Television, Cable, and Democracy

image
TV AND DEMOCRACY The first televised presidential debates took place in 1960, pitting Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy against Vice President Richard Nixon. Don Hewitt, who later created the long-running TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes, directed the first debate and has argued that the TV makeup that Nixon turned down would have helped create a better appearance alongside that of his tanned opponent. In fact, one study at the time reported that a majority of radio listeners thought Nixon won the first debate while the majority of TV viewers believed Kennedy won.

In the 1950s, television’s appearance significantly changed the media landscape—particularly the radio and magazine industries, both of which had to cultivate specialized audiences and markets to survive. In its heyday, television carried the egalitarian promise that it could bypass traditional print literacy and reach all segments of society. This promise was reenergized in the 1970s when cable-access channels gave local communities the chance to create their own TV programming. In such a heterogeneous and diverse nation, the concept of a visual, affordable mass medium, giving citizens entertainment and information that they could all talk about the next day, held great appeal. However, since its creation, commercial television has tended to serve the interests of profit more often than those of democracy. Despite this, television remains the main storytelling medium of our time.

233

The development of cable, VCRs and DVD players, DVRs, the Internet, and smartphone services has fragmented television’s audience by appealing to viewers’ individual and special needs. These changes and services, by providing more specialized and individual choices, also alter television’s former role as a national unifying cultural force, potentially de-emphasizing the idea that we are all citizens who are part of a larger nation and world. Moreover, many cable channels survive mostly by recycling old television shows and movies. Although cable is creating more and more original quality programming, it hasn’t fully become an alternative to traditional broadcasting. In fact, given that the television networks and many leading cable channels are now owned by the same media conglomerates, cable has evolved into something of an extension of the networks. And even though cable audiences are growing and network viewership is contracting, the division between the two is blurring. For years now, new generations that grow up on cable and the Internet rarely make a distinction between a broadcast network and a cable service. In addition, iPods, iPads, smartphones, and Internet services that now offer or create our favorite “TV” programs are breaking down the distinctions between mobile devices and TV screens. Today, the promise that cable once offered as a place for alternative programming and noncommercial voices is now usurped by the Internet, where all kinds of TV experiments are under way.

“Those who complain about a lack of community among television viewers might pay attention to the vitality and interaction of TV sports watchers wherever they assemble.”

BARBRA MORRIS, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1997

The bottom line is that television, despite the audience fragmentation, still provides a gathering place for friends and family at the same time that it provides access anywhere to a favorite show. Like all media forms before it, television is adapting to changing technology and shifting economics. As the technology becomes more portable and personal, TV-related industries continue to search for less expensive ways to produce stories and more channels on which to deliver them. But what will remain common ground on this shifting terrain is that television continues as our nation’s chief storyteller, whether those stories come in the form of news bulletins, sporting events, cable dramas, or network sitcoms. image