but by demonization… I'm much more interested in learning about how likely that Obama would be assassinated by someone whipped into a frenzy by Fox News and other sources. Also, which is the most immersive media? Is a Film, a newspaper, TV, internet- which source is the most individually persuasive and worldview-changing?

Professor's Lecture
If we say that TV does not kill, then we risk letting it off the hook- letting it run amok. There are vulnerable people who can't filter… we do not want to unleash TV from the checks and balances. So should there be censoring? Then there's the danger of social control and propaganda. A challenging line.

Why has TV become a public enemy, moreso than the web, film, radio? Why is TV the most feared? TV is the most prevalent, the most accessible. It is ubiquitous, and it recognizes no age differences or demographic differences. We have to see media as Ecology- as a part of culture. TV is symbolically chosen to demonize the media system as a whole.

Let's not be deceived by the notion of 'representation,' as in, 'TV is a fiction, it's just entertainment.' To separate representation from lived experience is a flawed concept, because representation has such a deep effect on How we live (eg, you learn romantic behavior/standards from TV and film.) Life is not Immune from representation. School and Government are not outside of TV [reminds me of the Yglesian point of how relatively few people watch cable news, but it shapes the beltway discussion intensely]… We cannot hold parents solely responsible for kids watching violent TV, because the violence is exciting, deliberately alluring.

We can trace the villainization of TV into the 19th century. In the 19th century, the population of cities surges. These large groups of strangers form a mass. This is the era of Mass (Production, Media, Society.) A mass is huge in quantity but lacks cohesion- it is unpredictable, unruly.

A lot of 19th century sociology examined the mass as mobs, as an animal herd. There is a Contempt for the masses. The concept of 'Mass' is a mythology cultivated by the elite crowd, by aristocrats. 19th century thinkers write about mass as a Threat. It's only in the last 20 years that 'mass media' and the perjorative attitude towards the masses has tapered off.

'Mass culture is non-culture, it is the enemy of civilization'- this idea lasted until the 1980s. Before the 1980s, TV was deeply studied and deeply attacked, and this was shaped by resistance to the masses, this philosophy reaching back to the 19th century.

Vaudeville was prototypical to TV (1945-1951.) 1951 is when the new era begins… Networks grow, the distribution ratio goes over 50%, NBC and CBS move to California to join forces with Hollywood- to use the studio system, the mass-manufactured structure. It's before this point, in the early organic days of TV, when it's looser. Vaudeville is truly hodge-podge. No strict structure to it, it's whatever entertains. Vaudeville is family entertainment; it does not discriminate- ethnic entertainment was embraced; it was a culturally cosmopolitan media. It celebrated exoticism. The Vaudeville era: roughly 1880-1930. Radio began to eclipse Vaudeville… Visuality was the dividing line between Vaudeville and Radio. Oral talent was the key to radio success. Radio is more orderly and well organized; Vaudeville is speedy and slapdash. The rise of TV gave a second chance to Vaudeville entertainers whose talent was based on physicality and visuality. TV at this time was transmitted live, and it was disorganized and spontaneous.

video segment: the history of Vaudeville
If people wanted to watch it, you could make a living doing it. Enthusiasm was a big key to success, so was stage personality, and frivolity. Ukulele is a very popular instrument in Vaudeville.

The Palace Theatre- the most famous Vaudeville Theatre. In the wake of this movement, acting and dance schools flourished (to get training that could then be used to earn money in Vaudeville.)

June Taylor… Julian Eltinge… Eva Tangoye… Joe Frisco… Billy Barty… Violet Carson… Morey Amsterdam… Studs Terkel… A. Robinson, the banana man (pulling out an entire set of furniture from underneath his big black coat… WC Fields knew he couldn't juggle as well as other jugglers, so he created an interesting persona to accentuate the act, the man always beleagured… Haj Ali, the great regurgitator… Arthur Tracy (it's fascinating seeing him as an old, decaying man, lip synching to his glamorous old records, a romantic, mysterious young man once… Al Jolson in blackface… Eddie Peabody (very 'Kennth')… Harry Rose (almost certainly gay), sandwiches song… Carl Ballantine… Frisco, a fun dancer…

If people were famous for any reason, people wanted to gawk at you, and you were invited to appear in Vaudeville revues. Babe Ruth singing a song where he's just reciting a pitch count. “Ball Two!” (hilarious.)

lecture
People want amusement- they gravitate towards sensations, towards the phenomenal. The daily experience of life is defined by unnatural stimuli- tall buildings, waves of strangers, exhausting work- hectic, overwhelming city life. The elites might have thought vaudeville was weird and awful, but the masses enjoyed it. The birth, the heritage of TV, is based in mass culture, amusement, escape from the day of work. Rather than condemn, why don't we embrace the roots and tradition of TV as something for the _____?

In the early years of TV, distribution is 10-15%… and so the rich have the TVs, but the art is based on broad, silly, mass tastes. It's an era of a Lot of complaints- letters to the editor about spending $500 on a TV and then watching this trash. It's an interesting contradiction of the early years.

TV had an omnivorous appetite… in the last twenty years we have seen the evolution of 'mass culture' into 'pop culture.' This matters because mass is a class term. Mass culture is no longer a culture for the masses, it is a culture for all. The change in nomenclature accompanies this change in attitude… by becoming 'pop culture,' it is no longer class culture. That's the key.

video segment: Texaco Star Theater
opens with the Texaco song by the "merry Texaco men," pretty catchy, charming song… introduces Milton Berle, arriving on a chariot, dressed in a Roman skirt and wig. He is pretty god damn charming; his impromptu silliness and mid-joke ad libbing is funnier than his act (Conanesque.) Charming as hell. Rambling, funny monologue, big smile, rich voice, charismatic… next act: the Luscatos. 3 acrobats in suits. Pretty fucking awesome. Wow. Pretty mesmerizing to watch (I guess this is that alluring passive lull that televised spectacle incurs)… "introducing Mr. George Van Dorn, modeling this year's men's spring suit." A pudgy man steps out in a suit covered with springs. Berle fucking rules… Key Luc. Berle speaks in a halted, stereotypically Chinese voice; Luc responds in eloquent, unaccented English. Some fun back and forth banter, and then 'the most popular television show in China'- the Texaco guys sing a Chinese minstrel-show song, dressed garishly, leading then to Miltie pulling a rickshaw with Key inside.

lecture
It's organic, liberated by accidents, it's fun, it's open- Milt makes himself the clown, Key Luc can play charmingly, with grace. The racist aspects are so audacious, as the Professor points out, almost enough to become harmless parody (you can read into it what you want, like Archie Bunker- on one level, fans can agree with him; on a different level, a different set of fans can laughingly reject him.) The whole show really feels like the ancestor of the Talk Show- the combination of charismatic host, spectacle, comedic monologue, special guests, and so on- before it gets homogenized, processed by the Hollywood machine, made regimented.

We see in the early history of film, the founding fathers (George Melies and the Lumiere Brothers) two different traditions, different uses for the medium. The Lumieres are interested in the every day- unembellished, unexaggerated, the documentary, actuality. Melies is interested in tricks, fantasies, the unreal, spectacles and magic. TV likewise has these twin legacies, these competing genres- Information and Entertainment. "Infotainment" is one of the hybrids; another hybrid comes from the audience's personal perspective- what entertains you, you might find informative.

Marshall McLuhan- "cool" Media (it invites you in, you participate actively… newspaper, novels, radio) and "hot" Media (like a fire, it is frightening and overpowering, you instinctively pull back from it. TV and TV News… you watch passively- not, as the Professor emphasizes, that this is always a bad thing.)

Can TV ascend to the level of the newspaper? The Professor's opinion: You can't expect the turtle to be as fast as a rabbit. TV's information level is limited by the form. It is pictorial journalism, similar to yellow journalism in that it's information but it must pander to certain aspects (the visual, in this case).

TV News is much more similar to Newsreels than to Radio News. In documentary and news coverage, radio is not a particularly strong influence on television. Newsreel was a vital force… delivering war news, disseminating information about new laws and practices; it was like the microphone of the Government.

video segment: history of the Newsreels
The Newsreels were disposable, fun, silly. They loved beauties and babies, and anything exotic. The Dionne Quintuplets were a Newsreel sensation… crazy stunts were hugely popular (lady dancing on a tightrope over a city; a man fired out of a cannon, clearing two ferris wheels… a man taking a cannonball shot to the stomach ["he's the only man who can do this stunt; then again he's the only man who Wants to do this stunt"].) Crashes and disasters were also popular- the Hindenberg was the most successful story of the decade. As the critics jokes, the Newsreels were "a series of catastrophes ended by a fashion show."

The disaster the Newsreel avoided, though- the Great Depression. They avoided it entirely; they only presented what they thought the public wanted to see. They created a false world with no suffering, no controversy; anything that might provoke a guilty conscience was ignored.

Leo Seltzer filmed the Depression. There's a lot of astonishing footage that never made the Newsreels… demonstrations in Union Square Park, riots against the Ford Motor Company. Footage of steel plant riots outside Chicago- the Memorial Day Massacre. Stunning. Crazy. Police firing on protestors as they run away. They also mention the On-To-Ottawa Trek, "one of the biggest stories of the Depression"- interesting… I've never heard of it.

The March of Time- 1935- this was the series that showed the world, showed real news. They covered spectacular stories, the rise of fascism in Europe, for instance. Louis de Rochemont was the driving force behind MoT- he had the idea, Time Inc's Ray Larsen had the resources. Their breakout story- an embarrassing piece on Huey Long. Another story- Gerald L.K. Smith. De Rochemont wanted to bring action, drama, controversy.

Ironically, much of their footage was staged- “fakery in service of the truth,” dramatizations of the news. (I love the story of the Insurance Salesman pulled downstairs to film a part in a Newsreel. Adis Ababa hotel. “Hey you guys, listen to this news.”) INSIDE NAZI GERMANY 1938- an astonishing film. Much of it real footage- but for the scenes De Rochemont wanted to show but couldn't get footage for (Hitler brooding before a fire, censorship, sodliers taking money from citizens), they filmed cooperate Germans in a New Jersey town.

video segment: early history of Television News
Camel News Caravan… John Cameron Swayze… anchor was required to smoke onscreen, and they couldn't show pictures of men holding cigars (an exception made for Churchill)… for the audience it was sometimes hard to tell what was news, and what was a commercial (social events and awards galas and brand new cars, all stories about a car company- the one that promotes the news show)…

The defining moment of broadcast news: when Murrow brings his radio reporters to television and creates "See it Now," the first prestigious television news program. Murrow saw the power of television to bring the world into people's rooms. He wanted serious news, news with integrity. Murrow saved television news from basically remaining/becoming the equivalent of supermarket tabloid news. He did so by setting a standard.

One thing we can take from "See it Now"- TV is not beholden to its origins- just because it came from a simplistic, mass culture, vaudeville perspective, does not mean it must permanently be this way. Different people, different institutions, different organizations, can create changes.

History of the Academic Perspectives on TV
(1) Hypodermic- TV gets in under your skin and changes our way of thinking- it is alarming; the audience are victims, dupes.
(2) Use and Gratification- People feel comfortable with TV, people use it for their own purposes, to satisfy their needs. The audience is smart and savvy.
(3) Agenda Setting- (Chomsky) TV does not dictate what to think, but it does insinuate what to think about. It's not about the content of TV, but the issues they highlight vs the issues they neglect to mention [as in the newsreels]- that's how they convey this middle class yuppie worldview.
(4) Cultivation- (Gerbmer) Mean world syndrome- if you're exposed to certain concepts again and again, you begin to cultivate the fictitious worldview of the television. [eg- you see CSI and Law and Order, you grow to believe the world is full of crime and violence, because the TV cultivates the 'reality' that it is like this.]

The media is not categorically wrong or right, but it can be dangerous if it is not checked and balanced with the real world.