A cold and rainy day in the UK, which are like most days there, on January 1st, 1927 birth of an idealistic concept was born. Produce publicly funded T.V. programming, yet keep it separate from state. The choices that lay ahead were, to charge the public for the programming, or sell airtime commercially to fund public TV and radio. The UK unlike the Americas choose to charge the public, by means of a TV License rather than sell commercial time. After doing a survey, almost 70% of participants stated, “commercials would take too much away from the enjoyment of the Telly.”¹ As the TV license for programming progressed it became a law and tax, which would contradict the earlier of keeping it separate from state.
To charge practically everyone in the country and insure they have a TV license if in fact they are partaking in watching of said TV, is a major undertaking for a country of approximately 31 Million households, as published by their National Data Base information page ¹. Information on this website also states, that of the 31 million address’s that make up the list there are 25 million that have active licenses, and 3.9 million of those are at a discounted rate for seniors over 75, and around 40,000 customers have a 50% discounted rate for being legally blind as they can only hear the TV but not view it.
In part with keeping track of violators the UK employs sensor vans, and hand held devices that pick up radio and TV signals and their strength which then can be located to insure a license is issued. Moving into the 20th Century you are also required to purchase a license if you watch TV or listen to radio on a computer, or iPad, or phone as well. If two people live at the same residence and there is more than on...
... middle of paper ...
...population; according to the latest Gallop Poll4, as opposed to the UK being at 20% according to University of Birmingham, UK5. Ultimately it depends on if you want to spend money on a TV license or doctor visits as to which is the best. My findings are conclusive that with commercial TV Americans have choices as opposed to people of the UK who have to purchase a TV License and have no freedom of choice.
Worked Cited Page:
1http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk ,accessed, February 17th, 2014
2http://.marketingcharts.com/television/primetime-tv-hour ,accessed, February 17th, 2014
3http://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2012/forum_20120921/en/ ,accessed, February, 17 2014
4http://www.gallup.com/poll/165671/obesity-rate-climbing-2013.aspx,accessed, February 17, 2014
5http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/mds/centres/obesity/obesity-uk/index.aspx ,accessed, February 17, 2014
Television has always been an industry whose profit has always been gained through ads. But in chapter 2 of Jason Mittell’s book, Television and American Culture, Mittell argues that the rise of the profit-driven advertising television model can be traced back through American television history, and that the rise of the profit-driven advertising model of television actually helped to mold American culture both from a historical standpoint and from a social standpoint.
Michael Parenti (2002) declares media in the United States is no longer “free, independent, neutral and objective.” (p. 60). Throughout his statement, Parenti expresses that media is controlled by large corporations, leaving smaller conglomerates unable to compete. The Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, restricted “a single company to own television stations serving more than one-third of the U.S. public,” but is now overruled by greater corporations. (p. 61). In his opinion, Parenti reveals that media owners do not allow the publishing of stories that are not beneficial and advantageous. Parenti supports his argument very thoroughly by stating how the plutocracy takes control over media in multiple ways: television, magazines, news/radio broadcasting, and other sources.
...d that television holds on us, Postman give two ideas. The first idea that he gives, he describes it as ridiculous to create programming that demonstrates how “television should be viewed by the people” (161).
Taras examines the commitments and values of CBC with the Canadian government and the citizens. He looked at a particular case of when CBC clashed with the government, and how CBC struggled to keep their TV programs running (Taras, pp.4-5). Next he talked about how the media industry is being taken controlled by powerful corporation and claims that PSB have the responsibility to protect the minorities (Taras, p.6). Subsequently, Taras discussed the ups and downs CBC had gone through until this day. Lastly, Taras explores the complex and intimate relationship between public broadcasters and the government; how they take advantage of each other to accomplish their goals. Ultimately, Taras believes that PSB will continue to have an impact in society despite living in a generation of digital media.
Electronic media content can be viewed differently according to personal opinions, but the First Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution lay the foundation for the legal system that is to be followed. These rights form a guide that help citizens have a stronger grasp on what is and isn’t acceptable within the eye of the law. Narrowing down to electronic media content, there has been a rise of tension involving first amendment rights of content regulations. The spectrum scarcity rationale has made it possible to control licensing schemes, along with direct content control to make sure rules are being followed according to the First Amendment. The differences between cable TV versus broadcasting are similar, yet contrasting.
Imagine living in a world that did not cater to you. A world that did not approve of the types of relationships you had or desired; a world that only used you for the punchline of a joke or for taboo sex appeal; a world that would rather pretend that you do not exist. For members of the LGBT community, this is their reality. Television shows, movies, music, advertisements — all of these mediums are most assuredly intended for a heterosexual audience. True, there are handfuls of television shows that have queer characters, but it is very rare for these television shows to be on primetime television. Primetime television is the hotspot of all media. It is the time when all of America is watching, and the shows featured during these time-slots
Tremblay tackles this issue by comparing the broadcasting policies by authorities in Canada , Quebec and United States . The policies in Canada clearly exist to maintain their national identity and cultural sovereignty. It is encouraged to use the “Canadian ways” to carry out functions which would be Canadian a...
...rom broadcast media also heralds an opportunity. In a world of self-service digital, where consumers compare everything according to value, online video is the ultimate table stakes. For mere pennies a day, consumers can get the content they want (that’s key) when they want it on whatever device they are using. They can watch their shows on their time from the mobile phone or a tablet or a computer or a smartTV. And that is the ultimate value for whatever it costs. Perhaps broadcast media can figure it all out in time. Perhaps they can stave off Judgment Day by evolving their business models to provide the kind of value consumers want. Then they become just another online video provider competing for the same eyeballs as everyone else. Changing their business model (away from subscriptions) would require Herculean efforts.
“Nowadays in the modern world, society if affected by more things we can think of. Society is affected by movies, TV shows, TV reality shows, magazines, and books. A report was recorded over a six-month period about Television shows and daily news broadcasts. From September 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000; The Grand Rapid Institute recorded and viewed a few programs and at the end of the month the Institute tallied up the number of letters sent after a recorded program and it showed how unfair the programs were and how people became a democracy to let them know” (TV News 1).
Before television existed people had to depend on Radio stations to receive their little bit of entertainment and news. But in 1878, the invention of TV began. The first TV made didn’t look anything like the way TV’s look today. It was a mechanical camera with a large spinning disc attached to it (Kids Work). But as over the years, of course, inventions of different TV’s progressed and by the 20th century about 90 percent of our population had a TV in their household (MGHR). Television today is mainly used for people take a break from their life by relaxing and enjoying some entertainment.
Presently 98% of the households in the United States have one or more televisions in them. What once was regarded as a luxury item has become a staple appliance of the American household. Gone are the days of the three channel black and white programming of the early years; that has been replaced by digital flat screen televisions connected to satellite programming capable of receiving thousands of channels from around the world. Although televisions and television programming today differ from those of the telescreens in Orwell’s 1984, we are beginning to realize that the effects of television viewing may be the same as those of the telescreens.
In the argumentative essay “T.V. Addiction” by Marie Winn, Winn relates watching television to having an addiction with drugs and alcohol. The television experience allows us to escape from the real world and enter into a pleasurable and peaceful mental state. When it comes to television, Marie asks the following question: Is there a kind of television viewing that falls into the more serious category of destruction addiction? I believe there is. Why do so many people, instead of doing what they’re supposed to be doing, put everything on hold and just focus on television? I think this is because they want an escape from their problems.
Nightingale, V & Dwyer, T 2006 ‘The audience politics of ‘enhanced’ television formats’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, vol. 2, no.1, pp. 25-42
As Americans we take pride in our liberating government. But, it is essential to ask how much we, the general public, know about our democracy. Because of the representative structure of our government, it is in our best interest to remain as knowledgeable as possible about political affairs so that we can play an active role in our democracy by voting for candidates and issues. The media, which includes print, television, and the internet, is our primary link to political events and issues. (For the purposes of this essay only print and television will be considered.) Therefore, in order to assess the success of our democracy it is necessary to assess the soundness of our media. We are lucky enough to have a media, in theory, free from government influences because of our rights to freedom of press and freedom of speech, but we are still subject to the media’s interpretation and presentation of politics, as is the danger when depending on any source for information. So, we must address how the media informs us; how successful it is at doing so; and how we should respond to it.
Not only is there a sense of globalisation in the things we watch but also in the way we watch them. For example, digital television has become such a part of everyday life for the majority of UK viewers that many don’t even know they have it. The total number of households in the UK with digital television now stands at 15,715,178. We are now able to watch the same channels as people at the other side of the world, thanks to digital television. We have so much choice that we, at times, don’t know what to do with all of it. It has the availability to hold around 999 channels ranging from BBC channels to children’s cartoon channels, from DIY shows to adult content channels; it is all available to us.