Tvattitudes Public Attitude and Perceptions

TVAttitudes

Public attitude and perceptions of the world are constantly being molded by the media in general, and television in specific. From the daily news broadcasts to the weekly sitcoms, and the commercials watched by the populace, all have ulterior motives and objectives to reach that can only be done by changing, molding, enhancing or enlightening the viewing audience. Billions of dollars are spent yearly in order to accomplish those objectives. Some of these objectives can be as benign as the sale of a product, while other objectives can include an individual's desire to become the ruler of the world's most powerful nation, or to ensure that the same person has little to no chance of ever achieving such a goal.

"Newness is not merely a matter of time, but of attitude." (Shock 1967). So states a Time article in 1967 that describes the 'new freedom from formula, convention and censorship' enjoyed by Hollywood. An unbiased observer of Hollywood's movies and the media of today's world would perhaps find such a statement as rather ludicrous on its face, but a terrible truth at its core.

It is said that truth is perception and the public's perception is what many in the world of the media thinks is for their own particular brand of molding. After all, to them, it's all about selling more coffee. Whether it's real coffee or the caffeine of power matters little to those that wield such power.

Television in particular has been, and continues to be, an exceptionally powerful tool in changing the attitudes of millions of people.

One of the first examples of such a change was one of the first televised political debates on prime time television. It took place during the early 1960's and featured John F. Kennedy debating his opponent Richard M. Nixon. Both gentleman were seeking to become the next President of the United States. The general perception before the debate was televised was that Nixon had a comfortable lead on Kennedy, and that it would take a major change in course in order for Kennedy to achieve a victory. The night of the debate arrived and Nixon, who had a slight condition that caused him to sweat heavily in heat, was subjected to the bright lights and heat of the then budding television industry's transmission process. Nixon's staff had a difficult time keeping Nixon's visage in a lively manner, whereas Kennedy, who had no such condition, fared much better in the heat and light. The American public, who were witnessing for the first time two prominent politicians seeking the highest office in land square off against each other in a televised event, saw Nixon sweating profusely and seeming very nervous, while Kennedy appeared cool, calm and collected. Needless to say, in this case anyway, perception became reality, Kennedy went on to win the election and the rest is, as they say, history.

While this is a very specific instance of a dramatic change in a viewing audience's perception, and its immediate aftereffects, there are many, many more examples of television using its influence to precipitate changes in attitude.

To see such changes, one only needs to compare today's world with the world as described in Time's 1967 issue.

In the article Hollywood is described as the only asylum run by its inmates, and as ten million dollars worth of machinery functioning elaborately to put skin on baloney. With the intermingling of television and Hollywood, the same can be said for television media. Many individuals in the general public seem to hold the belief that if it was seen on television, then it had to be true. This trust would be fine if Hollywood and television executives were all trustworthy, outstanding citizens with only the highest standards of integrity, but such is often not the case. There is always an agenda, sometimes hidden, sometimes evil, sometimes seemingly for the benefit of the viewing public, but mostly it seems to be for financial reasons. The individuals making the decisions on what the public watches on television are usually in positions that are highly competitive and highly compensated. Many of the decisions have to be based on what will bring the most profit for the shareholders. If the wrong choices are made, heads will roll. By feeding the public a continuous diet of shows that allow for more 'pushing the envelope' attitudes are changed in an ongoing manner as to what is acceptable. The public may soon see reality murder shows, or other shows along these same lines, all in the name of freedom of the press or the almighty dollar.