Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Trajectory of Television: A Big History of the Small Screen.

Posted by samzenpus on from the back-in-the-day dept.

antdude writes "Ars Technica has a three pages article on the trajectory of TV--starting with a big history of the small screen. From the article: 'Though it's a relatively recent invention, television is a pillar of Western—and even global—culture. Even if you're that one guy who makes it a point to mention that you don't watch or even own a television, your life has inevitably been shaped by the small screen to some degree. Popular culture has its moments of being swept up in the comedies and dramas of the airwaves, and television (cable news in particular) indelibly established in the minds of the world that instant access to breaking news on faraway continents is a normal thing.'"

28 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. a few comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Good article. I suspect the author originally planned to also discuss the trajectory of the content, which was clearly quite different decade over decade, but decided to stick to the techie stuff instead. Wise move.

    In addition to NTSC - Never Twice the Same Color (one of the great retronyms in industrial history), there was also PAL - People Are Lavendar, and SECAM - System Essentially Contrary to American Method.

    VHS tapes were pretty handy back in the day. They had two problems: 1) like other tapes, they tended to jam and become totally useless, and 2) the fidelity was really poor, something like half of NTSC in each dimension which wasn't very good in the first place. So watching a VHS tape wasn't a great viewing experience.

    The stuff on Jack Valenti was overdone. OK, we get it, he was an alarmist on the industry payroll. Let's talk about the technology and how people used it.

    1. Re:a few comments by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Informative

      VHS tapes were pretty handy back in the day. They had two problems: 1) like other tapes, they tended to jam and become totally useless, and 2) the fidelity was really poor, something like half of NTSC in each dimension which wasn't very good in the first place. So watching a VHS tape wasn't a great viewing experience.

      The worst tapes for jamming were the blank ones that could fit 8 hours (160 minutes standard speed) on one tape. The tape was extra thin so more could fit on the spool, and that thinness made it much more prone the jamming up in cheap VCRs (which were basically ALL VCRs manufactured once DVD had gained a foothold). VHS tapes from the studios (movies) were typically very good, and there wasn't a problem with them jamming because they didn't need to fit 8 hours on one tape.

      Regardless of the quality issues with VHS, it was such a game changer when it became prolific that I can only look back on it in a positive light. Before that pretty much the only option was watching what was broadcast live, or going to the movie theater. Either way, we did not have any control over what we watched and when. (Yes, I'm ignoring laserdisc or using a film projector at home, because both were read-only, expensive, and only limited titles were available in those formats).

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:a few comments by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another generation will think TV was a total US 1950's all electronic patent race.
      What about the CRT work of Ferdinand Braun, the Nipkow disk, the 1929 work of Francis Jenkins in the USA?
      The work of Telefunken? John Logie Baird? The US/German/UK patent hunt of the 1930's?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:a few comments by brantondaveperson · · Score: 2

      If I remember correctly, you could get some pretty terrible VCR's back in the day. I acquired, and used until the kids filled it up with sandwihches, a really nice Sony VCR that worked fantastically. Great freeze frame, frame advance, slow motion, all that. But my folks, for whatever reason, were always happy with the cheapest and nastiest players they could find. They made awful plastic grinding noises upon inserting a table, and generally died after about a year - usually taking whatever tape was inside them at the time with them.

      DVD players, on the other hand, even the cheapest of the cheap, generally worked pretty well. Even if the lifetime of the really cheap ones wasn't all that much better than the lifetime of the cheap VCRs.

      It's amazing what was inside those VCRs, just from a mechanical engineering point of view. SO complicated, so many oddly shaped moving bits of silicone-lubricated plastic. It's amazing they worked at all.

    4. Re:a few comments by sjames · · Score: 2

      The sad thing is that for all of the quality improvements in DVRs, they are a huge step back in many ways. Most of them seem to be more concerned with obeying the MPAA and the cable company than the owner. They also don't seem to like exporting things to long term storage very much. I still have VHS tapes from the '80s that work fine.

      You just about have to make your own DVR to get it to reach the equivilent functionality of VHS.

  2. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly by atom1c · · Score: 2

    I'm now one of those in the "don't have a TV" crowd, and I believe that theories of economics have affected the masses by way of the television.

    The Good for Viewers: A means of visually confirming events and visually experiencing other people's imaginations via scripted TV.
    The Good for Broadcasters: A means of sharing an opinion to audiences in real-time (same goes for the Internet), which inevitably shapes "public opinion."

    The Bad for Viewers: Increased exposure to opinions that may not be of interest -- which results in a reduction in lifetime sense of productivity.
    The Bad for Broadcasters: Increased exposure and association to opinions which promulgate the decreased sense of productivity.

    The Ugly for Viewers: Dumbing down of society thanks to the "rush to the bottom" of the social ladder in the quest for a falsely placed sense of greater social connection and relevance.
    The Ugly for Broadcasters: Entirely responsible for the crap on TV and for the dumbing down of society to the point of retardation.

    [end rant]

  3. Re:Legal drug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Same goes for someone who's enjoying a book, gazing at a sunset, or performing any other activity which does require focus but doesn't require any other form of physical feedback. Sure, some people express emotions when reading a book, but so do most people watching TV, unless it's simply not emotive content. If you're simply calling "focusing on something" a drug, you're crazy and have an agenda.

  4. I remember when... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm probably one of the older readers/posters here and I'll tell you why I hate TV.

    Back when I was a kid, there was no TV.

    People and communities were far different.

    Everyone knew their neighbours and interacted with them on a daily basis.

    We'd have card or board-game evenings on a Tuesday night, whereupon most everyone in the street would roll up at someone's house and enjoy a very social time together, enjoying each other's company and having fun. We kids would play out in the yard (in summer) or inside (in winter), sharing our comics and also playing games.

    When Mrs Brown 5 doors down was ill, someone would go mow her lawns every weekend and the women would take turns making sure she had a nutritious meal three times a day.

    Most Saturday nights the guy who lived next to us would get out his 16mm film projector and a movie would be screened on his garage door. The adults would all sit around watching and drinking beer -- while we kids also watched or just went and played ball in the yard out back.

    Because of this tight bonding between neighbors, those were days when you could leave your car parked in the driveway (or on the road outside your house) with the keys in it and when folk went on vacation, they never bothered to lock their doors -- otherwise the people next door couldn't get in to water the plants while you were away.

    Perhaps my glasses of retrospect are rose-tinted, but they were wonderful, carefree, crime-free days where I lived.

    Then TV came along.

    Once everyone had their own set, people no longer got together and socialised of an evening. Instead, they stayed in their own houses and after a few years (as some folk sold up and others moved in), it quickly became apparent that we didn't even know some of those who lived in the street.

    A little later, after a few car-thefts and burglaries, people started locking their cars and doors.

    You see, once the fabric of the community was torn by the isolating effect of television, most folk no longer had the close bond that once existed with the others in their neighborhood -- in fact people became anonymous. Once folk are anonymous their inhibitions tend to drop and they're far more likely to submit to temptation (such as theft or other crimes). Just look at how differently many people behave when they're on vacation in a different part of the country and you'll see the proof of that. If the people around you know who you are you tend to be far more conservative and circumspect in your behavior. Go somewhere where nobody knows you and it's easier to behave badly.

    Anyway, TV has now become opiate of the masses. Far too many people spend a huge percentage of their life passively sitting in front of the box, soaking up everything that's thrown at them.

    If you'd tried to describe why the Kardashians would be celebrities back when I was a kid, people would simply not understand -- and I have to admit, I still don't get it.

    The best thing we could do for any nation is to switch off TV and show people that "reality" is a much better option than "reality TV".

    Hell, imagine how much better off we'd all be if we spent an hour less each day watching TV and instead, used that time to improve our education, earn a little extra money -- or just spend quality time with our friends and families.

    I doubt very much whether *anyone's* last words will ever be "Darn, I wish I'd spent more time watching TV".

    But hey, I'm old enough to know I'm wrong more often than I'm right -- so feel free to ignore this rant :-)

    1. Re:I remember when... by Jiro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Go somewhere where nobody knows you and it's easier to behave badly.

      When your neighbors know all about you and their attitudes enforce your behavior, that doesn't just mean it's hard to get away with robbing someone's house. It also means it's hard to be gay, or atheist, or a geek, or a woman who doesn't think that preparing nutritious meals is her job. or anything else nonconformist.

      I doubt very much whether *anyone's* last words will ever be "Darn, I wish I'd spent more time watching TV".

      People sometimes wish they had enjoyed more of the pleasures of life, which can certainly include watching more TV even if watching more TV isn't the whole list.

    2. Re:I remember when... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While this is a really nice story, and I like a lot about it, I also have heard conflicting stories from parents and grandparents about people in the age of radio who always "had to listen to their show" and the neighbor guy who was holed up every evening "listening to the game" (generally baseball).

      Obviously there were a lot of social changes that played into the trends you describe, and television played a role. But the story you tell is oversimplified... when I grew up (in the era of tv), for example, I didn't watch tv every night -- and when I did, it was more likely to be at a neighbors' house while hanging out and socializing. I'm not saying I had the most common experience, but it was possible to sit at home and be antisocial while listening to the radio before tv, just as it was possible to treat communal tv watching as another social activity (like going to the movies).

      There's also lots of other stuff to blame for the cultural trends you mention other than tv. (I say this as someone who rarely watches it these days.)

    3. Re:I remember when... by Push+Latency · · Score: 2

      I tend to disagree. Because of TV-inspired segregated identity clustering, we've removed the non from "non-conformist". As a non-conformist, I long for a time when I could... non-conform. I never had a hard time being non-conformist, though one had to be tactful, polite, and civil about it.

      And seriously, if you hear yourself on your deathbed saying you wish you had watched more TV, my sense is that many of the better aspects of existence have passed you by.

    4. Re: I remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Truly sounds like a nice time but I don't know if you can blame TV for all that. For instance, the birth of cities meant there were a lot more strangers you had to deal with on a regular basis, resulting in less intimate relationships with one another.

    5. Re:I remember when... by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you had a very localized, very homogenous culture with little or no outside influences. I'm betting everyone in that neighborhood voted the same way, were suspicious of and openly hostile to new and different ways of thinking/living and 25% of the kids couldn't wait to get out of the small minded hellhole they lived in.

      We tend to recall our childhood environment through the lens of a blissfully ignorant child's point of view. There was likely domestic abuse, alcoholism, racism, teen pregnancy and a variety of other social problems just on the other side of those "open doors" that was never talked about in front of the kids.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    6. Re:I remember when... by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      I don't think that the breakdown of the neighborhood social structure is due to TV, I think it's due to Air Conditioning. With no AC you have to go outside on a regular basis; with AC you don't.

    7. Re:I remember when... by sjames · · Score: 2

      I think it has more to do with employment than TV. Communities existed because there was time to be in a community. One person in the household was generally home, or at most running errands within the community. There's no need to go back to the old sexism since it hardly matters which person is home or even if they alternate, so long as someone is and they're not too busy telecommuting to talk or to do something about the eyesore on the corner or plan for the block party.

      People veg in front of the TV because it's hard to want to do much else after a full day of work plus whatever actually HAS to get done around the house.

    8. Re:I remember when... by hedleyroos · · Score: 4, Funny

      I liked his story better.

  5. John Logie Baird? BBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An artilce about the development of television broadcasting that doesn't mention either of these?

  6. Re:Legal drug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Watching TV does not require focus. It is the opposite. Folks who watch TV call it, "zoning out". You cannot zone out while reading a book. And, if you zoned out, staring at a picture of a sunset for 3-5 hours a day, nobody would consider that healthy and normal-- you might even be compelled to seek professional help.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285

  7. Television Importance Fading by GoodnaGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was younger I used to watch a lot of televsion and even look forward to the shows. Nowadays I dont even have a television, I get all my information from the Web. Television is no longer informative, watch a documentary and you'll spend an hour watching repeated film clips and commentary interspersed with maybe 20 minutes of adverts. Much more efficient reading articles on the web for what you are interested in. Television is just light entertainment. Also with the news, each countries news agencies have their own narrow agendas so you never really get the full picture of world events. Much better to visit online news sites of different countries and political views. Then you'll understand much better how things came to be the way they are.

  8. Another No TV Family.. by SuperCharlie · · Score: 2

    We have not had a TV set for about 4 years now. We do watch some online stuff occasionally. Personally, I simply got tired of the never-ending ads. For me, there is no show worth that ceaseless drone of buy shit. Buy shit so people will like you, buy shit so you can get in some girls pants, buy shit so you can be cool.. on and on and on...and then there is the "news" which is the all propaganda network turning our collective minds into jello. What a joy it is to honestly say.. why no.. I didnt see one damn political ad, havent heard FOX or MSNBC or CNN for 4 years and I am that much better off for not getting my dose of daily indoctrination. Its not entertainment, its a mind-rape.

    1. Re:Another No TV Family.. by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      We haven't watched broadcast TV in a decade or so, about the only time we see adverts is when we specifically watch one someone linked to us on YouTube for a laugh.

      We have a wall of DVD and a NAS full of digital media. I prefer to watch TV and Movie on my own terms rather than when it suits some network scheduler, particularly given they tend to screw over they types of shows I prefer to watch (I'm looking at you Firefly).

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  9. Re:Legal drug? by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I zone out while reading books all the time. My mind wanders to events of the day or nascent ideas I've been pondering. I often have to skip back several pages to get back into the plot.

    Oh did you mean the other kind of zoning out where you are simply not paying attention to anything else as in completely focused and engaged with a single source of stimulation?

    If you can't tell I'm calling your conjecture flawed.

    TV is just a source of stimulation like any other. It's no bigger waste of time than a board game, running laps, reading a fiction novel or having non-procreative sex. None of these are productive activities and all are purely escapist therapy at best.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  10. LaserDisc "brief"? by michaelmalak · · Score: 2

    FTFA:

    LaserDisc had its brief moment in the sun

    Brief? LaserDisc was available for almost as long as VHS, having come out in 1978 compared to VHS's 1976. DVD killed them both circa 2000. Coupled with a $10,000 Kloss projection TV, LaserDisc ushered in "home theater" 20 years before DVD made the term popular. (In fact, LaserDisc had been out for so long, the release of DVD caused a collective groan due to the market confusion it created over whether its 480p was "hi-def" and the delay in HDTV standard that had been in the works since the 80's.)

    1. Re:LaserDisc "brief"? by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the release of DVD caused a collective groan due to the market confusion it created over whether its 480p was "hi-def" and the delay in HDTV standard that had been in the works since the 80's.

      I don't think anyone called 480p "hi-def" (it is technically EDTV). Also, although the Japanese had MUSE/Hi-Vision and the Europeans had HD-MAC back in the 80's, they were both mostly analog HD broadcast systems that never really had a robust consumer media component (I doubt there were more than a hand-full of MUSE encoded HD laserdiscs titles...)

      The MPEG standards track (that eventually became the digital HDTV standards) was "in-the-works" in the mid 90's (not the 80's). The MPEG-2 work originally targeted SD and was rushed by Hughes (for satellite tv) and the DVD folks to completion in 1996. Nobody was delaying anything in the standardization meetings as Hughes was clamoring to have the systems layered nailed down before they launched their direct broadcast satellites and the DVD folks wanted to launch products as soon as they could. For example, all the video "scalability" cruft that nobody uses in MPEG-2 were simply a concession to a few hold-outs to get the standard approved ASAP.

      There was for a short time, a "MPEG-3" standard proposed targeting for HD after the MPEG-2 work was done, but none of the proposals were significantly better than MPEG-2 coding at HD resolution, so ***rather than delay*** digital HDTV rollout to develop something better, the MPEG-3 standardization effort was simply cancelled and the first digital HD standards were MPEG-2 based (both terrestrial and satellite).

      Of course, eventually, the MPEG-4-AVC (aka H.264) was eventually developed (leveraging many of the tricks used by the video conferencing standards 'churn' creating an very complicated standard) and became the current defacto standard for HDTV (except for US terrestrial broadcast which is still MPEG-2 from the 90's)...

  11. Re:Legal drug? by JustOK · · Score: 2

    He probably read the comma sutra

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  12. Re:TV Ended in 2050 by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2

    "Television was a medium that declined by the mid-21st century"

    Ah, so that explains "Enterprise": they were working to make the prediction come true.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  13. Re: Legal drug? by vuke69 · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure we're all experts on pornography already.

    --
    Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
  14. Re:Legal drug? by 1s44c · · Score: 2

    If you stared at the sunset or read a book for hours every single day to the exclusion of all else you would have a problem too. Doubly so if that book never taught you anything or enriched you in any way.