The groundwork is laid. Television before 1971.
We should look briefly at the remarkable things that took place, virtually in our own living rooms.
- We watched men strap tons of rocket propellant to their backs and fly into space.
- We watched the President of the United States gunned down in the street.
- We watched Sen. Robert Kennedy die on the floor, shot in the head.
- We watched Dr. Martin Luther King march for freedom and die for the cause.
- We watched the horrors of war–our sons and brothers dying in Viet Nam.
- We watched mankind’s first steps on the moon.
- We watched our President resign from office.
Question: In which of the above did we, as an audience, have our thoughts and emotions influenced?
Answer: Every one of them. With the list items that are tragic, the simple facts alone were enough to sway us and make us feel a certain way. And perhaps change our way of thinking abut some of the important issues. Coverage of the items not pertaining to murdering our statesmen carried an agenda and there was a designed influence built into the stories. The point is: All incoming information has the ability to sway us. The only way we are not influenced is by not watching. We apologize for the trick question.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s television was transformed. Color TV made for a richer visual experience and the first iterations of graphics made the news more entertaining. With a moderate number of exceptions, we were not commonly being misled by TV news. What about the entertainment side of TV programming? Were there any agendas at play? We are glad you asked. Buckle up.
Rule #1: Nothing is ever on your TV Screen by Accident. Nothing.
That is the first step in understanding television. If something is shown on TV, it is intentional. The accidental broadcast of an image is so rare, we should simply ignore the possibility that it was indeed an accident. All shows, especially entertainment shows, were and are exhaustively vetted.
Once a person understands that nothing is ever shown by accident, it forever changes the way they react to television broadcasts. And you must truly understand this rule if you are to ever become savvy to the media.
We need to examine an example that is easily exposed and obvious. A fun example is the Carol Burnett Show, 1967-1978, reruns of which are still being shown. It was a variety show with emphasis on sketch comedy. The production values were top-notch.
Every Carol Burnett Show, had several instances where one of the cast members breaks composure, unable to keep a straight face. Often, that cast member would succumb to a fit of giggles. The viewing audience loved these interludes of lost composure. Or at least we think they did. We heard sounds of mass laughter, supposedly coming from a live studio audience. When these shows were originally broadcast just once a week, that 167-hour time interval helped disguise the actual planned nature of these faux breakups. Typically, the camera zooms in for a close-up of the cast member “struggling” to maintain composure. It begs the question; “How did the camera operator know in advance when to zoom?” Another point: The funniest sketches, on their own merits, e.g. “Eunice and Mama visit Mickey’s Apartment” had few, if any moments of lost composure. Those droll sketches needed less help.
If one watches four or five Carol Burnett Shows back-to-back, the staged nature of these giggly “break ups” makes them predictable and unfunny. We were being entertained. We were being played in a benign way.
Apologies for ruining the Carol Burnett Show for those who used to think it was funny.
It is the nature of TV that all viewers are manipulated by all shows. Knowing you are being manipulated leads to sanity–and far less watching of TV.
Bonanza The Western with a social conscience. They ignored black issues and made fun of the Chinese cook. Perhaps we were supposed to interpret their fair treatment of Native Americans as a metaphor for the country’s civil rights inequities?
The Networks Studied their Audience — and Got Straight ‘A’s
By 1971, the TV networks had spent enormous amounts of time and money analyzing their products. The effort and payoff for that effort was extraordinary. The Networks knew their audience far better than their audience knew themselves.