Television through Time
“I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the
other room and read a book.” — Groucho Marx
When you talk to a parent, grandparent or great-grandparent 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. It is no wonder that when television was first becoming America’s
medium of choice in the 1940s and ’50s, plenty of thoughtful people questioned the influence
it could have on society. Television’s 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’s 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’s cultural
impact. 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 — and
often an air of superiority — that they do not own a television. 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’t all bad. At every stage of the medium’s development, there have been
thoughtful, intelligent shows and there has been dreck — that is, waste or trash that serves to
fill time but not to inform meaningfully.
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’s 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.
Television Content in the 20th Century
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. 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, a news discussion show that is still on the
air, as well as Howdy Doody, a children’s puppet show that set the tone for future children’s
programming but lacked some of the educational elements that came with Sesame Street and
similar shows. In the ’50s, the masterful journalist Edward R. Murrow led a journalistic team
of titans with See it Now, a classic news documentary show. But he also hosted Person to
Person, a celebrity profile show that bordered on tabloid TV. In the 1960s, Murrow made
Harvest of Shame, a revolutionary television documentary about the oppression of farm
workers. In the same decade, Mister Ed featured a talking horse that cracked jokes through a
barn door. Producers persuaded the horse, a gelding named Bamboo Harvester, to “talk” 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.
In the 1970s, the sitcom M*A*S*H 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 can be compared to another classic
’70s sitcom, Three’s Company, 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
represents television in rare form, both entertaining and poignant.
In the 1980s, Hill Street Blues 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…with Children was a purposefully
shallow show designed to offend by depicting a grotesque caricature of an American family.
Hill Street Blues ran for seven seasons. Married…with Children ran for 11. In the 1990s,
Homicide: Life on the Street depicted grit, violence and crime fighting in Baltimore in the vein
of Hill Street Blues. Homicide was based on a non-fiction book titled Homicide: A Year on the
Killing Streets by David Simon. Simon went on to create The Wire, one of the top-rated
television shows of all time that also depicted crime and crime fighting in Baltimore. While
Homicide was popular, Friends dominated American pop culture and had a global influence.
Friends 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.
Television and Society
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 how many
“eyeballs” they could reach. Scholars will often suggest that a “balanced” television diet is
best. 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 “guilty pleasures” when viewing TV. Ratings suggest most people
are just fine watching shallow television, and many will binge-watch TV for days. 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.
Industry Shifts
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 — 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, the television
ratings specialists. According to industry estimates, pay television services (such as cable and
satellite TV) are now in fewer than 80 percent of U.S. homes as people begin to “cut the cord.”
Broadband internet service now reaches more than 80 percent of homes, 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 broadbandbased 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. Television’s impact on society is
debated by scholars. Long-term studies have associated higher rates of television viewing with
lower rates of high school completion. Watching television has been shown to make attention
spans shorter. Media studies scholars do not agree on whether television “cultivates” 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 poverty. 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.
Appointment Viewing versus Binge-watching
Appointment viewing 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. Thus,
appointment viewing and episodic TV went hand in hand for a majority of shows during the
20th century. Episodic television shows usually featured a different story with each episode.
Soap operas, however, were serialized. 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. The logic against making serial television
dominated the 1980s and 1990s, but in the 2000s dramatic shows such as The Sopranos, The
Wire, Breaking Bad, MadMen, Deadwood, Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, Six Feet Under, Lost,
24, Homeland, Game of Thrones, Westworld, Stranger Things, and The Handmaid’s Tale
became increasingly popular. DVRs (digital video recorders) and streaming services
contributed to the popularity of these dramas and to the habit of binge-watching — consuming
several hours of video content in a single viewing or in a very limited time frame. 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 “reality television” 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.
Television and Health
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 bingewatching 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’s
shoulders. 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. 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 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 bingeworthy,
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.
Television and Culture
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 “TV culture” to a time of various digital content cultures.
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 TV. Specifically, the HBO show Dream On 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 Honeymooners
through The Simpsons, King of Queens and Family Guy. 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. Other tropes are noted in “The Simpsons 138th Episode
Spectacular,” another example of television culture referencing itself. 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, 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. The cultural implications of
participatory or collaborative television — the phenomenon in which content producers work
with the audience to produce, alter or enhance content, including to decide the outcomes of
televised competitions — 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. 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 — that is, the media products formerly
known as television — you have access to perhaps the most influential cultural tool in history.
