The Waning Unifying Power of Television
Television technology has played a central role in directing public discourse. Before the mid 20th century, radio station served as the main source of information to the public. Governments and public relied on the audio transmitted through shortwave to communicate important information to millions of citizens. The arrival of television technology and its commercialization in the 1950s created a buzz in public and helped to act as an enriched source of news. The ability to combine audio and video was revolutionary. It served to provide visual evidence of major happenings around the world. Governments took advantage of the technology to reach out to the public and rally its citizens toward pursuing government projects that were considered of general national importance. However, over time the influence of television has waned owing to the development of alternative news media, political polarization, and biased coverage of national events.
The ever-evolving information technology has impacted on the ability of the television to act as a national unifier. The popularity of television sets and their ability to unify the public in the 1950s and 1960s was related to the groundbreaking technology at the time (Spigel, 2013). The American public was treated to a new reality in communication technology with the ability to see motion pictures and the accompanying audio. Millions of citizens who had previously only heard of their leaders were able to observe and relate the voices they had previously heard on the radio with their physical looks. The president used the technology to mobilize national support for the government’s involvement in world and regional wars (Spigel, 2013). As the only technology that could combine motion pictures and sound, the television was unmatched in shaping public opinion. However, this dominance was challenged and later ended as other forms of information technology emerged.
The emergence of digital media provided similar and improved quality features in video and audio transmission. The social media technology, in particular, has carved a large audience that previously relied on television as their source of information (Kellner, 2018). Because of high costs related to television production and transmission, television media houses only aired programs at specific times. The digital media provides the audience with the ability to plan for entertainment and news hours on an individual basis. Unlike television technology, social media is highly interactive serving as the source of information for a majority of people (Nye Jr, 2004). The interconnectivity brought about by social media, and digital technology has greatly undermined the power of the television to control public opinion.
Consequently, its role in unifying the public by setting the agenda for public discourse has diminished. According to Nye Jr (2004), the power of the television to set the national agenda was dependent on its dominance in the collection and dissemination of information. Government leaders relied on television to project and control public opinion (Nye Jr, 2004). In return, media houses gained financially through advertisements and delivering information that was relevant to the public. This reality was especially true during mid 1960 when the United States government was embroiled in bitter wars in southeastern Asia. Millions of citizens in America and Britain milled around television sets to watch the latest developments especially regarding America’s involvement in regional and global wars (Spigel, 2013). The ability of televisions to dictate the origin and circulation of information was severed with the development of digital media.
The ability of the television to unify the American public was undermined by the rise in partisan and polarizing politics among national and global leaders. The popularity of television sets grew in the early and mid years of the twentieth century at a time when national discourse focused on propaganda pitting the American nation and its perceived international enemies (Kellner, 2018). The Second World War and the eventual involvement of wars in North Korea and Vietnam proved to be highly divisive. State operatives controlled information reaching the public and rallied the American public to unite behind the president in fighting nations that threatened American security.
The power of the television to unify was strengthened by a supportive public of government propaganda especially during and in the years after the Second World War. However, as political divisions within the country increased over time, the American public began to question the reliability of information from certain media houses (Curran, 2012). The American Civil Rights Movement created tensions across the American public and exposed the deep divisions that were prevalent between ethnic groups and governments. As televisions stations streamed live pictures of riots and demonstrations in the aftermath of the death of Martin Luther Jr. and the human losses in the Vietnam and Korean Wars, political opinion became ever more divisive (Spigel, 2013). While the relevance and prominence of television grew ever more as the appetite for news grew, its power to unify the public toward a common stance was limited. That was most prominent on the domestic front as politically, and ethnically charged mobs fought in city streets created havoc in major American cities.
In recent years, television media houses have been accused of favoritism and failure to deliver news professionally and objectively. Highly partisan television stations cannot command national respect since a sizeable portion of the public may lack trust in the sources of information (Kellner, 2018). On the contrary, television stations are increasingly confrontational with elected leaders who fundamentally undermine their ability to rally the public toward a common agreement. During presidential elections, many American media houses including television stations declare their stance and support for political candidates (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Although the declaration is meant to sway public opinion toward choosing a certain candidate, it also serves to create division and distrust from millions in the audience that may not approve of the candidate. For example, President Trump had routinely branded major American Stations such as CNN as fake. By publicly and routinely casting aspersions on the integrity of the stations, a section of the public tends to lose confidence in the information emanating from the stations (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). This further weakens the ability of television stations to set the national agenda and unify the public.
Television news media can reclaim its power to influence and unify the public by remaining neutral and objective in their coverage of news. By remaining objective in new coverage, television stations can begin to influence public opinion. The media house will identify with the immediate public interest helping to set agenda in a way that reflects the public good. Objectivity increases trust in the media as a reliable source of information (Curran, 2012). This trust is lost when television stations advance news agenda that is politically and ethnically polarizing. Declaring political allegiance during national campaigns should be limited if not avoided. While every citizen has a right to choose their preferred candidates in an election, that decision should be left to individuals (Spigel, 2013). Television news media should not attempt to sway public opinion by declaring and defending one candidate over another. The divisive nature of political campaigns will inevitably affect the news media’s ability to unify the public.
Television news media need to diversify revenue sources and avoid paid-up advertisements that may run contrary to the organization’s ideals. The volatile nature of advertisement revenue that forms the bulk of television media houses exposes media houses to financial risks (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Media houses may bend the rules to accommodate paid-up news that may be politically charged but necessary to draw in funds. Advertisements that fail the ethical values of an organization should not be aired regardless of their financial rewards (Kellner, 2018). However, this stance is only possible when news media diversify their revenue streams. Financial independence is as good as professional independence.
Television news media has suffered over the years about its ability to unify and influence public opinion. The digital disruption created alternative sources of information and undermined the ability of television stations to dominate the agenda-setting power of media houses. Unlike during the formative years of the television media in the mid 20th century, the 21st century experienced rapid transformation in information technology. Social media has gained prominence serving as an alternative and viable source of news. The highly interconnected nature of online community delivers information rapidly and interactively in ways that the television could not accomplish. Polarized political views and the increasingly confrontational engagement between television media houses and political leaders have significantly impacted on the neutrality of news organization. However, television media can reclaim its lost power by remaining objective in news coverage and diversifying revenue incentives to remain independent.
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2), 211-36.
Curran, J. (2012). Media and power. Routledge.
Kellner, D. (2018). Television and the Crisis of Democracy. Routledge.
Nye Jr, J. S. (2004). Soft power. In Power in the global information age (pp. 76-88). Routledge.
Spigel, L. (2013). Make room for TV: Television and the family ideal in postwar America. University of Chicago Press.
“WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH HOMEWORK AIDER AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
The post The Waning Unifying Power of Television appeared first on Homeworkaider.
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
