Skip to main content
Socially Relevant Coverage During the 1960s
Why did the networks begin to lengthen their news coverage, broadcast presidential debates, and program more socially-relevant documentaries like Crisis during the 1960s? How did this material illuminate civil rights issues and inflect the way that people understood national politics?
Prior to the 1960s, news programs were relatively short and consisted of only 15 minute segments. The 1960s, however, was a decade of change. Civil Rights, feminism and politics were three important issues finally being brought into the light. The television allowed all three of these issues to be broadcasted across the nation and the world. People in the smallest of towns, were now able to witness firsthand, through the television, what was occurring in the rest of the world, which ultimately enabled more people to become involved in these social movements. The documentary Crisis specifically illuminated Civil Rights because it gave an inside look inside this movement as it followed numerous individuals involved in it: JFK, RFK, and both of the students attempting to enroll at the University of Alabama-Vivian Malone and James Hood. Crisis provides alternative perspectives on the Civil Rights movement as each one of these four individuals express their innermost feelings on camera about what they are presently experiencing as a result of a segregated society. This essentially enabled the general public to be more sympathetic and empathetic towards what was going on in the nation and would hopefully eventually lead them to take action themselves.
ReplyDeleteAmerica was changing in the 1960s, and it was growing at speeds faster than the decade before. There wasn’t just one major event or issue happening, but rather there were many things including the Civil Rights Movement, a music revolution (“The British Invasion”), second-wave feminism, youth rebellion, anti-war demonstrations, and more political assassinations than any decade since. With such a culture, it would only make sense for Americans to want to watch the news, and it meant that the segments would have to be longer. The Civil Rights Movement saw the power of news media. The leaders knew that the protestors were wearing their “Sunday best” clothes was a smart and beneficial plan. The movement needed to make noise and stay relevant, so appealing audiences was important. Furthermore, Robert Drew’s Crisis documentary was significant because it educated viewers on some of the major issues by really seeing what was happening on the inside. Because the viewers could witness the event as if they were part of it, it may make it more personal for them. Educating people about the issues, would help them understand how deep the matter goes. The 60s’s big movements understood the power that media could play in helping their cause, and the activists saw the power news can play in informing the public about political issues.
ReplyDeleteThe 1960s was a period of unrest and change on a social/national level, but in regards to commercial television, the industry was facing criticisms from all sides: "from program producers and sponsors unhappy with coercive network practices; from disaffected television writers, critics, and drama producers; from Senator Dodd and a chorus of prominent critics of television violence, and from President Kennedy's new FCC Chairman Newton Minow" (Boddy, 164). Televisions "spectacle" appeal was waning. Audiences were specifically disillusioned by the quiz show scandals of the 1950s. And while the technical quality of films was improving due to the partnership of television with Hollywood producers, critics blasted the subject material (such as "extreme violence" that was pursued by Senator Dodd.) Furthermore, other programs were criticized because of the amount of sponsorship control over what was produced onscreen (some of this material being unearthed by Dodd's hearings)- the medium was being considered purely commercial, with no interest in public good.
ReplyDeleteThings began to shift however, as television responded to these critiques. One such way was to become more politically and socially relevant. A vast majority of Americans owned at least one television set before the mid 1960s, indicating that the audience was near universal within the nation. The industry began to focus on expanding news programs and presenting socially relevant documentaries in the hope of legitimizing itself. Producers knew how far their reach was through television. The question is whether their motives to bring this "socially important" content to their viewers was motivated through a need for the social good of the country, or a need to be SEEN as acting with pure intentions.
The implications of this shift were certainly dramatic, and were accepted by the American public. News programs used to consist of 15 minute segments daily (if always that) whereas today they run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on multiple networks. People were certainly interested in seeing what was happening around the country. While one cannot divorce the fact that any program aired is, on some level, reinforcing certain narratives (i.e. no program is unbiased) there is still something to be said that people were able to witness "first hand" what was happening. Audiences were capable of watching something as if they were there, in the moment. This allowed them to make their own, more informed decisions as to the happenings of the world. At the very least, when African Americans were being blasted with firehoses by police officers, it was far harder to claim "fake news" when the entire incident was recorded and broadcasted.
It's also worth reiterating the fact that the spread of television was phenomenal. Not only was it bringing news to people's homes, news they otherwise may have never heard of, but it also began a more national discussion. In theory, about 91% of Americans had access to this information and could discuss it with their neighbors, who had also (hypothetically) seen the same thing. Television didn't just shift national discourse over social change and political events by making them accessible, it also shifted these things by making them accessible to virtually everyone.