Thursday, October 9, 2014
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)
Networks first began to lengthen their news coverage after Newton Minow’s “Vast Wasteland” speech. At the National Association of Broadcasters in 1961, Minow discussed televisions successes, but also its failures. He described commercial television as a vast wasteland and encouraged networks to create more programming for public interest. Furthermore, he explained that television was not just a form of entertainment, but also a broadcast medium. After his suggestion to return to public service programming, news programs were extended to 30 minutes instead of 15, in addition to broadcasts of presidential debates and documentary programs.
ReplyDeleteThis increased news coverage led to several changes, primarily in terms of the civil rights issues. This increased format meant that there was more to fill, therefore events such as Bloody Sunday and documentaries like Crisis garnered more attention. Before, events such as these stayed in regional news cycles, however with the changes made after Minow’s speech, they became national news as coverage became more in depth. Similarly, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. shocked the nation, particularly because they were played over and over again on the news. This increase in focus due to lengthened news programming made these issues much more important to the American people.
As stated above, Minow's "Vast Wasteland" speech is responsible for the lengthened news coverage by networks in the 1960s and onward. The speech had two goals: get the public to realize what they're watching offers no value to them and get networks to realize the responsibility they have to the public. After Minow's speech, networks increased news coverage through lengthened programs, as well as covering presidential debates. The 1960 Presidential Elections were the first to air televised debates, which was (and still is) one of the most important aspects of a presidential election. An interesting fact about the televised debate is that people who viewed it on television thought JFK was the clear winner, while radio listeners felt that Nixon won the debates. Research has been done to see if JFK's appearance and demeanor on television helped play a factor in whether or not people thought he won the debate (Nixon was not as appealing visually). Another important side effect from Minow's speech was an increase in documentaries and investigative reporting to help inform the public about what is going on around them. Due to this increased exposure, the public was becoming familiar with issues that they normally wouldn't know about. This ultimately helped to progress the importance and reach of the Civil Rights' Movement because it was an topic that was often ignored by national media until Minow's speech. If Minow didn't give this speech, the news format may have continued without anyone knowing better.
ReplyDeleteAs stated above by both bloggers, the switch to broadcasting more socially relevant news was encouraged by Newton Minnow's "Vast Wasteland" speech. Drawing attention to the mediocrity, redundancy, and unimportance of most television broadcasts at the time, networks began to highlight matters of greater importance in television, more specifically by expanding news programs.
ReplyDeleteCapitalizing on the ability to have "breaking" and personal coverage of issues, TV extended their news programs from the mere fifteen minutes to a full hour. Visual representation of issues was able to cause greater response and faster transportation of information. The broadcasts of police brutality against peaceful civil rights protesters, brought the civil rights movement to the forefront of discussions. Other media broadcasts, such as "Crisis" gave an inside look at how the issues of racism and civil rights were being dealt with by the government. Viewers tended to react much more strongly with visual coverage than with print sources coming second second hand. it appeared to audiences at the time that television could be manipulated less.
With stations also covering presidential debates and congressional hearings (such as with McCarthy or Senator Dodd), viewers were able to become more immediately involved with politics. Where before, Americans were often detached from the inner workings of the government, they now had a more direct source to how their representatives were handling issues and greater intimacy with such figureheads, encouraging them to become more informed a greater participant.
TV networks began to expand their news coverage and broadcast programs like presidential debates as a response to the negative publicity they received from the fallout of the Quiz Show Scandal and from the “Vast Wasteland” speech. The networks wanted to show that they were providing higher quality, more relevant programs to show that they were providing a legitimate service to the American public.
ReplyDeleteThese programs illuminated civil rights issues by bringing them to the home of the average American. People did not have to go out of their way to be informed about civil rights issues, and it also brought in views (from both sides) that many people may not have been aware of, and basically helped bring civil rights to the mainstream of American politics and minds. With TV being a passive activity, it allowed the average person to stay informed in current issues. As opposed to print coverage, TV news brings the visual element to the story, which made it more personal to people than if they just read about it. It also made people more connected to politics, as mentioned before. TV documentaries such as “Crisis” allowed people to be able to understand politics as they were occurring, and could generate their own views about current events, based off of what they saw. This, of course, opens itself up to possible network bias in reporting.