Quiz Shows Quiz shows were a new type of show that proved to be very popular and enthralling to viewers and thus this is why shows like “who wants to be a millionaire came to power, though what quiz shows were first like is very to different to what we see them as today. The word quiz possibly originates from the Latin word “Qui es?” meaning “who are you?” Jane Austin too used it to mean “An odd looking thing”; it was also used to define a droll or eccentric person. Later it came to mean a practical joke, we consequently know the word “quiz” is of an indecisive origin. Wireless radio shows first became popular in 1934, it reared a weird fresh programme called “The Symington’s soups film star competition programme”. This was the first quiz show broadcasted and proved to be extremely popular. In 1955 ITV created a huge number of quiz shows that became popular such as “take your pick” and “double your money”. Nevertheless in the 1970’s and 80’s restrictions on prize money were obligatory and quiz shows utmost of prize would be the equivalent of a small car every four shows. subsequently if more questions resulted in too many mini’s being won, then the pre-recorded shows had to be screened out of succession to break out the “big prizes. In the 1990’s the beginning of quiz shows with vast amounts of cash such as “who wants to be a millionaire” became popular, some individuals disapprove of these as they are making people gluttonous by contributing huge sums of money. Also people don’t like them since they’re making people wealthy who don’t earn it or haven’t earned it properly. I think quiz shows are so popular as the community l... ... middle of paper ... ... tense. “Who wants to be a millionaire” has been so triumphant because there has never been a game show like it prior to it that offers a million pound prize money. The show is varied and utterly different to anything on television before. It is fresh and the prize is amazing. I think that the show was first-rate when it primarily came out but it has become rather tiresome and repetitive and what was a fresh new idea seems rather tedious and droll now. I feel that the prize is too much of a sum to hand out when there are much more needier causes in the world that such money could go to rather than someone wanting to be greedy and get rich, though even if “who wants to be a millionaire” wasn’t on, another show would be produced and would give the same effect and either a greater or equal sum offered as prize money.
As this suburban sprawl of the fifties took America by storm, Spiegel discusses how television provided a necessary means of escapism for frustrated families. The first television show, broadcast in 1949, was a very simple program in which a man and woman sit watching and discussing the TV. Although by today's standards this would be seen as unsurpassingly boring to audiences, this simple show provided a stress relief and easy entertainment; it seemed as though audiences enjoyed watching programs which, similar to their own situation, seemed more rewarding.
Good evening and welcome to The History of Television. On tonight’s show we will focus on how and
...ould be given away” (Singer, Peter). He did not give enough reasoning in why we should donate and why he is requesting such a large portion of one’s salary. He then goes on and says, “If we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money” (Singer, Peter).
One of the greatest captivators of public interest in the 1950s was the emerging quiz game show on television. The public, naively trustful, fell in love with television game shows. People found them to be new, exciting, and similar to the captivating radio quiz shows so popular before television's advent. Some game shows were developed primarily for laughs, while others were played for prizes or large sums of money. These game shows were so popular that at their peak, twenty-two of them were concurrently on the air. They varied in format from the basic question and answer type to the naming of popular musical tunes. Public familiarity with the general structure of the quizzes, coupled with the strikingly high stakes, precipitated extreme interest in these shows, and led to the unbelievable popularity of successful returning contestants (Anderson, 9). Virtually everyone with a television set in their home tuned in weekly to their favorite game shows in the interest of seeing the contestants, with whom they identified more and more as the weeks went by, succeed in the quiz games. The popularity of quiz games was staggering. In August of 1955 approximately 32 million television sets and 47,560,000 viewers, almost one third of the nation, tuned in to see The $64,000 Question (Anderson, 8).
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
In addition, this will increase the misuse of money given to those individuals who are given the aid. If we were to select individuals to give the money to, there is no guarantee that this money will be spent wisely. Just as time is precious, money is too.
It was a Tuesday evening when my mother brought home a baby, born only a few days earlier, and sat down gently on the couch to turn on the television--“Jeopardy!” time. For as long as my mother has lived in the USA, Alex Trebek has been a calming voice for a woman who left India to move to a country genuinely foreign to her. All the while, she pursued a medical career, caring for her newborn child, with a husband who worked from dawn to dusk. In her sheer exhaustion, my mother introduced me to Jeopardy, my first TV show.
In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer argues that all households should donate a percentage of their incomes to charity. Majority of the American population is satisfied with donating little to nothing to those in need, but seldom rethink the purchase of the luxury items. It is a commonly accepted fact that those who work for their earnings are deserving of the monies that they receive. Unfortunately, those in third world countries that don’t have the same resources and opportunities are unable to sustain their livelihood. Some children in third world countries suffer from deprivation of food and shelter; while those that are fortunate enough to have jobs are paid only cents a day. (“Some H-1B Workers Underpaid, Federal Auditors Say.”) Therefore, Singer is right in saying that we should be more cognizant to the suffering that takes place globally, but in order for his vision to be recognized Americans must be made aware of the benefits that their dollars can have; as well as the downfalls that occur when they don’t donate.
The film, “The Quiz Show” is about the famous public revealing of a rigged television production called Twenty-One during the 1950s. The shows main attraction, a Jewish Queen’s resident named Herbert Stempel, rose to fame as families around the county watched the bright contestant correctly answer question after question, week after week. As ratings and profits began to plateau sponsors and producers felt a change of face was necessary. Producers recruit Charles Van Doren an instructor from Columbia University who happens to be the son of Mark Van Doren a prominent poet and distinguished academic. Stempel is instructed to throw the game on a rather simple question, in order to make room for the shows new upcoming star. Although outraged, Stempel follows along with the plan. Producers corner Van Doren and subtly propose rigging the show in his favor. At first Van Doren is appalled, and refuses the offer, but producers ease him into agreeing through strategic planning and manipulation. As fame and fortune overwhelmed the new contestant his morals slowly slip away.
The basic idea was similar with some difference, like the presence of two contestants for competing for each other and the no limit on their winnings. Barry and Enright leased the show to Pharmacueticals, Inc. and they used it as a platform for advertising their products, the first show aired on October 12, 1956. The quiz show 21 did not match the ratings of Questions, however, it competed for another successful and popular show. The author highlights one of the 21 contestants who became a symbol of the nation of the profitability, Charles Van Doren. Moreover, the author briefs about his intellectual family chain. Van Doren defeated the impoverished champion, Herbert Stempel, after three times of tough tie match on December 5, 1956. Van Doren’s victory in the quiz show brought him greater rewards than his ancestors. The author then provides detail about the fame and popularity Van Doren received, thousands of people from around the world thanked him through the letters he received. Little services which he had to pay, from his $4,400 salary annually as an English instructor in Columbia, were donated complimentary by the shop keepers. He received numerous job offers from several different colleges, he was given the title of Doctor without his Ph.D. On the other hand, rumors arose about the fixing of the quiz show. By the end of 1956, many articles published mentioning about the control exercise performed by the sponsors, eliminating the unpopular one and saving the popular
In a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, called attention to the needs of people around the world by proposing a plan to fix this problem. Dubbed the “Singer Solution,” Singer believes donations from the wealthy to overseas aid organizations can end world poverty, a problem the world has wrestled with for centuries. While the Singer Solution may seem like a wonderful idea on paper, it is in reality impossible to implement and ultimately hurts the needy.
In the case, the situation happened in a rural area a developing South American country, which has a lack of food, water, education, medical care and healthy style. The pediatric team raised fund to help children, who suffered from diseases in this country, and the benefactors provide the solicited money to finance the laboratory testing, diagnosis imaging and surgeries due to children needs "the voluntary mission". In fact, there was approximately 25 child in need of medical care (19 children with hernia, 4 children with congenital cardiac malformations, 2 chilren with foot club and a child with neurocystericosis). Most of the issues happened while they were struggling to live "chores". However, the fund was not enough to treat all
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
Every day, about 25,000 children die. (TED) Every year, nearly 9,000,000 children under the age of 5 die. (WHO) And around 70% of those deaths are due to conditions that could easily be prevented with proper food, water, and medical resources. (WHO) Many countries like Africa lack the resources to properly provide food, water, and health care for their citizens. In spite of media and propaganda encouraging international citizens to provide donations to help their cause, I believe the challenge must be resolved by local citizens in order for it to be truly resolved. So even though the media is encouraging us to, wealthy nations should stop giving monetary aid to Africa, as they will not become independent by receiving charity and the aid is being put into the wrong places.
Television commercials or billboards advocating for the less fortunate and persuading their audiences to donate are constantly running. There are many that argue donations would go a long way in helping minimize poverty solely because these funds would come from the “planet’s rich countries” and the money would only constitute about 0.5 percent of the gross national product (Sachs). This would amount to about 160 billion dollars which (when/if distributed properly) would have a significant impact on communities in need of aid. Countries that would be able to donate this kind of money include Germany, the United States, and others. Germany, being the most economically stable and thriving, would theoretically be able to donate the most money towards foreign aid and relief programs to help alleviate poverty. This being said, why don’t they? The problem is with funds not being properly raised, monitored, or distributed. Furthermore, without the proper funding and aid, no sustainability can be achieved. A poor country can have all the money in the world but once it is all used up, what are the people supposed to