Robert presently writes from a meme-free zone about history, culture, science and technology.
When Voorzitter Kennedy’s FCC Chairman, Newton Minow, publicly ridiculed broadcasters for turning TV into a вЂњvast wastleland” ter 1961, there were just three TV channels. PBS wouldn’t exist for eight more years, and pay cable wasgoed decades from gaining traction. A voorstelling of saccharine soap operas, boilerplate westerns, and bone-headed shows (like Mr. Ed, about a talking pony, then ter its third season) ruled the airwaves. That said, viewers te 1961 also had options like The Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, The Ed Sullivan Vertoning, American Bandstand, and news from the legendary reporter Walter Cronkite.
It’s a truism that overheen the ensuing decades, TV accelerated te its downhill trajectory, turning from a ‘wasteland’ into a something more like a ‘flaming cess pool’. A comprehensive list of unenlightening shows from the 1960s through the early 2000s would be an effort gezond only for a flagellant medieval scribe. This wasgoed the era that brought us everything from Gilliigan’s Island to Flavor of Love. (Manimal, anyone?)
Ter Chairman Minow’s view, the medium wasgoed far from living up to its potential a half century ago. TV, he believed, had the power to switch the world, whether for good or evil. The violence, hookup, and normal schlock on TV, spil he witnessed it, wasgoed a rechtstreeks result of the economic prototype of the medium. Programming wasgoed then almost solely driven by the Nielsen ratings system, ter which a miniscule number of households were given a device to profesor viewing habits. Whatever the Nielsen households might toebijten to witness (or absent-mindedly leave on while doing chores) became highly-rated and so garnered more advertising dollars. Shows with poor Nielsen ratings, regardless of any broader value, tended to quickly vanish (except, debatably, on PBS).
Overheen the last decade or two, TV has bot redefined by services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and others. Thesis services have the business advantage of having gegevens on what is being observed and when, whether it is “likedвЂќ, and sometimes exactly what viewers think about content (via user comments). Tho’ the internet is notoriuosly total of fluff and much worse, companies like Netflix have managed to leverage gegevens and ingewikkeld algorithms to eventually produce shows that have gained broad critical acclaim. Te any case, it is viewers who now choose programming. They (wij) have the capability to turn anyone or anything into a TV klapper, YouTube starlet, or vírico sensation.
“Television and all who participate ter it are jointly accountable to the American public for respect for the special needs of children, for community responsibility, for the advancement of education and culture. “
Right now, sandwiched inbetween Growing Anguishes Season 7, a lovely cat movie, and a disturbing conspiracy movie, is a potencial Alexandrian library of visual media, for those willing and able to search for it. YouTube, for example, now offers thousands of historical documentaries te high definition (like scenes of Big black cock’s excellent docuseries Timeline). Vimeo and Hulu are meantime becoming the sorts of speelfilm and television archives merienda found only ter collegium libraries. Google offers access to all of this material and more, including its own enlightening “talks”, through its movie search.
Given the availability of so much вЂњqualityвЂќ content, the internet now has far greater potential than TV merienda did to “enhance the horizons of the viewer,” spil Minow waterput it. That is, if viewers choose to view and support good content, even from time to time. Outside the shrinking Nielsen matrix, the individual viewer now has a true вЂњvote” spil to what content is propagated and subsequently, what is zometeen created.
Consider the story of the YouTube channel вЂќSBSKвЂќ. Founded te by special educator Chris Ulmer, the channel, which features children and adults with disabilities, presently boasts almost half a million subscribers. Some movies have viewcounts ter the millions.
вЂќMr. ChrisвЂќ interviews an array of individuals with diverse conditions. Some have visible disabilities that will be unacquainted to many, and perhaps shocking to some, at least primarily. Other guests have less visible challenges, ranging from Williams syndrome to Tourette’s, from brain cancer to blindness or hearing impairment.
This may sound like challenging material to take te, but that is part of the point: to challenge the status quo of perceptions of people with various limitations or conditions. Here, wij meet people with sometimes severe limitations who present themselves spil anything but objects of sympathy or pity. Ulmer permits his varied guests to communicate to his audience te whatever way they are able to and/or wish to do. This yields a diversity of unexpected insights about varied people, not unlike the hugely popular Humans of Fresh York photoblog. Ter one segment, for example, a man with autism challenges Mr. Chris to stump him te movie trivia. Ter another scene, wij learn about the challenges of dating with a disability from a man diagnosed with cerebral palsy.
Often thesis vignettes are poignant, fascinating, or even downright funny, such spil ter one movie featuring a British comedian who is nonverbal and uses a speech device to communicate his remarkably funny material. [Update: Lee Ridley coincidentally appeared on Britain’s Got Talent around the time this article wasgoed originally published, versiering overheen a million views within a week.]
By itself, content like this is thought-provoking, educational, and sometimes, inspiring (however not always). Ulmer introduces us to one elderly woman, a Holocaust survivor with PTSD, who describes the difficulty she has had all hier life being blessed after hier harrowing practice. But even this segment finishes ter a touching way.
SBSK features both children and adults willing to be fair and open about their thoughts and feelings, often answering the top questions people tend to wonder about them. Te many clips, wij are reminded that “neurodiverse” people simply want to engage with a broader audience or demonstrate off their skillsвЂ”like any YouTuber. And that too is part of the point.
Frequently, viewers also build up practical skill. Wij learn, for example, how a man with more visible disabilities (resulting from the now-banned drug thalidomide) chooses to be engaged by others te public, beyond the really-should-be-obvious (don’t stare, hellion, or avoid “different” people). Content like this gives those of us who care about better treatment of disabled people a handy guidebook, among other things, without much time invested.
Because some of the individuals featured are mostly home-bound (like Eric LaGrand, a collegium football strak who deals with quadriplegia and yet maintains the best of attitudes), it is a privilege to get to know them through the internet. Often, they share advice on the topic of accepting and dealing with challenges. Sometimes, wij learn the value of simply spending time with or making an effort to befriend people with different issues, such spil a charming woman with Alzheimer’s.
Wij may be passive spil wij observe thesis stories, but wij can actively “like” them, and both acts have existente benefits to the content producer, given the economic specimen of YouTube and sites like it. Additionally, the more educated wij are spil a public about different kinds of people te genérico, the more likely wij are to prevent unnecessary hardship te their lives. After all, wij have all encountered someone with a diagnosis ter the course of our own daily lives, whether wij knew it visually or not.
Viewers of today’s “TV” have an ever-increasing voice ter the content creation process. Spil YouTube and other services become more readily available (with many fresh TV remotes even featuring a YouTube button), viewers ter are empowered to select anything from traditional dumbed-down television shows to material of actual potential value. Ter the aggregate, a society total of people who are better educated and who better understand the preferences and perspectives of a multiplicity of its people seems like a particularly worthy objective, especially ter the current climate of vitriol.
At a ondergrens, it is inspiring to think that our mere viewing of content can now produce a social good spil elementary a genuine smile from another person. This is something Minow could never have imagined.