Extra Credit--Counts as TWO Blog Posts:
View one of the following films: Quiz Show (1994) OR Good Night, and Good Luck (2005). Both are available at Askwith Media Center or on reserve at the Donald Hall Collection.
Keeping in mind that both of these films offer fictionalized renderings of historical circumstances, write a minimum of 400 words explaining how either the quiz show scandals (as depicted by Quiz Show) or Edward R. Murrow’s exposé of McCarthyism (as portrayed in Good Night, and Good Luck) had political results during the 1950s and shifted ideas about the medium of television and its specific genres (quiz shows or news programs).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDuring the events in the television industry in the 1950s, American society was going through change both on the cultural and political front. The scandal depicted in the 1994 movie Quiz Show, while sensationalized, still sheds light on the state of American distrust. As congressional layer Dick Goodwin, portrayed by Rob Morrow, uncovers the truth behind the fixing of popular quiz show, Twenty-One, he also befriends Charles Van Doren, the man chosen to be the star of the show and coached on the questions by the producers. Portrayed by Ralph Fiennes as a good man who got caught up in the hype of it all, Van Doren eventually becomes the face of the scandal, a figure so loved by the public, now shunned by those he fooled.
The film uses Goodman’s hesitancy to bring down Van Doren and failure to hold the TV networks accountable as way to show viewers the sentiment in America during the 1950s. The uproar that the scandal evokes from the public and the American government dramatizes the betrayal felt by the people. Goodwin urges his wife and colleagues not to liken the cheating done by Van Doren, to the McCarthyism so prevalent at the time. The people were already so mistrustful that their devotion to TV was tarnished. It is important, however to note, that it was not just the highly publicized quiz show scandals that ruined the viewers trust. In Lynn Spigel’s chapter titled “Silent TV”, she states that, “By the time of the scandals, attacks on television’s over-commercialism and objections to false advertising had virtually destroyed faith in TV’s status as a document” (182). An industry that emphasized truth and relied on liveliness, knew that both could not be achieved if they wanted to ensure a program was successful. Television could no longer claim to be a window into a different world, free of manipulation. The advertisers, producers and networks wanted too much control for that to ever be possible.
The quiz show scandals became the media’s outlet to showcase the anxiety in American on easily understandable terms. The 1950s where characterized by the Second Red Scare, sparked abroad by the Korean War and Vietnam War and prevailed in America through events such as the investigations by the HUAC and the tensions of the Cold War. At the beginning of Quiz Show, the success of Sputnik heard over the radio casts feelings of tension and mistrust over the whole film. The quiz show scandals were one the easiest ways the general public could vocalize the suspicions and doubts they felt in many aspects of life. Even if we now do not believe that a scandal on the reality of television depicted on a game show warrants a congressional investigation and hearing, it is not hard to understand the public’s need for an outlet to channel their fear of being misled.
P.S. Shout out to Marty, our favourite teleplay that apparently became an academy award winning film, even though that actually wasn’t the question Stemple lost on.
(see time stamp 10:24 of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMkL4LKb8AU)
After viewing Quiz Show, I realized just how extreme the deception of the quiz-show industry was. Selling off the answers to contestants as a means of providing the public with an “educational service”, while secretly attempting to use the appeal of those contests to maximize profit, has to be one of the most dishonest things NBC or any other TV network has ever done. It was hard to watch Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), take the fall for the schemes of the network and advertisers, and that Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow) came up short after coming so far. Despite this, there were political implications as a result of these scandals, and a public opinion shift away from quiz shows and towards other material.
ReplyDeleteAfter the Congressional hearing regarding the fixing of quiz shows, Congress made amendments to the 1934 Communications Act (the one that created the FCC). In essence, these amendments made it illegal for quiz shows such as Twenty-One (the show depicted in Quiz Show) and The $64,000 Question to be fixed in any way. This led to many networks disbanding these shows, and shifting their attention to a new form of audience entertainment in hopes of somehow reviving public faith in television. This would include give-away game shows, such as “Queen for a Day”, shows that had a more personalized public appeal.
It can be inferred that the American public wasn’t too pleased with the Congressional hearing, and how NBC wasn’t properly punished for deceiving so many people. You can imagine how people felt when they discovered that the beloved Charles Van Doren admitted that he received coaching on how to act while he was on the show, so that he could give off the impression that he thinking or under duress. The American public felt betrayed, and decided to shift their attention away from quiz shows. The audience also criticized networks for allowing sponsors to dictate the content of their programs, questioning television broadcasting as a medium for advertising and not as a means of public entertainment and consumption. Networks responded to this by taking back control of their content. Still, the public wanted something new, in which networks created the aforementioned “Queen for a Day” and similar shows.
On top of watching Quiz Show, I also watched a PBS documentary on the quiz show scandals. It was very informative, and I highly recommend it. The link for the transcript is below, for those who are interested:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/quizshow/filmmore/transcript/index.html
Edward R. Murrow's critique of McCarthyism during the 1950s is a prime example of how television, specifically news programming, can not only educate their audience, but can also accomplish political results. In the film, the first example of how Murrow's show got political results was the case of Milo Radulovich. Murrow, Friendly, and their fellow reporters stumbled on Milo's small story-- about how he was discharged from the Air Force because of allegations that his sister was a communist sympathizer and because his father subscribed to a Serbian newspaper. The Air Force alleged that because of his family, he posed a security risk to the Air Force and to the United States. He was discharged without proper evidence or a proper trial. The "evidence" the Air Force had was kept secret in a folder no one was allowed to see. Murrow brings this to light on his television program and takes the stance that this is wrong and unconstitutional. Instead of the usual unbiased reporting, he chooses to editorialize and take a side, jeopardizing his reputation and career. He tells the Air Force that they must show the evidence, to see if it was hearsay or real facts. This action achieves political results soon after, as the Air Force reinstates Milo (presumably because Murrow brought the case to national attention).
ReplyDeleteAnother example is Murrow's attack on the US Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. Murrow criticizes McCarthy and his fear-mongering anti-Communist crusade. He argues, in a time when McCarthy was quite persuasive, that McCarthy had insufficient evidence to prove anything about the people he was persecuting. Murrow said, in the film, "It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law." Murrow spearheaded this attack on Senator McCarthy's hearings and his ignorant fear-mongering tactics, and others joined against him. Finally, Congress decided to investigate Senator McCarthy, because of the wave of skepticism that Murrow caused.
"Good Night, And Good Luck" is bookended by a speech of Murrow's, where he says that television should be used not only for entertainment, but to inform and educate the public, even when the topics are unsavory or unpopular. He says television can be beneficial, but only when people choose to use it that way. Murrow argues news programs have a responsibility to serve the public in this way. He changed the course of news programming, because, before, news shows had to be unbiased and even sided. They had to present both sides of an argument and not editorialize. But Murrow chose to take a stance in order to educate the public and get results.
Also, interesting to note, at the end of the film, Murrow and Friendly talk about how Milton Berle is the most trusted man in America, and make a joke about him wearing dresses.
Quiz Show dramatizes the steps that lead Charles Van Doren, Richard Goodwin, and Herb Stempel to gather at the same congressional hearing during the climax of the film as Van Doren admits to having received coaching and the answers to questions on the hit show “Twenty-One” during his record streak on the show. The repercussions ended up being largely societal but the political ramifications were also quite striking. Following the quiz show scandals, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 and gave the FCC a few more teeth, as it were. In terms of repercussions to the people involved, most simply lost their reputations. As the film states in the closing intertitles, Charles Van Doren was forced to resign his professorship at Columbia and never taught again. Many of the men involved in the network’s rigging of the game shows were forced to leave television, or at least the high level positions they had held during their run in quiz shows for at least some time. Most importantly for the public at large, the quiz show scandal was a breach of public trust. The quiz shows promised to show normal people, who happened to have a large amount of niche knowledge, earn money in a new, fun to watch manner. The side benefit of learning new information, being spurred to learn and excel in the hopes of emulating the contestants was a tacit benefit for the audience. As Van Doren’s character states in the film, kids are finally interested in books and learning while in school he had a miserable time because he was smart. At its heart Quiz Show is a film about doing the right thing. Van Doren and Stempel are given the choice of doing the right thing and both choose money over the film’s presented moral right, as represented by Goodwin who not only champions justice but turns down the possibility of having his own panel show. The option, in the mind of those who wrote the film, and those who felt betrayed by Van Doren and his ilk during the scandal, between trying their best during the show or receiving answers in advance should be clear: try your best and don’t cheat. The characters’, and the people they are based on’s, choices to cheat during the quiz shows changed the image of the quiz show. Quiz shows, once considered entertaining education were all suspect once “Twenty One”’s reputation was tarnished. Indeed, the United States’ Congress took the betrayal of trust so seriously that the amendments to the Communications Act of 1934 prohibited the fixing of quiz shows and, following the scandal, the ratings of quiz shows fell sharply and lead to the networks taking a much stronger hold on the planning and execution of quiz shows to ensure trust and a continued audience including capping the max winnings and number of appearances that contestants could make.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Good Night, and Good Luck," a film I first saw in English class during my sophomore year of high school, illustrates a period of early television history when it became undeniably obvious how powerful the medium was, not only for entertainment, but for informing the public and keeping power checks on those in positions of authority. As Clooney's tribute film documents, Edward R. Murrow's un-relinquishing pursuit of truth in the face of McCarthyism went a long way toward ridding the country of the infamous witch-hunter.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, as no one could have predicted, history has repeated itself several times over since McCarthy's limelight ran dim. Most prominent recently has been the dialect surrounding the 'war on terror.' Again, anyone said to not support this war was viewed as 'un-American' (could there be a more McCarthy-like way to phrase it?), and their loyalty and patriotism was called into question. All of this rhetoric served as a distraction, when the country needed rigorous public debates.
Sadly, the closest thing TV gets to Ed Murrow is the fictional Will McAvoy, the fictional anchorman on HBO's series, "The Newsroom." Jon Stewart (real life's closest thing to an Ed Murrow, despite his program airing on Comedy Central) even ran a feature a while back in which a newsman explained that he couldn't get work in real news, because his stories were too boring, but he did land a spot working on "The Newsroom"— the message being that a fictional series cares more about detailed news stories than actual major news corporations.
Indeed, television has the capacity to educate, inform, entertain, and bore to tears. In my opinion, the most important thing TV news programs can do is call out liars, yet politicians, and 'newsmen,' for that matter, lie to the public constantly (all one must do is check out Comedy Central's hour newsblock to see this is true). One reason is increased competition. The modern 24-hour news cycle and plethora of news coverage options creates an environment in which ratings, audience demographics, VIP show guests, and friendly relationships with corrupt people are more important than ever. So anchors don't ask the hard questions because politicians don't like answering hard questions, and anchors don't call out politicians on blatant lies because then those politicians won't work with the network anymore, etc.
Aaron Sorkin sees this, and thus created a show where the ideal news network does exist. Because, sadly, only on fictional TV can we get honest, tenacious news coverage of salient events.
If only Mr. Murrow were here to taste the irony.