Title : "I assume that I'm not the only viewer who would rather watch this lineup than what's on the networks today."
link : "I assume that I'm not the only viewer who would rather watch this lineup than what's on the networks today."
"I assume that I'm not the only viewer who would rather watch this lineup than what's on the networks today."
A comment on a montage — at YouTube — of all 37 of the prime-time shows that were on ABC in the Fall of 1961.
ADDED: In 1961, I eagerly consumed the "Fall Preview" issue of TV, which didn't come out until mid-September. I guess they took the equinox seriously in those days. Back in August, 70 years ago, TV challenged the notion that TV was "for 12 year olds"....
I was only 10, so I had to aim higher just to reach 12. Not only were people concerned that television might not be sufficiently worthy of adult viewership, they were consuming advice on "How to teach your children how to watch TV":
That was my favorite show, "Dobie Gillis." About high school. I couldn't find the original text of that teach-your-children article, but I found an article about it:
[Leo] Rosten, political scientist, author and social critic, calls the current fare on television "dreary at best and ghastly at worst," but that doesn't make it much out of line from other forms of mass media; many newspapers are "sensational and shoddy," paperbacks "that are part of the alleged 'cultural revolution' are shallow and worthless," and "much of what appears on the Broadway stage is banal and unworthy of a civilized man's attention."
In that sense, TV is no different. "The public appetite for the silly and the trivial, for sheer distraction, the national mania for 'escape' and narcotic 'fun'—these are so great and so widespread that one can only wonder how our schools and families and churches have turned out so many people whose taste is so abominable."...
Television did not abolish parents, he notes, nor teachers, preachers and critics, "and I wish they would stop acting as if they were dead.... There is no swifter or more effective way of influencing Madison Avenue than by registering your vote for or against a program—that is, by listening to programs which are superior and by not listening to programs which are bilge."
Funny to talk about "listening" to TV. But, of course, there is sound just as well as pictures. Why privilege the visuals? By the way, Meade tells me his grandparents didn't speak of "watching TV." It was always "looking at TV."
Thus articles "I assume that I'm not the only viewer who would rather watch this lineup than what's on the networks today."
You now read the article "I assume that I'm not the only viewer who would rather watch this lineup than what's on the networks today." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2021/08/i-assume-that-im-not-only-viewer-who.html
0 Response to ""I assume that I'm not the only viewer who would rather watch this lineup than what's on the networks today.""
Post a Comment