Big Changes for TV Censorship in 1970's

The 1970's brought major changes in TV censorship. Why?Primarily this change was caused by the refining of techniques used to measure the viewing audiences. According to The Museum of Broadcast Communications, "Ratings researchers began to break down the viewing audience for individual programs according to specific demographic characteristics, including age, ethnicity, education and economic background. In this context, the baby boomer generation--younger, better educated, with more disposable income--became the desired target audience for television programming and advertising."

The ground-breaking show, "All in the Family" rammed through previous barriers placed on TV content, marking the beginning of time when conversations about sexuality, both homo and heterosexuality. "Frank discussions of sexuality, even outside of traditional heterosexual monogamy, became the focal point of many of the comedy's narratives." Racism was another major staple of the show's content, as barriers began to crumble between the TV of the 1950's and 70's.

However, the new "taboo" content did not go unnoticed or unpunished. In 1973 the Supreme Court released the following statement. "It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas or New York City." Thus, the government decided to leave it to states and smaller communities to make the judgement on what is and isn't appropriate for TV broadcasting.

I personally think that this statement by the Museum of Broadcast Communications perfectly defines the difference between TV of the 1950's and TV of the 1970's: "Whereas censorship in the 1950s and 1960s was based on the presumed standards and tastes of the white middle-class nuclear family, censorship in the 1970s became a process of balancing the often conflicting values of marginal social groups."

Today, TV programming is colorful. There's something for everyone, and thus TV reflects the social progress made in the U.S.

TV Censorship in the 1950's & 60's

According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications, TV networks during the 50's and 60's lumped together all viewers, and targeted the programming towards the values of white, middle-class Americans. This lead to television being used as a tool to bring American families together. That being said, it seems logical that censorship in the 50's and 60's was required to ensure that content was appropriate for all age groups, including children. Thus, topics like racism and sexuality, which had little to do with the typical American family, were excluded from content, creating an unbalanced programming set, for sure. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications, "ethnic minorities were excluded, for the most part, from the television screen because they did not fit into the networks' assumptions about the viewing audience." Sexuality, too, was avoided in TV content because of the lack of equality for homosexuals, and the fact that TV was a familial tool; the topic of sex, be it heterosexual relations or homosexual relations was just too "taboo" to include in programming. For example, "The sexual relationship between Rob and Laura Petrie in The Dick Van Dyke Show during the mid-1960s could only be implied. When the couple's bedroom was shown, twin beds diffused any explicit connotation that they had a physical relationship," according to the Museum of Broadcasting Communications.

Nowadays, there are ways to censor certain TV channels for children, and there are many more options. Back in the 50's and 60's, because the TV was still so new, they just did not have the same capabilities. However, the 1970's brought major changes to the rules of TV censorship, which I will explore in my next post.

Radio Today vs. Radio of Yesteryear

Isn't it amazing to think that back in the 1920's and 30's, families would gather around their radios to hear news stories, listen to radio dramas and to hear President Roosevelt speak?

The difference between radio back then and modern day radio seems vast. Today, radios are clogged with about ten times more advertisements, and many focus much more on music. I have never, in my life, heard a modern day radio drama. Today, like many other facets of media, radio has become a niche market, just like magazines. Country, hip-hop, classical, news station- you name it. Back then, radio reached out to a much broader audience than today. In my personal opinion, the radio of today is merely bombardment, most of the music is overplayed and the talk shows are usually unintelligent conversations about "Your most embarrassing first date."

I'm not saying that radio of yesteryear was better, though. Today, at least news stations like NPR are trustworthy...No more practical jokes like Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" Halloween prank. But it does seem that radio has spiraled downhill in the level of intelligence you must have to listen. The talk show hosts speak in very casual terms about very common occurrences that seem unimportant, and you sit there and think "Why am I listening to this junk?" It's almost as if it lowers your IQ; Wheras, radio of yesteryear at least addressed political matters and used formal language that was much more proper. Call me old fashioned, but radio of yesteryear seemed to be something special, and radio of today, well, it's background noise.

Journalistic Objectivity of Today

Most modern journalists know that to be a successful journalist, one must follow several key principles-- Objectivity is one of the most important of all. According to an article from U.S.A. Today, objectivity is "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." However, it's not rare to find bias and slants in the journalism industry today. Take Fox News vs. CNN, for example. Fox is known for spinning the news with a conservative slant, while CNN is oftentimes said to be more liberal.

So, if two of the greatest and most successful TV broadcasting programs are bias and begin to neglect the principle of objectivity, how is the problem solved? Is it possible for a News station to remain completely objective and neutral? Is a news paper or an online news provider any different? How do we decide the standards today? These are questions I will attempt to answer, and that are pivotal to the future of journalism.

In an article from his Mass Media column in U.S.A. Today called "The Search for objectivity in journalism" , Howard Myrick offers advice to journalists on how to avoid bias and how to stick to objectivity. He writes, "In many instances, in fact, it would be sufficient, instructive, and healthy for them simply to imagine their interviewee or information source reciting the adage, "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." The willingness on the part of the journalist or newscaster to accept the wisdom of this adage could prevent further errors of distortion, bias, and various other injuries to objectivity in their reporting."

Oftentimes, as Myrick points out, as did Schudson in Chapter 4, it's the interpretation

of journalists that gets them in trouble. Myrick believes that it is the same, whether the news

be online, in print or on air.

However, broadcast journalists beware: "To broadcast journalists, for example, who rely on the use of video clips from syndicated news services and/or their own electronic news gathering and field production units--a common and unavoidable practice in the fast-paced world of broadcast journalism--it would serve them well to be reminded that failure to analyze the "word" (the narrative) without paying close attention to the "picture" (the visual) can lead to some grievous distortions or misinterpretations. The picture (video) is an iconic code or stream of iconic codes exceedingly subject to variable interpretation, as has been found in research in culture and visual perception," Myrick says.

So, now that we know how to avoid bias and how to stick to objectivity, one question remains. Is it possible to be totally objective?

In his book On Reporting the News, William Burrows says that total objectivity is absolutely impossible. "Total objectivity is impossible in news reporting because... we bring our emotions and prejudices to what we perceive.... Even a reporter who makes desperate efforts at impartiality faces two problems. First, he must not only decide which information to put in the story, but which to leave out. The part that is left out might make the story more objective but there may be no space for it. Second, he must decide which element of the story gets the most "play" (emphasis) and relegate the rest to lesser play. News judgment is the decisive factor, but even the soundest judgment does not mean that all important elements in a story will be represented in exact proportion to their real part in it."

However, of course it can be argued the opposite way- that precisely and accurately delivering all facts adheres to objectivity. In my opinion, total objectivity is not possible. Journalists and editors decide what to put in the papers, they edit it to their standards and they interpret it the best they can. Thus, total objectivity is not possible. That does not mean, though, that journalists should not strive for it.

What's the meaning behind Santa Claus, the Republican elephant, and the Democratic donkey?

Now I understand why Thomas Nast was not even a published figure in my elementary school history books-- who would want to spoil Santa Claus for children around the world? Nast coined Santa as Santa is known today; a big, tall white haired and bearded man with, you got it, a stomach that shakes like a bowl full of jelly.

Nast is very popular for coining other figures in his cartoons that have played an integral part in the shaping of the U.S. including the Republican elephant, the Democratic donkey, the Tammany Hall Tiger, Columbia, and Uncle Sam.

As incredible as it is that he created so many important symbols in American history, one has to wonder where he got his ideas. Why an elephant for the republicans and a donkey for the democrats? From where did Nast pull his information? These are the questions I will attempt to answer.

According to factmonkey.com, the Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson's 1828 presidential campaign when his opponents called him a jackass (a donkey), and Jackson used the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. Later, cartoonist Thomas Nast used the Democratic donkey in newspaper cartoons and made the symbol famous. In 1874, the Republican elephant was first published in Harper's Weekly. Nast drew a donkey dressed up as a lion scaring away animals-- one of which was the elephant that was labeled "The Republican Vote". It stuck.

The fact that Nast could have such a great impact on American culture through cartoons was a major breakthrough in journalism in the mid to late 1800's. The rise of cartoons such as Nast's made fun of serious issues without harsh words of offense editorials. His cartoons are just one example of how the pen really is mightier than the sword.

Women in the "Antebellum Press"

Thus far, all we've learned about the abolitionist press has focused on the men who, through journalism, fought against slavery and the mistreatment of African-Americans.

Now, my question is, what about the women involved in the abolitionist press? Were there any? Was it allowed for women (black or white) to participate in the abolitionist movement via the press or petition? If so, what were their roles? Who were the key players? These are the questions I will attempt to address.

The first women in the U.S. to collectively petition Congress on a political issue petitioned in 1834, according to Susan Zaeske's book "Signatures of Citizenship". This sparked the interest in women to petition against congress during the era of slavery in the years after the first petition. Women throughout the North petitioned for immediate abolition, including Maria Weston Chapman, a leader in the anti-slavery petitioning. Not only was Chapman selected for the executive American Anti-Slavery Society in 1839, but she was also the editor-in-chief of the anti-slavery journal, "Non-Resistant." She also acted as editor of "The Liberator" in Garrison's absence. Other well-known women anti-slavery activists include Sojourner Truth, Julia Ward Howe, and Harriet Tubman, who has been coined "The Moses of her People". These women made their voices heard and acted as forces to create "interracial sisterhood".

Although her choice to become an anti-slavery activist may not have been a popular one at the time, Chapman will always be remembered as "Lady Macbeth" who broke through barriers to make strides towards the right of "liberty and freedom for all" in the U.S.

Thomas Paine: Journalist, Blogger or Activist? The Debate Continues

Larry O’Connor, from bigjournalism.com, questions whether or not Thomas Paine should be considered the first blogger or journalist. Today, the distinction between bloggers and journalists is getting murkier with the major rise of blogs in this era of citizen journalism. O’Connor writes that in the eyes of New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Judge, Anthony J. Parrillo, Bloggers are by no means legitimate journalists. According to Judge Parrillo, “There is, of necessity, a distinction between, on the one hand, personal diaries, opinions, impressions and expressive writing and, on the other hand, news reporting.” Thus, by Judge Parrillo’s standards, it is fair to argue that Paine’s “Common Sense” is not journalism, but rather a form of blogging, perhaps the first type of writing that blogs can be traced back to. According to O’Connor, Paine’s parchment and printing press is equivalent to modern day blogger’s broadband Internet and keyboard.

However, it could also be argued, as it is, that Thomas Paine was indeed America’s first journalist in that his work could be considered editorial work- almost every newspaper has an Opinion/Editorial section, right?

The number one goal of journalists is to report the truth. The truth must be exposed whether it be gruesome or not. So, if Paine was reporting the honest truth as he saw it, in my opinion, his work could constitute as journalism.