The Socio-Political Influence of Television

Television has proven to be one of the most powerful senders of communication, primarily due to its combination of both artistic freedom and sphere of influence. It has become a staple of the American home, and with the introduction of streaming platforms and video-on-demand, its omnipresence has turned into access to any show at any time all within the click of a button (Lotz, 57). The allure of escapism and entering a storyline that is both far but relevant enough to reality is why television has cemented itself into day-to-day activities (Hamilton, 403). In addition, the shows and commercials seen throughout our lifetime act as catalysts for the trends and movements that occur in everyday society. The issues rooted in a show’s premise – spanning from race, religion, class, and gender — can influence and even change the way an audience thinks about said topic. Moreover, the content produced on television has also been dictated by the changing social climate of both national and global societies. One major social movement that has gained traction over the past decade is visibility and human rights for the LGBT community, “Moreover, some digital television tools – morphing, for example – are very well suited for representing continuity, fluidity, and the implosive destruction of ‘classic’ binary oppositions” (Reifova, 1238). Television contains a cultural sensitivity not found in print media like newspapers and magazines, and is suited accordingly to meet the constant evolution of a multi-faceted audience.

Figure 1. Breakdown of where people watch shows.

Television has broken high ground on even bigger social and political movements, resulting from a more liberal, reactionary audience. Feminism is a trademark example of changing viewership and a demand for anti-sexist programming. For instance, in archiving British television, the current content placed under “women’s programming” is no longer in sync with older shows containing material focused on domestic chores such as cooking, fashion, and child care (Moseley, 156). This is because gender stereotypes in the Western world are no longer stagnant; they have achieved of fluidity that can be attributed to a more socially-motivated generation of teens and adults. In addressing political issues, television finds itself lost between sensationalist headlines and neutral, factually-sound news. Channels like C-SPAN and PBS have limited coverage and deteriorating funding because of: 1) a lack of the public’s interest 2) a very dry perspective on governmental policies. Additionally, since government T.V. does not generate an exorbitant amount of revenue, there are simply less staff and reporters working on this area of media (Gormley Jr., 357). The social effect, however, is that there is a less-educated public on issues that are important to their overall lives and an industry driven on flashy, ephemeral content.

Works Cited:

• Reifová, Irena. “’It Has Happened Before, It Will Happen Again’: The Third Golden Age of Television Fiction.” Sociologický Časopis / Czech Sociological Review, vol. 44, no. 6, 2008, pp. 1237–1238. www.jstor.org/stable/41132684.
• Lotz, Amanda D. “What Is U.S. Television Now?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 625, 2009, pp. 49–59. www.jstor.org/stable/40375904.
• Hamilton, Robert V., and Richard H. Lawless. “Television Within the Social Matrix.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, 1956, pp. 393–403. www.jstor.org/stable/2746311.
• Moseley, Rachel, and Helen Wheatley. “Is Archiving a Feminist Issue? Historical Research and the Past, Present, and Future of Television Studies.” Cinema Journal, vol. 47, no. 3, 2008, pp. 152–158. www.jstor.org/stable/30136123.
• Gormley, William T. “Television Coverage of State Government.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 3, 1978, pp. 354–359. www.jstor.org/stable/2748298.