TV Was On The Cutting Edge

I'd say there a still a helluva lot of social issues that could be, but won't be tackled by the mainstream media. Good points about the older stuff though.

 

That's why TV still has an important role to play, and probably always will. Since their reputation is worth a lot of money, they should always be a bit more careful about what they throw out as fact. Media accuracy and trustworthiness has been widely debated in other threads, but I don't think anybody disagrees that it would be financially disastrous for a mainstream network to lose all credibility with the public. Investors would want somebody's head on a platter.

I do know that TV is worried about the internet. They know that their own ratings have slowly declined for years, while people spend more and more time online. They are competing with things like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, not just web sites full of nutty propaganda. They are trying to make use of all these things, but it hasn't been easy.

The FCC is a drag on TV also. Adults don't want to watch a comedy routine that has so many words bleeped out that it's hard to follow what the person is saying. Most elementary school kids know all that stuff anyway. The original, uncensored version can usually be found online, and you can bet that's the one that all the kids are watching. Most teenagers are smart enough to know that you aren't going to turn into a horrible person just because you hear (or use) the F-word now and then, and you know what a woman's nipples look like. A lot of their parents haven't figured it out yet.

 

Remembering how Luci & Desi had separate beds in their bedroom.

When Green Acres came out, Oliver and Lisa could be seen exchanging a kiss while sitting in the same bed.

 

Good thread. I don't know if Threes Company qualifies but Jack pretended to be gay to get to live with his two female roommates.

I think where the "edge" is today is what they aren't showing on tv. TV is not something intended to be progressive any more. It's intended to pacify and occupy people. The networks are now owned by a few companies who also have interests in damn near everything else in some way or another. The things that really matter in todays world are not on tv as far as I know and that is where the "edge" should be. That said...for this very reason, I don't really watch tv anymore so maybe there are a few shows that I'm unaware of.

 

There is a difference between broadcast TV and the internet. Cost.
A (relatively) broke fanatic can set up a website and potentially reach as many people as a rich corporation's website.
But with broadcast TV, to reach more people, you have be on more stations, you have to pay more money. Which means that your show (and its advertising) has to bring viewers in. The need to make money is greater in TV than in the internet.

This makes TV a better guide to society than the internet. Some one once defined "the American dream" as the lifestyle that one sees in TV commercials. Because of the financial pressures, TV has to play to the average more than the internet. (The phrase Lowest Common Denominator comes to mind.)

What has changed from when TV showed and explored the edge is the audience. It seems that America is less tolerant of people that they see as "wrong". Movies are judged based not only on the content of the movie, but the social/political position of the actors and writers People deciding whether to see Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game based on Card's opinion on gay marriage is seen as a valid decision. It is generally held that blacklisting is OK, the discussion being the proper criteria for blacklisting rather than a rejection of the whole concept of the blacklist. We don't have William Buckley decrying the blacklisting of Pete Seeger, not because Buckley agreed with Seeger, but because Buckley saw blacklisting as wrong, not matter the opinions of the target.

Modern america has more of a will towards conformity than the '50s and '60s. In the 50's there was an agreed on single picture of "proper living" (see Ozzy & Harriet), but real tolerance of those who lived or believed differently was higher. The was one "proper" but there was real tolerance of those on the fringe who didn't seek "proper".
("Real tolerance" being what people did rather than what officialdom proclaimed.) Today, there may be more images of "proper living" (we quarrel over which "proper" is the "true proper") but there is less real tolerance of those who choose a different "proper" than the one we do.

 

Such as?

 

From 59-63 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Many_Loves_of_Dobie_Gillis

Maynard G Krebs from The Many Loves Of Dobie Gillis .
I can remember watching this as a kid- -not great or even that ground breaking but Arguably the archetype for the stereotypical beatnik character in American popular culture.

 

Well when any yahoo can set-up a website and publish their ideas to the world, I don't think "blacklisting" is very effective.

There is less tolerance today then in the '50's???
Tell that to a black man in 1955 Georgia
or a homosexual in any state
or a man with longhair
or the guy serving a life sentence because he had a couple of "reefer cigarettes"



Are you sure you grew up in America?

 

The commercials back then would not play well to today's audiences....;-)

 

Something else to consider. We are not the ultimate consumers of television. We are the product. The television show itself is not the product. The audience is.

 

that really doesn't make any sense at all.

You are partially correct in that the "shows" are not the central focus, the advertisements are. All TV shows are, and what they have been since the seeds of their inception first appeared in radio shows, is a vehicle to deliver advertising to a wide audience.

The audience simply represents the targeted demographic that the advertisers are trying to reach.

 

You said it doesn't make sense and then made the same point.

They are in the business of selling ad space for as much as they can. The people buying the ad space are the true consumers. That's who the broadcasters care about the most. They care about entertaining us in the sense that higher rating bring more advertising revenue. I think that's a relevant point in a discussion like this.

 

I think the Internet is a huge part of why journalism has declined. Without public funding, they're being placed in direct competition with Alex Jones and David Icke... so Lizard People and the verge of tyranny are given the same degree of attention as Syria.

The idea that people are more about conformity nowadays is absolutely ridiculously backwards and insane. People are more narcissistic and are more likely to trust their own gut impulses, so whatever makes them feel the strongest feelings (usually outrage and paranoia) will always win out over something asking them to calm down and think about things rationally.

I see so much bullshit floating around about 'sheep' and 'being redpilled' (knowing the truth) that it's insane... there can be no rational discourse when everyone is convinced that they know the whole truth and everything the other side says is a lie. People aren't even listening to each other, they're just waiting for the next excuse to express outrage and indignation at what the other side just did.

 

The medium is the message. =Marshall Mcluhan.

That it is in homes universally, means to me that whatever the powers that be want on TV--will be on TV. Buy more. Buy more now.

 

It is all about the paid for commercials....Nothing more, nothing less. I think it always has been though.

 

A business makes money by selling product to the paying customers.
A TV station gets its money from the advertisers, therefore advertisers are the customers.

The price it charges its customer depends on the number of people viewing (Super Bowl ads cost a lot because there are lots of viewers), therefore the viewers are the product.

The content of the show is the way that the station makes (gets) product (viewers) to sell to the customer (advertiser), the content is not the product, its a tool to make product.

 

which is of course, precisely why the majority of its content is pure crap.

the last time tv was 'cutting edge' of anything, was before the commercial advertisement on television was invented, and the was before i was born, and i was born in 1948.