Particularly during times of social unrest, people are influenced by mass communication. Whether radio or television, mass media is an effective means of challenging social norms and influencing the public’s opinions. Never was this more accurate than during the 1960’s. It was a decade when protestors suffered the abuse of police dogs and fire-hoses, a decade when protesters forced a generation of Americans to reevaluate what it meant to be human and what it meant to be equal.

In his article “Adorable Baby, Doubting Dad, Teachable Moment”, Neil Genzlinger extols “The Van Dyke Show” for not only the social boundaries that the show breaks, but the artful way in which it questioned those societal boundaries. Neil Genzlinger admires the show’s courage to not only bring a black family onto a cast that was historically all-white, but to depict that black family as an intelligent, productive middle class family. This, Neil Genzlinger points out, was all done during an era when viewers weren’t expecting to be “jostled out of their comfort zone.” It was done when race riots and segregation were some of the most controversial topics of the day. The decision to incorporate a black middle class family in the show shows a steady moral compass and confidence on the part of the filmmakers.

Still, Neil Genzlinger praises the scene for more than its admirable message. Genzlinger reflects on the slyness with which the producers of the show introduced the black family. After minutes of building up the friendliness of the “Petersons,” the main character Rob, opens the door to introduce them. The 1960’s audience sees a well dressed, middle class family, the cliche America family, except for their skin. This Genzlinger explains is how bold messages and new ideas are supposed to be introduced.  In fact, Genzlinger goes on to disparage the blunt manner many modern shows and movies adopt to address the contentious topics of  our day. Genzlinger argues that many current producers have abandoned all trace of art, even suggesting that many producers have turned to breaking boundaries with the intention of changing viewer stats and not viewer attitudes.

But if Neil Genzlinger were with me now, I would ask him why these bold and controversial ideas need to be presented in an “artful” way. Why it is regrettable when a producer does not hide his message until the last minute? If he were here with me now, I would sit him in front of my computer and torrent, oops I mean buy, the first season of “The Newsroom.” It is a show that tackles many of today’s biggest issues in the most blatant and unapologetic tone imaginable. Nearly every episode, Will McAvoy sits in his chair and scrutinizes some comment, bill, or action that comes from Washington. It’s simply perfect. And I’m not the only one who feels this way, not by a long shot. Every week, 12 times a year 2.1 million viewers turn on their television to watch Tom Sorkin’s (director) show. Every week, Tom Sorkin enlightens a generation of Americans of the flaws in our economic and political system. Every week, Tom Sorkin shows that a message can be just as effective in its barest form. If art is deemed not by art critics, but by the people, then the unadorned message of “The Newsroom” has most certainly been deemed art. It seems, thats it not how your message, but what your message is.

Even if Genzlinger admitted that a bluntly stated message can be effective, I would wonder how he thinks that subtlety is dead. Look no further than HBO. Two gay men, Neil Patrick Harris and Jim Parsons, play a genius physicist and a business womanizer. Without saying a word about their sexuality on the screen, the two men have helped turned America’s head to confront the injustices and inequalities that continue to persist. Clearly, subtlety and the progressive messages that come with it are not dead.