Sunday, October 6, 2013
Socially Relevant Coverage in the 1960s
Why did the networks begin to lengthen their news coverage, broadcast presidential debates, and program more socially-relevant documentaries like Crisis during the 1960s? How did this material illuminate civil rights issues and inflect the way that people understood national politics?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Especially as the 1960s period in America covered a broad range of historical events ranging from the African-American Civil Rights Movement to the Space Race, there was a large amount of information and details that needed to be condensed for the people to gain an understanding about what was happening in America. This opportunity allowed media outlets to expand the lengths of news coverage, broadcast the 1st presidential debate on television between Kennedy and Nixon, and even record documentaries about events that were unravelling around the US.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically in the Crisis episode we viewed in class, it portrayed the George Wallace segregation battle with the Kennedy administration. Even just documenting the whole process of the making decisions on each side of the conflict, Crisis is able to give America a better sense of what occurred “behind the scenes” as these details may not have been captured in newspapers. Further, as the episode highlighted the two African-Americans trying to attend the University of Alabama, the viewer may sympathize with the student who is trying to gain a higher education, but is being restricted because of the governor’s stubbornness to desegregate the university. As this show presented the drama behind the subject of desegregation and civil rights especially in the south, viewers from across the US and even internationally are able to gain a glimpse of the injustice that is occurring. Even on the aspect of politics, the audience is able to see each politicians' stance on this issue and how they stood on it by action.
During the 1960’s the United States was saturated with prejudices and social issues. However, before television played its part in these controversies many were not aware of their seriousness, or many could choose to simply turn a blind eye. With the growing presence of television within the civil rights movement, the American people were given a view of the truth, and of the absurd cruelties that were taking place all over the country.
ReplyDeleteProductions, such as Crisis, used real footage from significant moments or injustices during the civil rights movement. The audience gets to see the blatant stupidity and racism of George Wallace, and the obvious morality displayed by the Kennedy’s. Perhaps through this the audience is given the tools to form a more complete personal view rather than obeying the traditional racist sentiments of the past.
This same concept comes into play in the short clip we watched in class, where the local police sprayed innocent protesters with high-powered water hoses. By showing this on television, a massive audience was able to see the violent truth that was in opposition to the civil rights movement. People understood that the protestors were peaceful and innocent simply fighting for their own rights, and that the police were completely out of line. This as a whole built support for the movement, and gave people more or less the power of free thought.
The lengthening of news coverage’s, broadcasting of presidential debates, and presentation of socially relevant programs were designed to educate the viewer. Television found itself at the center of the American family. Radio, newspaper, phone, were all still present, but the new from of communicating with the world was through the television. With even governmental pressures, news programs along with others were designed to educate the public and present information in a similar fashion all other forms of communication had done, except this time it had moving images.
ReplyDeleteThese moving images were strong enough to create and strengthen movements, such as the racial integration of schools presented in Crisis. Though Crisis presented the world as it happened, unbiased. But of course, if film theory has taught us anything it is that the juxtaposition of the Robert Kennedy’s life and job with that of George Wallace’s life and job creates meaning so that one can see how this documentary still pushed forward the idea of racial integration while saying that it remained neutral on the subject.
The nation was becoming aware of it’s own internal problems by this period in time. The culprit was the Cold War. The news not only told of the United States “greatness,” but it also told of its inner turmoil. We couldn’t turn a blind eye on an issue anymore. The presentation of all these racial issues along with other issues really pushed the public to grow closer and find ways to solve these problems. Overseas, these issues were national an embarrassment.
It was all probably unintentional. I don’t believe that it was televisions idea to expose problems, but it lent itself to it. The act of reporting on these problems incited action on the part of others. I’m sure that newspapers, radio, and all other forms of communication presented these problems, yet none sparked as much of response as from observing television.
Television networks began to lengthen their news coverage, broadcast presidential debates and program more socially-relevant documentaries like Crisis during the 1960s in order to educated the American people and inform them of the realities of the time. Longer news coverage meant more information and more time spent addressing the many pressing issues of the time, that of which include the civil rights movement, JFK's assassination, the riots in Detroit and George Wallace's fight to keep blacks out of white colleges.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the documentary, Crisis, which gave American's an inside look on the JFK administration and its struggle against the ideologies of George Wallace, brought a sense of realness to television as a medium that had not been seen before. 1960s television introduced the medium in a new light, where it was used as more of an informational tool, rather than purely for entertainment. As the nation was changing, so was television as a medium, and the programming that aired on these networks directly reflected that shift.
The material introduced by the networks in the 1960s illuminated civil rights issues and inflected the way that people understood national politics by highlighting aspects that were misinterpreted previously. For example, the torture inflicted upon blacks, as white police officers hosed them down, changed the national ideology and shifted white’s opinion of blacks in a way that would not have been possible without this live footage being televised. Television in the 60s changed the lives of Americans, helping them see truth behind lies, reaffirming their faith in a promising president and capturing pivotal moments in history, which ultimately helped the country progress out of times of struggle and mass oppression.
Networks in the 1960s began to focus their programming on news, presidential debates and socially-relevant documentaries in order to redirect their intention for public service. Networks recognized the individual mass interest in quality programming due to the events that were occurring at the time; therefore, programming was redirected to portray the realities of the world rather than serving as mere entertainment, such as filmed western shows.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, beginning in the 60s, news programs were broadcasted for an hour rather than their previous 15 minute airtime slots. Such programming featured live footage of malicious events, such as the coverage of the Birmingham Protests, which informed Americans of what is going on in the world around them while also altering their perspectives; in some cases, the live footage may have served as a warning to viewers that cops were enforcing bigotry at the local level. It is also important to note that this was the first time violence was broadcasted, which emphasizes the network's change to portray the pure reality of issues persisting in America. Furthermore, 1960s television broadcasted debates between Nixon and JFK, also referred to as "The Great Debates." These broadcasts were different than the debates featured on the radio due to the visual presentation, which altered the way viewers perceived each of the candidates. JFK was noted to appear as TV star having good looks and an overall admired presence as he looked directly into the camera as he spoke. On the other hand, Nixon's nervousness was clearly identified as his make-up dripped down his face as he talked. As a result, Nixon did better via radio due to his lack of confidence and attractive appearance that JFK possessed. Although radio was still present at the time, individuals were mainly watching TV for the news.
Additionally, the TV began to serve as a source of information for public service as political figures began to take part in the media. For example. as soon as Kennedy took office, he immediately signed with then National Association of Broadcasting in 1961. This act emphasized the import of media to democracy.
Overall, the change in network's programming clearly illuminated civil rights issues and inflected the way people understood national politics due to the events they chose to broadcast along with the length of them. Viewers were more informed of current events, which ultimately altered their views and understandings of political matters and figures.
Despite his savvy awareness of the positive political gains inherent in the exploitation of television’s new mass communication potential, President John F. Kennedy’s appointment of Newton Minow as FCC chairman ushered in a crucial era of change for a now “corrupt” medium. Addressing the National Association of Broadcasters convention on May 9th, 1961, Minow’s now infamous “vast wasteland” speech chastised the networks for their role in the commercialization and degradation of prime time television. Although many have since argued that this diatribe “can be understood better as an effort to clean up the image of the FCC than as activist reform of the industry (Hilmes, 216), the major networks nevertheless hastened to produce more “informed” content. Further mobilized by Senator Thomas Dodd’s Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency hearings in regard to the impact of television violence on America’s impressionable youth, they swiftly turned out a record number of documentaries and lengthened their news programs from short, fifteen minute segments to full, hour-long broadcasts.
ReplyDeleteThough most historical accounts tend to frame the entire decade as one consistently mired in social and political upheaval, the truth remains that the early 1960s were more comparable to the homogeneously conservative cultural ideals of the 1950s than the radically progressive movements that defined its later years. Accordingly, television networks were initially quite reticent to broadcast images of the burgeoning civil rights movement that began to take shape in the mid- to late-1950s. Protests such as the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott garnered little national attention, with news coverage mainly relegated to the southern region in which it occurred.
Thus, due to television’s great hesitancy to broadcast racial unrest, African American activists fighting for social justice were rarely, if ever, given the opportunity to speak for themselves or address the viewing public. When they were, the resulting conversation often undeniably lacked objectivity and balance. Indeed, in its first interview with Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1960, NBC’s Meet the Press – one of the first programs to allow black leaders to openly discuss civil rights issues – presented little more than an antagonistic, one-sided interrogation seemingly designed to frustrate its guest. In fact, it would take three more years before the issue of racial segregation would truly be acknowledged by widespread television coverage. Culminating with the November assassination of President Kennedy, 1963 marked a pivotal point in national – and international – awareness of the increasingly violent oppression of those – black and white – that sought to effect change. As news cameras documented police officials and white mobs inflicting vicious brutality upon groups of nonviolent protestors throughout the South, viewers across the nation could no longer deny the harsh realities of government-sanctioned bigotry, the jarring juxtaposition of well-dressed citizens being beaten in the streets doing much to garner the support of a once-ambivalent public.