The eye of the beholder: The social and cultural significance of television as reflected in the work of television reporters and critics for selected U.S. newspapers, 1976-1986.

摘要

Theorist Neil Postman has proposed that schools should adopt a curriculum of media education, dubbed "media ecology," in order to monitor--and thereby regulate--the deleterious effects of television on society. Since schools and news media seem to serve similar, educative functions, it was proposed that newspapers could also monitor television's impact. Thus, a study was undertaken to determine whether reporters and critics who cover television for selected newspapers have conveyed a sense of television's social and cultural significance.;The writings of five television scholars were previewed. These works were distilled into corresponding arguments, or "premises," against which the content of newspapers could be compared. The five authors and their respective premises were Marshall McLuhan (subversion of logic), Neil Postman (television as a learning system), George Gerbner (violence), Rose Goldsen (desensitization), and Todd Gitlin (hegemony).;The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times were chosen for the study. The so-called "Arts and Culture" sections which appeared in the Sunday editions of these newspapers were surveyed for news coverage and commentary about television. The years 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, and 1986 were sampled. References to the premises listed above were recorded by citing specific words or passages in the newspaper columns. The contexts of the commentaries and columns were also considered. Slightly fewer than three thousand columns were included in the survey.;It was concluded that reporters and critics in newspapers have generally made some efforts to convey a sense of television's social and cultural impact. However, these efforts have not been sufficient to truly provide the public with a general awareness of the issues which surround the medium. Substantive criticism of television seemed to decline, or "soften," after 1980. A concern was voiced that, while each newspaper mentioned each scholarly premise at least once, there were virtually no references to the scholars themselves as the originators of these theories regarding television's impact.;It was recommended that newspapers should behave more like schools. That is, certain columns on television's impact should be offered regularly, just as schools offer classes. Some formal training in television theory should be required of journalists as well. It was also recommended that newspapers and universities should institute exchange programs, with scholars temporarily trading places with journalists. Thus, the culture of the classroom could infiltrate the culture of the newsroom. Hopefully, a more socially responsible journalism would result.