Extra Credit--Counts as TWO Blog Posts:
View one of the following films: Quiz Show (1994) OR Good Night, and Good Luck (2005). Both are available at Askwith Media Center or on reserve at the Donald Hall Collection.
Keeping in mind that both of these films offer fictionalized renderings of historical circumstances, write a minimum of 400 words explaining how either the quiz show scandals (as depicted by Quiz Show) or Edward R. Murrow’s exposé of McCarthyism (as portrayed in Good Night, and Good Luck) had political results during the 1950s and shifted ideas about the medium of television and its specific genres (quiz shows or news programs).
As portrayed in the George Clooney directed 2006 film Good Night and Good Luck, Edward R. Murrow’s crusade against the anti-communist inquisition led by Senator Joseph McCarthy began after he read a brief statement in a newspaper regarding the ousting of one Lieutenant Milo Radulovich from the Air Force. Stationed in a small Michigan town less than twenty miles from Ann Arbor, the Air Force found Radulovich was in violation of a draconian regulation numbered 35-62. This regulation declared that “A man may be regarded as a security risk if he has close and continuing associations with communists or people believed to have communist sympathies.” While the Lieutenant’s father did subscribe to a Serbian newspaper and his sister was a known supporter of liberal causes, the specific evidence used by his accusers was not made public, but kept sealed in a manila envelope. The show Murrow produces on the subject is very critical of the Air Force and Senator McCarthy’s criticism of the young lieutenant. This results in a very public feud between Murrow and the Senator.
ReplyDeleteMurrow’s subsequent media campaign against McCarthyism did have results. The Secretary of the Air Force eventually clears Lieuteant Radulovich of any wrongdoing and allows him to remain in the Air Force and McCarthy eventually becomes more infamous than famous. However, the reporter did suffer setbacks. His repeated controversial broadcasts drove away his primary sponsor, Alcoa, and CBS moved Murrow from his primetime slot to Sunday afternoons and greatly reduced the number of episodes it ordered. Murrow and his program may have been successful in diminishing the influence of a rogue politician, but it was more pyrrhic than complete.
Despite these consequences, Murrow’s broadcasts did fundamentally shift ideas about television and broadcast journalism. To put it succinctly, while Murrow was stemming the influence of McCarthy, he was building his own legacy.
Prior to these episodes of See It Now, broadcast journalism was mainly used to tell its audiences news stories and the format was not greatly editorialized—today it is greatly editorialized. Many news outlets today focus on framing stories so that it fits their predetermined political and ideological narrative. Perhaps more importantly, though, Murrow was one of the first broadcasters to believe that television was a medium that was well poised to be used as a tool for education and enlightenment rather than solely for entertainment.
Murrow believed television was not being adequately used and was not reaching its full potential. He was concerned that, as it stood then, television was “merely wires and lights in a box.” Perhaps today Murrow would be relieved to see that networks now broadcast documentaries alongside pop entertainment, but no doubt he would be disillusioned by what has become of broadcast journalism.
Part I
ReplyDeleteBased on Congressional lawyer Richard Goodwin’s memoir, Remembering America, the 1994 film, Quiz Show – directed and produced by Robert Redford – presents a semi-historical account of the quiz show scandals that would rock the foundation of television’s so-called “golden age” and precipitate the emergence of the “classic network system”.
Although, as many historians illustrate, the scandal implicated several shows – most notably The $64,000 Question, Tic Tac Dough, and Twenty-One – the picture focuses solely on the latter program, specifically: the rigged 1958 showdown between Herbert Stempel and Charles Van Doren. Infuriated at NBC producers for orchestrating his loss, an irate Stempel’s damning allegations set in motion a chain of events that would eventually result in hearings before the House Committee for Legislative Oversight, in which they investigated the integrity of this and other quiz shows.
Despite taking many liberties – condensing, generalizing, and sensationalizing certain aspects of the scandal – Redford’s film nevertheless presents a compelling glimpse into the behind-the-scenes collusion between networks and their sponsors as they sought to maximize suspense and ratings for these highly popular shows. That being said, contrary to what the film and most general histories lead one to believe, the quiz show – from its earliest radio days onward – had always been plagued by pervasive mistrust; however, it wouldn’t be until the late 1950s before the preponderance of contestant-coaching – such as the precise time and manner in which to bite one’s lip, mop one’s brow, and close one’s eyes – and use of pre-screened questions would come under intense public and governmental scrutiny (Hilmes, 211).
In the end, though Stempel and Van Doren’s testimony conceded their complicity in this elaborate rigging, all representatives of the networks, sponsors, and advertising agencies called before the committee refused to admit any wrongdoing, each placing the blame on the others’ shoulders. Thus, Redford’s film closes on a pessimistic note, the final scene depicting Goodwin looking on in stunned silence as the television producers implicate themselves as the sole architects of these crimes, effectively exempting both the networks and sponsors from any misdeeds. Indeed, the epilogue concludes, “Neither NBC nor Pharmaceuticals Inc., then owner of Geritol [Twenty-One’s sponsor] were ever implicated in the quiz show scandals.”
Part II
ReplyDeleteExpounding upon these facts, historian Michele Hilmes offers an even more nuanced analysis of this episode, steering beyond mere greed and corruption to what she deems the true catalyst behind the scandal – the escalating tensions between controlling sponsors, program producers, and the television networks. This industry conflict collided with several other matters of contention, mainly: the dashed hopes of intellectuals and critics, whose high expectations for the new medium – cultivated by Blue Book demands for “responsibility, innovation, and public accountability” (212) – were quickly quashed by commercialism and a damnable “Hollywood mindset;” and the sterling example set by British Independent Television (ITV), which, like its radio predecessor, separated commercial entities from show production, guaranteeing a system in which stations retained their autonomy and advertising was heavily restricted. In this manner, Hilmes observes, such a convergence of events essentially led to a perfect storm of epic proportions, one in which a seemingly innocuous issue – the rigging of a game show – garnered widespread and sensationalistic condemnation.
Perhaps the most compelling outcome of this scandal, however, lay outside of government convictions and FCC regulations. Although some producers were fined and several productions suspended, the networks managed to escape basically unscathed, an outcome Hilmes attributes to their impressive ability to “finesse” the investigative findings (213). Rather than perceiving the events as a liability, the networks used them as an asset, spinning the outcome in their favor as they sought to break free from sponsor-controlled programming. By shifting the blame onto corporations – such as Geritol – they were not only able to deny culpability, but also gained much-needed leverage in their attempt to seize back creative and regulatory power. Introducing a new and improved “magazine concept” that replaced single-sponsor monopolies with multiple “spot advertisements,” they promoted their new, hands-on role in programming and scheduling, ultimately ushering in the new era of the classic network system (213).
Such utopian ideals, however, would remain just that, and in the long run, although the multi-sponsor format would remain, commercialism and profit continue to be an integral structural element of contemporary network programming. Just as little substantive accountability had been achieved at the government-level, so too was there scant fundamental change in television’s capitalist endgame – merely a shift in control. Thus, the legacy of the quiz show scandals can be viewed as one of structural, rather than political, significance. Now all but forgotten, these infamous events remain the crucial impetus for the dawning of a new televisual – and commercial – age.
During the 1950s quiz shows were very popular in American prime time television. However, after the quiz show scandals broke, they were pulled from the air and did not return to television until recently. Each week, Americans would tune in to watch their fellow citizens compete for grand prizes, idolizing those who consistently won. This created a connection with the audience and America as a whole, who trusted in the quiz shows and its famous contestants. The film, Quiz Show unfolds the story behind the quiz show scandals, particularly of the show Twenty One, which depicts the producers giving the answers to the contestants, rigging the show and forcing certain contestants to either win or lose the game depending on the producers orders.
ReplyDeleteTwenty One was one of the most popular game shows of its time, with some of the most famous contestants, including Charles Van Doren, a regular contestant on the show and somewhat of an American celebrity at the time. With television becoming mainstream, people across the country tuned in each week to watch the magic of the guessing game. However, when information about the rigging and coaching behind the show Twenty One surfaced in a highly televised court case, audiences lost faith in the game shows and the magic of television as a medium quickly lost its sparkle. However, the good that came out of the scandals resulted in discussion over more regulation of television programs. Because the networks involved in the quiz show scandals denied any involvement or knowledge of the mishaps, regulations needed to be put in place in order to avoid any future scandals. In regards to shifting ideas about the quiz show genre, audiences were now skeptical of the truth and honesty behind production of the shows and immediately distrusted all aspects of the genre. The quiz show scandals proved to be detrimental to the genre and television medium as a whole because the trust audiences placed in television and quiz shows seemingly died. People no longer believed in the quiz shows, after seeing the falsities behind them. After believing in the reality of multiple different genres of television media, the fact that the quiz shows were not "real" left people with a negative attitude toward the medium. Overall, the quiz show scandals shifted audience views into a more negative light of television as a medium, however, the shortcomings of the shows opened dialogue for greater regulation of television production and ultimately its implementation.
In the movie, Quiz Show, directed and produced by Robert Redford portrays disgruntled former quiz show contestant Herbert Stempel and the members of the show that paid him off to intentionally get a question wrong. His foil throughout the movie, Charles Van Doren, is the one who defeats Stempel on the show Twenty-One and was then feed answers on the result of his record-breaking 14 week run as the shows champion. Although the process of the game show and the legal action accompanying it was simplified and dramatized, the effect on the public was not. The fixing of the show was brought to national attention through a grand jury trial stimulated by Dick Goodwin and forever shifted how the public looked at quiz shows. Previous to the trials the public watched quiz shows for the competitiveness that two battling minds brought about. They watched the show with a naïve mind, and even if viewers suspected that any funny business was going on, they chose to ignore that possibility, demonstrating that “ignorance is bliss.” The television stations built up a reputation of trustworthiness and honesty about the shows, Twenty-One even locked their questions in a bank vault to show that no one had seen the questions before hand. This steered viewers away from even questioning the shows integrity and allowed them to focus on the entertainment it provided. However, after a lack of integrity was demonstrated in one game show, only the most naïve would assume that all quiz shows were as honest as they would like its viewers to think. Instead of deriving the entertainment from pure competition, quiz shows were now looked at as a fabricated, regardless of their involvement with the scandals of Twenty-One. There was just too much going on behind the scenes that the public didn’t see for any show to be out of scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteThe scandals also affected the personal lives of the people involved with the scandals and the landscape of television game show fixing. The game show rigging resulted in a law passed by Dwight D Eisenhower that prohibited the fixing of game shows. The people involved in the scandal were all essentially finished in the television world. Van Doren was forced to retire from teaching and television, and Stempel never regained his status in the limelight. The Producers of Twenty-One, Jack Barry and Dan Enright, struggled to break back into American television because of the mistrust that they both had earned. They finally created another TV quiz show, but their careers had been damaged significantly by their involvement with the scandals.
In the opening scene of the 2005 film “Good Night and Good Luck” a character introduces broadcast journalist Edward Murrow as a man who “threw stones at giants. Segregation, exploitation of migrant workers, apartheid, J. Edgar Hoover, not the least of which, his historical fight with Senator McCarthy.” The film is a testament to Murrow’s journalistic integrity, to his unflinching criticism of the McCarthy witch hunts and his perseverance against a network that did not support what they perceived to be biased broadcasts. But the film is much more than just a send up to Murrow—it is also a showcase for the burgeoning persuasive powers of television. For it was through that vehicle that Murrow was able to topple McCarthy and prove that television, and news programs in particular, had power and potency beyond what most people had imagined.
ReplyDeleteAs the film depicts it, Murrow’s reports on his CBS news program See it Now had very tangible results in the realm of American politics. In one sequence in the film, Murrow uses his show to condemn the actions of the United States army against a lieutenant named Milo Radulovich. Murrow felt it was unfair that Radulovich was discharged on the basis of his being a suspected communist sympathizer. Later, members of the show learn through an announcement from the Secretary of the Air Force that Radulovich has been reinstated as a lieutenant. After the announcement, one of the characters exclaims that this “absolutely means something,” a declaration that will eventually come true as Murrow’s impact is felt on a larger scale.
After the Radulovich story, Murrow set his sights on a much larger opponent—Joseph McCarthy himself. In a scene showing another broadcast of See it Now, he actively criticizes McCarthy, using McCarthy’s own words to accuse the senator of causing unnecessary conflicts in American politics through congressional hearings in which he essentially bullied and terrorized a wide number of suspects. After McCarthy responds, accusing Murrow of having communist ties himself, Murrow follows it up with another broadcast wherein he completely debunks McCarthy’s allegations against him. It is a bold move, and one that evidently pays off when it is revealed that the Senate has started investigating McCarthy—ostensibly putting an end to McCarthyism and the red scare. While this movie may not be the most objective lens through which to view this story, it is still clear that Murrow’s brave actions led to real action against McCarthy and that he and his show had a lasting impact on American political history.
Importantly, the film also makes it clear that Murrow could not have had as huge an impact as he had without the technological capabilities of television. In his powerful speech at the end of the movie he states that “this instrument can teach, it can illuminate, and yes it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it towards those ends.” Here he is clearly laying out what he believes to be the powers of the television (if used correctly). And his story itself—the David and Goliath story of a single news journalist toppling a United States Senator—speaks to the changing attitude of Americans to television at that time, an attitude that seemed to be growing ever more positive and receptive. Television enabled Murrow to reach a wide audience, and even more importantly, to influence that audience, because they felt that he was speaking directly to them as a trustworthy source. Thus, “Good Night and Good Luck” portrays Murrow and the medium of television as important catalysts for change in American history, regardless of whether those changes were big or small.