Television Entertainment Funding

Emily Cassil

There are many different opinions regarding how television should be funded. Of course, most television networks are owned by 6 large conglomerates. Nonetheless, as John Vivian explains in his book, there are still several options for television/media funding. These include:

• community funding
• nonprofits
• co-ops
• family ownership
• government funding

Each of these has both benefits and drawbacks. In this post, however, I will focus on the debate surrounding government funding of television.

The government (along with tax payer dollars) has, for many years, funded some television programs through the CPB, or the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which gives money to well known television entertainment programs such as PBS and other public television networks. President Trump, in his 2017-2018 budget cut proposal, suggested cutting the CPB off from all future government funding, as it has been receiving approximately $445 billion in recent years. Although this has not passed, Congress did recently discuss a bill that would cut all funding from the CPB by 2019.

People’s opinions vary widely on this matter. Some adamantly support the bill, such as Mike Gonzales, columnist for the Denver Post. He goes as far as quoting Thomas Jefferson in his article, who once said that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” On the other hand, some institutions, such as Americans for the Arts, vehemently oppose it. Their website states, “All public broadcasting stations—large and small, urban and rural—are distinctive voices in their community that create informative and engaging programming for their audiences.” In other words, as Vivian explains, those opposed to the bill view public broadcasting as “a public good” and believe, therefore, that “public policy should be supportive.”

 

Sources:

Supporting Public Broadcasting

Congress’ Bill

Variety

The Denver Post

Media of Mass Communication

Television Entertainment Changes

Emily Cassil

Today, a wide array of television options are readily available to us. From sports networks to Netflix series to news channels, entertainment is constantly at our finger tips. Let’s go back a few years and discover a bit about the changes that have taken place in the television industry that brought us here.

The first successful television was built in 1927. For most of the 1900’s, cable companies dominated the television world, as cable was essentially the only option for television entertainment. Television audiences were clumped together as far as companies were concerned because of the lack of options available. However, in the late 1900’s, people began to create streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu.

These sites, because of their extreme variety of series/film genres, led to demassification within the television industry. (Vivian defines this as the “process of media narrowing focus to audience niches.”) The competition between cable companies and streaming services creates an interesting situation. Richard Warnica explains that, even if cable companies do stick around, they will be forced to offer packages in which audiences can pick and choose which channels they want. Cable companies struggle, yet audiences have both a higher quality and quantity of television than ever before.  Comedian Conan O’Brien touches on the concept of demassification when he speaks about talk shows, saying, “As recently as 20 years ago, Johnny Carson was the only [talk show host] in town, but as cable channels continue to pursue niche viewers, new hosts will continue to spring up at alarming rates.”

Warnica sums up the recent changes in television when he says, “The future of TV, then, might not be about TV at all, at least not in the way we’ve conventionally thought about the medium, as a finite series of channels broadcasting on screens built for that purpose. In the future, the winners will be the ones that take that idea even further, delivering what viewers want, when they want it, in whatever format they choose.” Traditional forms of television may be dying, but with the death of cable and other such conventions comes new and exciting innovations and options for audiences.

Sources:

The Media of Mass Communication

Canadian Business

“The Future of Television”

Politics’ Role in Television Entertainment

Emily Cassil

In this blog, I will focus primarily on political news programs in television.

Most Americans are surrounded by news on a daily – even hourly – basis, without realizing it. Throughout a typical day, we:

• check the news on our phones
• watch broadcasts on TV
• hear talk shows on the radio

Political mass media is meant to inform us about news, yes, but companies survive by entertaining audiences. (This is why news programs often cover things like candidates’ character traits instead of their policy opinions.) Goran Bolin, in his article, calls this concept of the media putting entertainment over information “infotainment” and argues that, while some find it disconcerting, it is not a sign of dying journalism but of journalism’s independence.

Kellyanne Conway, one of Trump’s counsellors, expressed that “infotainment” keeps people from understanding the president’s policies. She told Fox News that the media rarely cover the presidents tweets that have to do with policies.

While television news programs need to entertain their audiences, they often want to persuade people as well. Theories on the effects of media vary widely, from the bullet model, or the idea that media have direct, overwhelming effects on viewers that greatly can influence their opinions, to the minimalist model, or the idea that media do not have the power to change our minds as much as other people and experiences do.

the bullet model – media spoon-feeding the audience

Closely related to the agenda setting theory, which falls under the minimalist model, is the CNN effect, which John Vivian describes as “the power of television to put faraway issues in the minds of domestic audiences.” One example of this occurred when a soldier was dragged through the streets of Somali by a mob and beaten dead. The issue was covered so much by all media outlets that President Clinton removed his troops from Somali only four days later. You can read more about this event on LA Times.

Lastly, with the invention of both the television and the internet came demassification. Vivian describes this as “the process of media narrowing focus to audience niches.” Not only is news accessible on one’s television, but specific political news stations now focus on specific aspects such as congress (C-SPAN), local events, etc. Additionally, certain stations provide right-wing or left-wing versions of events, albeit often involuntarily.

Sources:

“Television Journalism”

Fox News

LA Times