Notes and Comments on a random article read the other day while on lunch at work… Canadian Journal of Communications Volume 26 Number 3 2001
“Public Service Broadcasting as a Modern Project: A Case Study of Early
Public-Affairs Television in Canada” by David Hogarth (York University)

Hogarth discusses the policy makers and designers of Canadian public
television. The 1950s Canadian television audience was hoped to be
disciplined, attentive viewers who would use the television medium to
learn about and understand the Canada in which they live. This in sharp
contrast to the fantasy-living, casual American viewer who was in it for
the entertainment only, and also to the overly serious
information-broadcasting of the UK.  The Canadian audience member would
need to give the television their undivided attention, yet to not make a
casual habit of their viewing.

The goal was to stop the family of the 50s from playing bridge, poker,
gossiping, and living the rest of their lives for the duration of the
show (interesting to me that the television is perceived as a
simultaneous atmospheric device that can be ignored as desired, but
would be turned on constantly). The policy makers seemed concerned with
the uncontrolled modes of reception and the desire for entertainment,
the two main barriers to information transmission – for this reason they
considered a ‘middle ground’ approach that would mix entertainment
and instruction in a new television genre.

The Magazine format, covering a diverse subject and field range from
rock and roll to instruction to health to fashion to current events,
made meaningful by a single host, was the format of choice. Under strict
regulation in terms of editing style (no jump cuts for fear of overly
confusing the viewer), sound and musical cues, the programs cultivated
the reporters as protagonists in a real life drama [links to the First
Iraq War and the reports from trapped reporters, now in the Second Iraq
War the reporters are participants, no longer permitted to report but
rather become news themselves as they are abducted and murdered].

In 1956 one critic said that the CBC was determined to cover absolutely
everything in every possible way, which left “established public
service hierarchies of knowledge and representation in question if not
in ruins.”  The encouragement of affective involvement on the part of
the viewer, combined with commercial pressures, led to a style of
editorial programming that had more in common with the American
programming than originally hoped for. The best a producer could hope
for was low-key engagement, the fine line between audience stimulation
and techno-fatigue or even schizoid dissociation. This fine line I
particularly find interesting. The schizoid dissociation has indeed come
to pass – we can watch anything impassively and then we are spurred to
action, confusion, and mental illness in the everyday. The only peace we
can have is when we watch. It is like something from the darkest of
futures, a technophobic science fiction setup from the 1920s, or like an
upcoming episode of Dr. Who.

I would also like to see a comparison between the American public
television policy – how policy and profit worked together or conflicted
to create the systems we have seen today. I’m sure there is a strong
difference between the Canadian and American perspectives on Television
especially because the technological innovation did not come from our
country. We had, as usual, the luxury of reaction and not the triumph of
invention.

Also, Hogarth very briefly described women’s daily television -
something I found interesting was that public policy makers seemed to
encourage the notion of women structuring their days around the
information delivering television set, while they discouraged the
predictability of television programming for the presumably male masses.
And then, when television programming was actually created for women
featuring the usual hallmarks of female-attractive production values:
personal, emotive stories with an individual and intimate basis [see
womens' surrealist films of the early 20th century in contrast to the
men's variants of the same], the critics attacked it for its lack of
instructional and informative value.  I would be interested to see the
contrast between male and female contemporary critics’ reception of
television shows made for men, women, and the masses.