This is the second in my dodecahedrology of threads on the theme of TV.
In the 1970s in Britain there were only three TV channels. Kids asked each other if they watched 'Magpie' or 'Blue Peter' (rival kids' magazine programmes). Of course most kids watched both even if they professed a fierce allegiance. Such a question about what's on TV nowadays might seem awfully parochial to contemporary kids brandishing remote controls.
What I'm asking, I suppose, is: does increased choice chip away at commonality and cohesion in a negative way that is not acknowledged in all the flurry of backslapping done in 'freedom' and 'consumerism's name?
Did simple dichotomies of the 'Magpie v Blue Peter' kind, in fact, constitute a sort of glue that bound British society and culture together?
How does this question relate to the country you live in?
Originally posted by FMFI don't think so. Before Blue Peter and Magpie came along, was society less cohese?
This is the second in my dodecahedrology of threads on the theme of TV.
In the 1970s in Britain there were only three TV channels. Kids asked each other if they watched 'Magpie' or 'Blue Peter' (rival kids' magazine programmes). Of course most kids watched both even if they professed a fierce allegiance. Such a question about what's on TV nowadays migh ...[text shortened]... and culture together?
How does this question relate to the country you live in?
And how do you even begin to define cohesion and commonality? At what level? European countries are surely more cohese today at a continent level, but perhaps at the cost of local cohesion. Is that bad?
the OP reminds me of that commercial from a number of years back that made fun of the early years of TV - where mom was informing her kids that the only choices were "worms" or "clowns".
I think back then that it was important for programmers to create shows that the "whole family could watch" and shows that would appeal to a widespread audience. This meant that anything "offensive" was out of bounds. It forced programmers to find creative ways to entertain people without resorting to crude humor, graphic sex, or graphic violence.
And it forced programmers to come up with ideas that would appeal to people regardless of their age, class, race, social status, ethnicity, gender etc. The resulting shows probably did unite people more than the niche-oriented material we have today.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone wants to go back to "worms or clowns".
Originally posted by MelanerpesI would have loved another season of the Sopranos
the OP reminds me of that commercial from a number of years back that made fun of the early years of TV - where mom was informing her kids that the only choices were "worms" or "clowns".
I think back then that it was important for programmers to create shows that the "whole family could watch" and shows that would appeal to a widespread audience. This ...[text shortened]... ay.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone wants to go back to "worms or clowns".
Originally posted by Hugh GlassOff topic: Series 1 and 2. Brilliant. And a great final Season 6. Series 3, 4 and 5 got rather soapy, I think. A higher grade of soap, granted. But 6 was enough. Let it be what is, in all its attention grabbing and morally relativistic glory. Less is more, sometimes. More isn't always more.
I would have loved another season of the Sopranos
Originally posted by FMFThe good ol' days, when you switched on the TV after dinner and knew all of America was joining you in watching whatever was on...
This is the second in my dodecahedrology of threads on the theme of TV.
In the 1970s in Britain there were only three TV channels. Kids asked each other if they watched 'Magpie' or 'Blue Peter' (rival kids' magazine programmes). Of course most kids watched both even if they professed a fierce allegiance. Such a question about what's on TV nowadays migh ...[text shortened]... and culture together?
How does this question relate to the country you live in?
Originally posted by FMFTwelve threads? Damn.
This is the second in my dodecahedrology of threads on the theme of TV.
In the 1970s in Britain there were only three TV channels. Kids asked each other if they watched 'Magpie' or 'Blue Peter' (rival kids' magazine programmes). Of course most kids watched both even if they professed a fierce allegiance. Such a question about what's on TV nowadays migh ...[text shortened]... and culture together?
How does this question relate to the country you live in?
Originally posted by FMFIn South Africa there are four open (state) channels, a couple of community channels, and satellite tv. Locally produced soap operas on open channels have a huge following and may perhaps contribute to some sort of notional cohesion. Satellite tv increases choice vastly at quite a high cost: satellite dishes are ubiquitous among secure complexes but are surprisingly common in townships too.
This is the second in my dodecahedrology of threads on the theme of TV.
In the 1970s in Britain there were only three TV channels. Kids asked each other if they watched 'Magpie' or 'Blue Peter' (rival kids' magazine programmes). Of course most kids watched both even if they professed a fierce allegiance. Such a question about what's on TV nowadays mig ...[text shortened]... and culture together?
How does this question relate to the country you live in?
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not out to prove anything here or cut and paste or provide links to data. I am in shoot the speculative breeze mode. Here is a sliver of hypothesis:
I don't think so. Before Blue Peter and Magpie came along, was society less cohese? And how do you even begin to define cohesion and commonality? At what level? European countries are surely more cohese today at a continent level, but perhaps at the cost of local cohesion. Is that bad?
1914. No telly. Cohesion is at a village, town level. Perhaps (British) county level. Consider all those regiments named after local government entities! Ah yes, but they were much more local government entities. They were people's whole worlds. That was the level at which the cohesion really counted.
It would not be possible to send 1,600,000 men off to the meat grinder in the age of telly. It could happen in 1914 because the passion and the valour and the sense of duty was localized, tangible, shared, manageable, real. It was a fragmented cohesion. A village losing 7 men can be conceived of. But 1.6 million is an incomprehensible figure. The British people will never let it happen to them again. Not on that scale.
Telly came after World War II. I would say that the cohesive and 'nation defining' effect of TV lasted until somewhere up until about the 70s or early 80s. Once variety and choice - extraordinarily broad choice - proliferated, blossomed, bewildered - and empowered people to pursue their individualism through more comprehensive control over their entertainment - then I think the cohesive effect of TV - and any possiblity that a society could again take genuinely all encompassing concerted action - was gone for good.
Without actually advocating less choice here, I contend that the British people would be more able to focus on problems and solve them if there were still only three TV channels. Of course, defining the problems and the possible solutions on offer would be, in part, decided by those who controlled the telly. But that's a different debate I suppose.