A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Television as a Cultural Dialogue - for Comm 138A
What is the purpose of television in American society? Is it the proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue?
The purpose of American television in society is to educate the public and provide entertainment for people of all ages and cultural backgrounds. In the 1960s and 1970s, the second part of this purpose was struggling to succeed. In the 1970s, television became much more focused on demographics and the kind of people that are watching certain programs as opposed to the number of people watching television. For many years, the target audience was white youths, which meant that minorities and the elderly were the last people on executives' minds when they are deciding which content to show on their network. As the decades passed, slowly but surely, network executives worked to make sure that television content reflected the diverse audiences that wanted to watch television. With that being said, there is still much work to be done to create shows that feature characters and storylines from all walks of life, but significant progress has been made since the 1970s. I do not know if television is the proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue, because television seems to mimic what it sees in society rather than there being constant communication between the creators and the people watching. However, I definitely see television as a tool for cultural commentary. People like Jon Stewart utilized the medium of television to make scathing critiques of the American news TV channels and pointed out the hypocrisies in U.S. politics and culture. Storylines on television tend to mirror current events, such as feminism, the relationship between police and racial minorities and terrorism.
I think, personally, that my own model for television is grounded in the cultural sort of role that entertainment plays, as well the textual content analysis that we have come to utilize. Given this model for television, I think its important to focus on the collective cultural view of our social construction of reality (Hey COMM 2 knowledge coming in clutch!)and what we negotiate in our readings of reality, at least in terms of what we consider to be a dominant narrative in society. It is pretty obvious that television is somewhat central to the sort of public consensus that we derive from dominant narratives in society, and in a sense, has replaced a lot of the other mediums people have relied on in the past to understand the aforementioned narratives being promoted in society. With that being said, it is certainly a proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue. Television has saturated American society, and given it's prevalence, we have no choice but to utilize it as a means of constructing various social narratives and later deconstruct them through our daily consumption. To not use television media as a means of creating critical cultural dialogue would be like having oars in your boat and choosing simply not to use them because it might cause ripples in the water. It would be foolish to not use such a tremendous resource that we have readily available to us simply because it might interrupt the entertainment value of television.
In my opinion, I think that television has played a huge role in American society. With it's role as a provider of entertainment, it has this astounding ability to create cultural norms and challenge and break them unlike any other medium can. It is because of this unique role and position that it holds, yes, i do believe that it is a proper forum for this kind of dialogue. Television has reached such a large audience and because of its continued and serial nature, it has the ability to start the dialogue and keep pushing it week after week. In addition, TV is where they take more risks right? Therefore, it would be easier for those bigwigs to allow for riskier things and actually allowing for these issues to be discussed without fear that they are not going to earn money. It would be ridiculous to not use Television to discuss these important dialogues.
I think television's primary purpose is to provide whatever content viewers want. While I could make an ethical argument about what kinds of television "should" or "should not" be broadcast, I don't think this is the correct approach. Viewers have different preferences in programming, and along with that, everyone wants something different out of their television viewing experience. For example, I primarily watch television as a source of entertainment, while my mother prefers to use television as a source of information. Because of this difference between us, we watch very different shows. Most of what I watch is fiction, usually sitcoms. On the other hand, my mother watches a lot of television news and documentaries. We have differing beliefs about the primary purpose of the medium, because I think that watching TV news is antiquated in the Internet age, but my mother thinks that I an wasting time watching mindless fiction when I could be gaining knowledge. In the end, neither of us is right; television can serve many purposes, and there isn't a singular "correct" purpose. That being said, I am open to any methods of creating and fostering necessary cultural dialogues. There are pros and cons to using any medium for this purpose, and television certainly is no exception. One of the major benefits for using TV to open up discussion is the massive reach that it has. Television shows often have millions of viewers watching each episode, so a show can communicate an idea to a massive audience all at once. On the other hand though, television is inherently a one-sided medium. Viewers watching a show at home have no method of communicating with the person or people they see on-screen, which makes it impossible to have a dialogue. Dialogue requires communication and listening from both parties. So, while television is great for spreading ideas and possibly sparking a widespread conversation involving viewers and their own social circles, it is impossible to have a true dialogue because the conversation is completely one-sided.
I think that television has many different purposes in American society. Mostly, people turn to it for entertainment and a way to relax while still consuming some sort of media. It also provides an outlet for people of all ages. Shows for kids, teens, and adults all exist. Television shapes our minds at each of these ages and teaches us a lot about American culture and norms. Shows now also reach a ridiculous number of people worldwide diversifying its audience. As television has produced and grown up with this global society, we see a shift in who and what is portrayed in television and how it is received by people worldwide. Television today gives us the ability to have easy conversation about topics that would’ve created a lot of unrest when it was first developing. I think televisions cultural impact is unmatched and it will continue to teach and entertain people for centuries to come.
To me, television has many purposes. Although I do strongly believe that television is constructed for entertainment reasons and essentially just to make money, I also do see a huge cultural aspect in the creation of it as well. I see this being both good and bad. In one way, it can play this one-sided view on an issue. We see certain networks or television shows that have strong beliefs to one side of an issue and maybe play out and discuss the issue unfairly. However, I think the shows that do play out critical issues in a good manner highly outweigh the shows that do not. The main show that comes to mind for me is a show like Grey's Anatomy. Shonda Rhimes does a great job at discussing an issue and showing characters who differ on the issue, this presenting us with both sides of the argument. I think all the cultural issues that are discussing on that show are done in a really good manner. It sparks discussion on the issue without creating a violent uproar (for the most part). Television and society have this interesting relationship that play off of each other. Television mimics society in the cultural issues that we are currently concerned with, where society also uses television is be caught up in cultural issues and see new ways of thinking about each issue. I see this as a huge benefit as long as the issues are well represented.
I believe that television serves an entertainment purpose and a communication method to relay information to the masses. In American society it depicts different aspects of our culture whether it be something like Duck Dynasty, or House Hunters, every show has its own way of portraying a specific sliver of America. But obviously people will only watch things that are appealing to them so the boring aspects of life in America, or difficult topics may not always be displayed in a television program.
I think TV is a good forum to introduce critical cultural issues, but I am not sure if makes for much of a dialogue since people tend to discuss it with their friends, family and close community. This often causes people to surround themselves with like-minded people who would most likely have similar opinions to contribute to an ongoing dialogue. It is positive for television to act as a forum to introduce critical cultural issues because it causes people to sometimes see things that they don't normally elect to see or would enjoy seeing, but since people can curate the types of shows and channels they watch on television, they often end up staying within their comfort zone.
From a purely economic standpoint, the purpose of television as an entertainment industry is to make money. Television is a way for sponsors to advertise themselves and sell their products and services, and it is a way for networks and actors to sell their brands and identities for profit and wide recognition. At the same time, I also see television as a tool for communication. Whether it is a network communicating its brand to appeal to mass audiences, or a content creator intent on sparking dialogue about important social issues, television is a medium that feeds its viewers information in a singular direction. The television broadcasts its programming, and viewers consume it from the comfort of their living rooms (or, now, their laptops in their bedrooms). However, this isn’t to say that audiences cannot control or change television. As the use of quality demographics rose in the 1960s through 70s, it can be said that television reacted to its changing viewership, thus forming a cycle of interactive change between viewer and content, content and viewer.
But one argument that I do not want to completely side with is that television is wholly a forum for cultural dialogue. If we simply look at the demographics of the people who are in the TV industry and the content of the shows in America from television’s birth to last night’s re-runs, it is more than obvious that the actual culture of America has not been represented entirely fairly or accurately at all. Although East Side/West Side sparked immense dialogue about social issues about civil rights and racism in the country, television as a whole has largely neglected the many cultures that the U.S. is comprised of (I’m talking about the representation of minorities). Television has mainly portrayed the “ideal” American society that it serves (white, middle-class, etc.) and dialogues about portraying minorities (especially race and sexual orientation) are only now surfacing more prominently.
Yes, TV reflects the culture of the times, but I don’t think it creates a very deep or profound cultural dialogue. When I think about the term “dialogue” I think about a two sided discussion, and I don’t think that TV really creates a very profound conversation like that of books, art, or other media. Because TV always has to keep ratings in mind, any type of cultural dialogue has to be subdued enough so that a show is appropriate for mass audiences, and has mass appeal. I just don’t think that a cultural dialogue happens on TV because there aren’t enough voices and opinions in the creation of the shows…it is just a few producers and studios controlling everything. And, if something creates too much dialogue, they can just change the plot of the show or cancel it.
TV’s purpose is to entertain, thus I think it is interesting to examine TV and think about what people find entertaining at the time, and why. For example, if a person from another planet has no idea what is happening in the U.S. during 2016 and turns on the TV, they might assume that everyone is either a doctor, an FBI agent, or a politician, because a disproportionate amount of TV shows depict people in those professions. They also might think that we have a weird obsession with rape, incest, and murder from shows like Law and Order SVU. This may be true, and I think it is worth thinking about and discussing, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that these shows are creating much of a dialogue, or changing people’s opinions and behaviors.
TV started as another form of entertainment. And although it still serves that purpose today, the way we consume and interact with TV has changed drastically since its beginnings. When TV started, even the creators themselves had no idea what the medium would be capable of, but it has proven to be an accessible and vast form of communication. Because TV reaches so many households, hotel rooms, and dentist offices, content creators have a responsibility to produce a message worth listening to. Shows like East Side, West Side (even if only on for one season) proved that people care about what, and whom, they are watching. With the growth of social media, audiences now have a voice that they've never had before. Just within the past couple years, Hulu brought back the Mindy Project when Fox canceled it because they saw how many people tweeted that they wanted the show to continue. And thanks to that, we have a woman of color continuing to write, produce, and star in her own TV series. So although television began and continues to be a form of entertainment, it is also inevitably the vessel through which people can have critical discussions about cultural and/or political issues.
At it's core, television is supposed to be lucrative. Creators want to make money, as we discussed during the first week of class. For consumers, the point of television is entertainment. But people don't just tune in to TV for the sole purpose of entertainment. Children are able to watch PBS and learn basic things like numbers and the alphabet. Cooking shows teach household cooks how to make quality meals. The nightly news helps educate people who may not have access to a newspaper or the internet. Entertainment is the common denominator in these situations, but there are dual purposes to a lot of television shows. However, most television shows need to be good for people to watch them. They often come with a message, some takeaway point that audiences remember, but that's more of an expectation than a purpose.
I believe society greatly influences the content on television (tv can also influence society as well). I definitely think it's the proper forum for critical cultural dialogue. I remember watching the documentary "6 Days to Air" over and over again after it came out because I was so fascinated by it. The documentary details the process Trey Parker and Matt Stone go through to write every South Park episode. They start from scratch on day one, sometimes not having a complete storyline the end of the day. Day six, they get the finished product to the studio hours before it's supposed to air, then take a day off and do it all again the next week. This process is insane and is probably speeding up their aging process, but it amplifies the impact television can have. The week Donald Trump announced his presidency, Parker and Stone could have an episode out on Trump in less than two weeks. Since television takes much less time to produce and develop, it can "keep up with the times." Almost every person with a computer or television watches TV to some extent. Why not give it a purpose besides entertainment? Even if you don't go in with the purpose of starting a dialogue as a viewer, that may happen anyway, which isn't such a bad thing.
Television plays a huge role in American society. The first role that comes to mind is of course entertainment. Shows like Star Trek and Doctor Who are fun and feature great storytelling while today shows like American Horror Story, The Flash, Supergirl, and The Walking Dead have now taken up those spaces as television's top shows. On the flip side, the second role that television plays is education. As a kid I remember watching Sesame Street to learn letters and colors. Shows like Dora the Explorer and Little Einstein's teach kids while there's documentaries on channels like Discovery Channel and History Channel that teach history and science to a more grown-up audience. In a mix of these two, that's where the forum for critical cultural dialogue comes in. Shows like South Park and the Daily Show with Trevor Noah are able to address current and pressing events while shows like Supergirl, The Flash, Brooklyn Nine Nine, and The Walking Dead showcase strong female and gay characters which are evidence of the changing entertainment landscape. Whether or not it's the proper forum I don't think I can say but I do think it is a good forum.
Television in our society today is very important. There are three primary roles it plays; informative, entertainment, and educational. Television has a very strong sense of informative channels, like any form a news keeps us in the known around the world. Sportscenter informs us about the sports world, the local news keeps us up to date with activity in our local town, and CNN can inform us of events that are happening all around the world. That is just a few lists for information. Then television can be entertaining with shows like How I Met Your Mother or Orange Is The New Black, the range is unimaginable. Television can fit anyones personal likes. Lastly, entertainment, kids can grow up watching Sesame Street being entertained and at the same time learning. Other shows can teach adults how to cook or handy work around the house. The list just does not stop. Today this is a proper forum because of the positives it offer and being in majority of the homes today.
I think television today is used for many different reasons. First and foremost, I think it is used to entertain people, and to make money. I want to say it is for educational purposes, however the most popular shows that come on are usually crap and done just to make money. In the last couple of years, some of the dumb shows that have flourished are "Keeping up with the Kardashians", "Jersey Shore", and "Real Housewives". These are some of the shows in which my generation has watched, and have continued to watch because of pure entertainment. And reasonably, the producers continue to produce because it is making them money and doing so in a rapid manner. The other side of the spectrum, TV is also used for educational purposes. I think the news and shows in which give us information/knowledge on the world can be very helpful and useful to know what's going on. However, I personally believe that the main priority is to entertain the consumer, and make money for the producer. Personally, I think this forum is a culturally critical. I think it shows both sides and also gives benefits and negatives to both.
More often than not we see television as a means of entertaining the public. But beyond that, it is a medium through which our values as Americans are influenced and reinforced. Television tells us what's considered "cool" in fashion, technology, etc., building a reliance on consumerism and materialism. Its involvement in presidential election campaigns often serves as a huge influence on the campaigns' successes and failures. It can teach younger children basic academics or social norms in an engaging way, and adults what the best food to cook for dinner is today. Its uses are broad, but its end goal is to convince you of something. Maybe there was an important social commentary about racial tensions it wanted you to empathize with, or maybe it was telling you that the key to happiness is buying a Rolls Royce. With so many shows being mass-produced today, television aims to hit every profitable niche and demographic possible and cater to their entertainment needs--to do so, this messaging needs to be continuously re-purposed and re-tailored.
However, as streaming services emerge and use of social media continues to climb, one might argue that the cultural value of traditional television is on the decline. I disagree. I believe television remains an immensely powerful tool of communication. In an increasingly fast-paced American society, being able to connect with your audience quickly and produce easily-absorbed content is needed to make an immediate impact. Whether it's an advertisement for a clean water non-profit, or a feature-length film, you must be able to weave together a message or story arch into a very limited timeframe. People nowadays are more receptive to this kind of visual communication so I still believe film is one of the most powerful mediums we have for initiating cultural dialogue. However, as others have mentioned above me, that's really where it ends--it's a way to get the conversation started, but at the end of the day, you're not having a dialogue with your favorite television show. The relationship there is very one-sided. Instead, it can influence and encourage you to have that critical dialogue with your peers and address issues head on, rather than being completely passive about ongoing issues.
I do think that television is the proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue but that is not what we are currently seeing. I believe there is a potential for that dialogue to become more critical but the lucrative side of television has pushed non-critical entertainment instead. For the most part, people go to television to be entertained, to escape into another world, and not deal with the harsh realities of society. That is why ratings for sitcoms often are better than things like a presidential speech. There are almost two sides to this. One is popular non-critical entertainment, and the other is the less popular critical dialogue and discussion. Because TV has money as the main goal, it won't take a risk on societal advancement if it means shareholders getting upset. The key to making them both work at the same time is by integrating cultural critiques into successful programming in a way that is entertaining. If it's not entertaining, you lose the audience immediately, especially the those you want to educate. It's difficult because you essentially have to show programming that is so good that even people who don't agree with the critique will still watch it.
Television has many purposes in American society. For one, it informs the public on important and breaking stories and issues via the news, talk shows, etc. One can argue that the Internet is rapidly taking TV's place in this role, but millions of Americans still watch the 5:00 news, for example. It gives voices to various communities that may have a hard time being accurately depicted otherwise, such as the transgender community through shows like "I am Cait" and "Transparent." Another important purpose of television is that it entertains people in amazing and increasingly diverse ways. Real life can be tough at times, and TV can provide a bit of solace and escape, if only for an hour or two at a time. It can make us laugh, cry, scream, and experience the full range of human emotions as we connect to characters on the screen. TV can also take us to locations we might not be able to visit in person. We are able to experience cultures and peoples that some people can only dream about, which is extremely important in creating a global community of unity and understanding. I believe television is definitely a proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue because there will always be shows that showcase relevant social issues that our society is going through at the time or has in the past. Take HBO's "The Wire" for an an example. It showed the horrible effects of the war on drugs in the Baltimore community, and also took on other issues such as the failure of the education system and the corruption of institutions, to name a few. TV can wrap these issues cleverly in gripping storylines and relatable characters, which prompts people to discuss them with each other on social media or around the dinner table.
The purpose of television in American society is to entertain and promote to make money for a living, but also to discuss current topics in the world. Actors, producers, directors and all others involved in the production of television shows are talented at what they do and they create this art for people at home to watch and be entertained by. Television shows can create this escape for viewers to be entranced in another time or world for 30 minutes to an hour. With viewers being so involved in "their shows" it opens a pathway for the writers to discuss real world situations that are currently happening and affecting the world or country. Its a way to physically show viewers what situations that are going on and the things that can happen from it. It can have the same affect on adults as educational shows do on children, obviously bigger topics.
I think television is the perfect forum for critical cultural dialogue but I think it has to be done in specific way. If something is being addressed on a sitcom, it could be presented differently than on a political talk show. It's easier to bring up something heavy in a light hearted way on a sitcom where as it's easier to address something serious or someone's personal account on a talk show. SVU and those kinds of shows do a good job of reflecting controversial current events in a fictional, non-threatening way. I also think netflix and hulu are good platforms for this kind of dialogue because of the absence of sponsors and other potential financial influences. They are able to share opinions without fear of harming a sponsor's image. These are also platforms that a lot of people access through there computers which I feel like is a place where people feel more comfortable receiving new or controversial messages. The End.
Previously posts have discussed at length how the purpose of American television is to make money. From a network perspective, I believe this is true. But from a creative standpoint, the creative minds behind many television shows may have a different motive. Though they may seek to make television a place for critical cultural dialogue, it may not be the best place. I personally do not believe television is a proper place for cultural dialogue because of the direct involvement networks have on content. These networks have obligations to shareholders and sponsors, not the truth or this said cultural dialogue. GIven the large financial burden television producers and networks incur, it is incredibly hard for them to remain true to the cultural dialogue they are triyng to communicate. Although, perhaps a network like PBS with a mandate for education rather than profit, could be an appropriate place.
20 comments:
The purpose of American television in society is to educate the public and provide entertainment for people of all ages and cultural backgrounds. In the 1960s and 1970s, the second part of this purpose was struggling to succeed. In the 1970s, television became much more focused on demographics and the kind of people that are watching certain programs as opposed to the number of people watching television. For many years, the target audience was white youths, which meant that minorities and the elderly were the last people on executives' minds when they are deciding which content to show on their network. As the decades passed, slowly but surely, network executives worked to make sure that television content reflected the diverse audiences that wanted to watch television. With that being said, there is still much work to be done to create shows that feature characters and storylines from all walks of life, but significant progress has been made since the 1970s. I do not know if television is the proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue, because television seems to mimic what it sees in society rather than there being constant communication between the creators and the people watching. However, I definitely see television as a tool for cultural commentary. People like Jon Stewart utilized the medium of television to make scathing critiques of the American news TV channels and pointed out the hypocrisies in U.S. politics and culture. Storylines on television tend to mirror current events, such as feminism, the relationship between police and racial minorities and terrorism.
I think, personally, that my own model for television is grounded in the cultural sort of role that entertainment plays, as well the textual content analysis that we have come to utilize. Given this model for television, I think its important to focus on the collective cultural view of our social construction of reality (Hey COMM 2 knowledge coming in clutch!)and what we negotiate in our readings of reality, at least in terms of what we consider to be a dominant narrative in society. It is pretty obvious that television is somewhat central to the sort of public consensus that we derive from dominant narratives in society, and in a sense, has replaced a lot of the other mediums people have relied on in the past to understand the aforementioned narratives being promoted in society. With that being said, it is certainly a proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue. Television has saturated American society, and given it's prevalence, we have no choice but to utilize it as a means of constructing various social narratives and later deconstruct them through our daily consumption. To not use television media as a means of creating critical cultural dialogue would be like having oars in your boat and choosing simply not to use them because it might cause ripples in the water. It would be foolish to not use such a tremendous resource that we have readily available to us simply because it might interrupt the entertainment value of television.
In my opinion, I think that television has played a huge role in American society. With it's role as a provider of entertainment, it has this astounding ability to create cultural norms and challenge and break them unlike any other medium can. It is because of this unique role and position that it holds, yes, i do believe that it is a proper forum for this kind of dialogue. Television has reached such a large audience and because of its continued and serial nature, it has the ability to start the dialogue and keep pushing it week after week. In addition, TV is where they take more risks right? Therefore, it would be easier for those bigwigs to allow for riskier things and actually allowing for these issues to be discussed without fear that they are not going to earn money. It would be ridiculous to not use Television to discuss these important dialogues.
I think television's primary purpose is to provide whatever content viewers want. While I could make an ethical argument about what kinds of television "should" or "should not" be broadcast, I don't think this is the correct approach. Viewers have different preferences in programming, and along with that, everyone wants something different out of their television viewing experience. For example, I primarily watch television as a source of entertainment, while my mother prefers to use television as a source of information. Because of this difference between us, we watch very different shows. Most of what I watch is fiction, usually sitcoms. On the other hand, my mother watches a lot of television news and documentaries. We have differing beliefs about the primary purpose of the medium, because I think that watching TV news is antiquated in the Internet age, but my mother thinks that I an wasting time watching mindless fiction when I could be gaining knowledge. In the end, neither of us is right; television can serve many purposes, and there isn't a singular "correct" purpose.
That being said, I am open to any methods of creating and fostering necessary cultural dialogues. There are pros and cons to using any medium for this purpose, and television certainly is no exception. One of the major benefits for using TV to open up discussion is the massive reach that it has. Television shows often have millions of viewers watching each episode, so a show can communicate an idea to a massive audience all at once. On the other hand though, television is inherently a one-sided medium. Viewers watching a show at home have no method of communicating with the person or people they see on-screen, which makes it impossible to have a dialogue. Dialogue requires communication and listening from both parties. So, while television is great for spreading ideas and possibly sparking a widespread conversation involving viewers and their own social circles, it is impossible to have a true dialogue because the conversation is completely one-sided.
I think that television has many different purposes in American society. Mostly, people turn to it for entertainment and a way to relax while still consuming some sort of media. It also provides an outlet for people of all ages. Shows for kids, teens, and adults all exist. Television shapes our minds at each of these ages and teaches us a lot about American culture and norms. Shows now also reach a ridiculous number of people worldwide diversifying its audience. As television has produced and grown up with this global society, we see a shift in who and what is portrayed in television and how it is received by people worldwide. Television today gives us the ability to have easy conversation about topics that would’ve created a lot of unrest when it was first developing. I think televisions cultural impact is unmatched and it will continue to teach and entertain people for centuries to come.
To me, television has many purposes. Although I do strongly believe that television is constructed for entertainment reasons and essentially just to make money, I also do see a huge cultural aspect in the creation of it as well. I see this being both good and bad.
In one way, it can play this one-sided view on an issue. We see certain networks or television shows that have strong beliefs to one side of an issue and maybe play out and discuss the issue unfairly.
However, I think the shows that do play out critical issues in a good manner highly outweigh the shows that do not. The main show that comes to mind for me is a show like Grey's Anatomy. Shonda Rhimes does a great job at discussing an issue and showing characters who differ on the issue, this presenting us with both sides of the argument. I think all the cultural issues that are discussing on that show are done in a really good manner. It sparks discussion on the issue without creating a violent uproar (for the most part).
Television and society have this interesting relationship that play off of each other. Television mimics society in the cultural issues that we are currently concerned with, where society also uses television is be caught up in cultural issues and see new ways of thinking about each issue. I see this as a huge benefit as long as the issues are well represented.
I believe that television serves an entertainment purpose and a communication method to relay information to the masses. In American society it depicts different aspects of our culture whether it be something like Duck Dynasty, or House Hunters, every show has its own way of portraying a specific sliver of America. But obviously people will only watch things that are appealing to them so the boring aspects of life in America, or difficult topics may not always be displayed in a television program.
I think TV is a good forum to introduce critical cultural issues, but I am not sure if makes for much of a dialogue since people tend to discuss it with their friends, family and close community. This often causes people to surround themselves with like-minded people who would most likely have similar opinions to contribute to an ongoing dialogue. It is positive for television to act as a forum to introduce critical cultural issues because it causes people to sometimes see things that they don't normally elect to see or would enjoy seeing, but since people can curate the types of shows and channels they watch on television, they often end up staying within their comfort zone.
From a purely economic standpoint, the purpose of television as an entertainment industry is to make money. Television is a way for sponsors to advertise themselves and sell their products and services, and it is a way for networks and actors to sell their brands and identities for profit and wide recognition. At the same time, I also see television as a tool for communication. Whether it is a network communicating its brand to appeal to mass audiences, or a content creator intent on sparking dialogue about important social issues, television is a medium that feeds its viewers information in a singular direction. The television broadcasts its programming, and viewers consume it from the comfort of their living rooms (or, now, their laptops in their bedrooms). However, this isn’t to say that audiences cannot control or change television. As the use of quality demographics rose in the 1960s through 70s, it can be said that television reacted to its changing viewership, thus forming a cycle of interactive change between viewer and content, content and viewer.
But one argument that I do not want to completely side with is that television is wholly a forum for cultural dialogue. If we simply look at the demographics of the people who are in the TV industry and the content of the shows in America from television’s birth to last night’s re-runs, it is more than obvious that the actual culture of America has not been represented entirely fairly or accurately at all. Although East Side/West Side sparked immense dialogue about social issues about civil rights and racism in the country, television as a whole has largely neglected the many cultures that the U.S. is comprised of (I’m talking about the representation of minorities). Television has mainly portrayed the “ideal” American society that it serves (white, middle-class, etc.) and dialogues about portraying minorities (especially race and sexual orientation) are only now surfacing more prominently.
Yes, TV reflects the culture of the times, but I don’t think it creates a very deep or profound cultural dialogue. When I think about the term “dialogue” I think about a two sided discussion, and I don’t think that TV really creates a very profound conversation like that of books, art, or other media. Because TV always has to keep ratings in mind, any type of cultural dialogue has to be subdued enough so that a show is appropriate for mass audiences, and has mass appeal. I just don’t think that a cultural dialogue happens on TV because there aren’t enough voices and opinions in the creation of the shows…it is just a few producers and studios controlling everything. And, if something creates too much dialogue, they can just change the plot of the show or cancel it.
TV’s purpose is to entertain, thus I think it is interesting to examine TV and think about what people find entertaining at the time, and why. For example, if a person from another planet has no idea what is happening in the U.S. during 2016 and turns on the TV, they might assume that everyone is either a doctor, an FBI agent, or a politician, because a disproportionate amount of TV shows depict people in those professions. They also might think that we have a weird obsession with rape, incest, and murder from shows like Law and Order SVU. This may be true, and I think it is worth thinking about and discussing, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that these shows are creating much of a dialogue, or changing people’s opinions and behaviors.
TV started as another form of entertainment. And although it still serves that purpose today, the way we consume and interact with TV has changed drastically since its beginnings. When TV started, even the creators themselves had no idea what the medium would be capable of, but it has proven to be an accessible and vast form of communication. Because TV reaches so many households, hotel rooms, and dentist offices, content creators have a responsibility to produce a message worth listening to. Shows like East Side, West Side (even if only on for one season) proved that people care about what, and whom, they are watching. With the growth of social media, audiences now have a voice that they've never had before. Just within the past couple years, Hulu brought back the Mindy Project when Fox canceled it because they saw how many people tweeted that they wanted the show to continue. And thanks to that, we have a woman of color continuing to write, produce, and star in her own TV series. So although television began and continues to be a form of entertainment, it is also inevitably the vessel through which people can have critical discussions about cultural and/or political issues.
At it's core, television is supposed to be lucrative. Creators want to make money, as we discussed during the first week of class. For consumers, the point of television is entertainment. But people don't just tune in to TV for the sole purpose of entertainment. Children are able to watch PBS and learn basic things like numbers and the alphabet. Cooking shows teach household cooks how to make quality meals. The nightly news helps educate people who may not have access to a newspaper or the internet. Entertainment is the common denominator in these situations, but there are dual purposes to a lot of television shows. However, most television shows need to be good for people to watch them. They often come with a message, some takeaway point that audiences remember, but that's more of an expectation than a purpose.
I believe society greatly influences the content on television (tv can also influence society as well). I definitely think it's the proper forum for critical cultural dialogue. I remember watching the documentary "6 Days to Air" over and over again after it came out because I was so fascinated by it. The documentary details the process Trey Parker and Matt Stone go through to write every South Park episode. They start from scratch on day one, sometimes not having a complete storyline the end of the day. Day six, they get the finished product to the studio hours before it's supposed to air, then take a day off and do it all again the next week. This process is insane and is probably speeding up their aging process, but it amplifies the impact television can have. The week Donald Trump announced his presidency, Parker and Stone could have an episode out on Trump in less than two weeks. Since television takes much less time to produce and develop, it can "keep up with the times." Almost every person with a computer or television watches TV to some extent. Why not give it a purpose besides entertainment? Even if you don't go in with the purpose of starting a dialogue as a viewer, that may happen anyway, which isn't such a bad thing.
Television plays a huge role in American society. The first role that comes to mind is of course entertainment. Shows like Star Trek and Doctor Who are fun and feature great storytelling while today shows like American Horror Story, The Flash, Supergirl, and The Walking Dead have now taken up those spaces as television's top shows. On the flip side, the second role that television plays is education. As a kid I remember watching Sesame Street to learn letters and colors. Shows like Dora the Explorer and Little Einstein's teach kids while there's documentaries on channels like Discovery Channel and History Channel that teach history and science to a more grown-up audience. In a mix of these two, that's where the forum for critical cultural dialogue comes in. Shows like South Park and the Daily Show with Trevor Noah are able to address current and pressing events while shows like Supergirl, The Flash, Brooklyn Nine Nine, and The Walking Dead showcase strong female and gay characters which are evidence of the changing entertainment landscape. Whether or not it's the proper forum I don't think I can say but I do think it is a good forum.
Television in our society today is very important. There are three primary roles it plays; informative, entertainment, and educational. Television has a very strong sense of informative channels, like any form a news keeps us in the known around the world. Sportscenter informs us about the sports world, the local news keeps us up to date with activity in our local town, and CNN can inform us of events that are happening all around the world. That is just a few lists for information. Then television can be entertaining with shows like How I Met Your Mother or Orange Is The New Black, the range is unimaginable. Television can fit anyones personal likes. Lastly, entertainment, kids can grow up watching Sesame Street being entertained and at the same time learning. Other shows can teach adults how to cook or handy work around the house. The list just does not stop. Today this is a proper forum because of the positives it offer and being in majority of the homes today.
I think television today is used for many different reasons. First and foremost, I think it is used to entertain people, and to make money. I want to say it is for educational purposes, however the most popular shows that come on are usually crap and done just to make money. In the last couple of years, some of the dumb shows that have flourished are "Keeping up with the Kardashians", "Jersey Shore", and "Real Housewives". These are some of the shows in which my generation has watched, and have continued to watch because of pure entertainment. And reasonably, the producers continue to produce because it is making them money and doing so in a rapid manner.
The other side of the spectrum, TV is also used for educational purposes. I think the news and shows in which give us information/knowledge on the world can be very helpful and useful to know what's going on. However, I personally believe that the main priority is to entertain the consumer, and make money for the producer.
Personally, I think this forum is a culturally critical. I think it shows both sides and also gives benefits and negatives to both.
More often than not we see television as a means of entertaining the public. But beyond that, it is a medium through which our values as Americans are influenced and reinforced. Television tells us what's considered "cool" in fashion, technology, etc., building a reliance on consumerism and materialism. Its involvement in presidential election campaigns often serves as a huge influence on the campaigns' successes and failures. It can teach younger children basic academics or social norms in an engaging way, and adults what the best food to cook for dinner is today. Its uses are broad, but its end goal is to convince you of something. Maybe there was an important social commentary about racial tensions it wanted you to empathize with, or maybe it was telling you that the key to happiness is buying a Rolls Royce. With so many shows being mass-produced today, television aims to hit every profitable niche and demographic possible and cater to their entertainment needs--to do so, this messaging needs to be continuously re-purposed and re-tailored.
However, as streaming services emerge and use of social media continues to climb, one might argue that the cultural value of traditional television is on the decline. I disagree. I believe television remains an immensely powerful tool of communication. In an increasingly fast-paced American society, being able to connect with your audience quickly and produce easily-absorbed content is needed to make an immediate impact. Whether it's an advertisement for a clean water non-profit, or a feature-length film, you must be able to weave together a message or story arch into a very limited timeframe. People nowadays are more receptive to this kind of visual communication so I still believe film is one of the most powerful mediums we have for initiating cultural dialogue. However, as others have mentioned above me, that's really where it ends--it's a way to get the conversation started, but at the end of the day, you're not having a dialogue with your favorite television show. The relationship there is very one-sided. Instead, it can influence and encourage you to have that critical dialogue with your peers and address issues head on, rather than being completely passive about ongoing issues.
I do think that television is the proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue but that is not what we are currently seeing. I believe there is a potential for that dialogue to become more critical but the lucrative side of television has pushed non-critical entertainment instead. For the most part, people go to television to be entertained, to escape into another world, and not deal with the harsh realities of society. That is why ratings for sitcoms often are better than things like a presidential speech. There are almost two sides to this. One is popular non-critical entertainment, and the other is the less popular critical dialogue and discussion. Because TV has money as the main goal, it won't take a risk on societal advancement if it means shareholders getting upset. The key to making them both work at the same time is by integrating cultural critiques into successful programming in a way that is entertaining. If it's not entertaining, you lose the audience immediately, especially the those you want to educate. It's difficult because you essentially have to show programming that is so good that even people who don't agree with the critique will still watch it.
Television has many purposes in American society. For one, it informs the public on important and breaking stories and issues via the news, talk shows, etc. One can argue that the Internet is rapidly taking TV's place in this role, but millions of Americans still watch the 5:00 news, for example. It gives voices to various communities that may have a hard time being accurately depicted otherwise, such as the transgender community through shows like "I am Cait" and "Transparent." Another important purpose of television is that it entertains people in amazing and increasingly diverse ways. Real life can be tough at times, and TV can provide a bit of solace and escape, if only for an hour or two at a time. It can make us laugh, cry, scream, and experience the full range of human emotions as we connect to characters on the screen. TV can also take us to locations we might not be able to visit in person. We are able to experience cultures and peoples that some people can only dream about, which is extremely important in creating a global community of unity and understanding. I believe television is definitely a proper forum for a critical cultural dialogue because there will always be shows that showcase relevant social issues that our society is going through at the time or has in the past. Take HBO's "The Wire" for an an example. It showed the horrible effects of the war on drugs in the Baltimore community, and also took on other issues such as the failure of the education system and the corruption of institutions, to name a few. TV can wrap these issues cleverly in gripping storylines and relatable characters, which prompts people to discuss them with each other on social media or around the dinner table.
The purpose of television in American society is to entertain and promote to make money for a living, but also to discuss current topics in the world. Actors, producers, directors and all others involved in the production of television shows are talented at what they do and they create this art for people at home to watch and be entertained by. Television shows can create this escape for viewers to be entranced in another time or world for 30 minutes to an hour. With viewers being so involved in "their shows" it opens a pathway for the writers to discuss real world situations that are currently happening and affecting the world or country. Its a way to physically show viewers what situations that are going on and the things that can happen from it. It can have the same affect on adults as educational shows do on children, obviously bigger topics.
I think television is the perfect forum for critical cultural dialogue but I think it has to be done in specific way. If something is being addressed on a sitcom, it could be presented differently than on a political talk show. It's easier to bring up something heavy in a light hearted way on a sitcom where as it's easier to address something serious or someone's personal account on a talk show. SVU and those kinds of shows do a good job of reflecting controversial current events in a fictional, non-threatening way.
I also think netflix and hulu are good platforms for this kind of dialogue because of the absence of sponsors and other potential financial influences. They are able to share opinions without fear of harming a sponsor's image. These are also platforms that a lot of people access through there computers which I feel like is a place where people feel more comfortable receiving new or controversial messages.
The End.
Previously posts have discussed at length how the purpose of American television is to make money. From a network perspective, I believe this is true. But from a creative standpoint, the creative minds behind many television shows may have a different motive. Though they may seek to make television a place for critical cultural dialogue, it may not be the best place. I personally do not believe television is a proper place for cultural dialogue because of the direct involvement networks have on content. These networks have obligations to shareholders and sponsors, not the truth or this said cultural dialogue. GIven the large financial burden television producers and networks incur, it is incredibly hard for them to remain true to the cultural dialogue they are triyng to communicate. Although, perhaps a network like PBS with a mandate for education rather than profit, could be an appropriate place.
Post a Comment