• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Historical Did 1950s TV Mess Up Baby Boomers?

Likely it was all censored propaganda bullshit. Movies didnt become good again till the end of the production code
 
In America maybe.

less in other parts of the world.

USSR and even Asia countries haven't even got a TV until late 70's/90, and they had a tiny radio, in the background, playin the local war news and music, maybe from a stolen frequency and they were waiting on upcoming positivity.

Romania had a single TV channel that ran 1hr a day, it was for kids!

China had same faith which represented their rivarly against democracy countries worldwide and by 80's they had some channels but only because their cut was patched by USSR(Sovietism).

Even some pro-EU remote islands with electricity do not run TV and they do it to avoid big brother.( little ville of 200 people type).
 
Did Tv mess up boomers? Probably we were fed a steady stream of propaganda nonsense as the media tackled civil rights, racism, Viet nam war, women's rights, homosexuality etc. Attempting to change the past through media acceptance
 
Shady's Fox said:
In America maybe.

less in other parts of the world.

USSR and even Asia countries haven't even got a TV until late 70's/90, and they had a tiny radio, in the background, playin the local war news and music, maybe from a stolen frequency and they were waiting on upcoming positivity.

Romania had a single TV channel that ran 1hr a day, it was for kids!

China had same faith which represented their rivarly against democracy countries worldwide and by 80's they had some channels but only because their cut was patched by USSR(Sovietism).

Even some pro-EU remote islands with electricity do not run TV and they do it to avoid big brother.( little ville of 200 people type).
Click to expand...
The soviet homes had TV's as early as the 1960s but it was all Central Committee controlled ...

 
@Cheshire_Kat

Yes, White Rose, that's correct as well as 70's is. By 67 they had colour broadcast but initially it was started in 31's by some experimental Moscow broadcasts for personal and propaganda purpose, and it was for propaganda up until 90's.

Most USSR citizens were poor and barely afforded theatre so very few had TV's and nothing good was on. Those few also had the bare luck to struck a supply store because of limited availability on manufacteur hand and also strict control by the iron regime(comunism)

One cool thing about TV yall might not know, in Romania, by 2000's, there was a electronic error in online stores, that allowed everyone to get a Panasonic TV with 1 LEU.

It was about 12hrs but those who got lucky... ;)
 
@Shady's Fox
“For a regime struggling, and mostly failing, to prevent its citizens from tuning in to foreign radio, television was a very alluring alternative,” Roth-Ey writes.

The early televisions had screens the size of a postcard and broke down frequently. There wasn’t much to watch, either. In the late 1950s, the most active station in the country, Moscow TV, only broadcast for four hours a day. And yet as early as 1954, a New York Times reporter observed that Muscovites were “frankly wild about television.”

While it wasn’t until 1970 that the majority of Soviet homes had TVs, many households got them much earlier—and not only wealthy ones. In 1955, a visiting American marveled at houses that sagged in the mud but were equipped with TV antennas.
Click to expand...

Article about TV's in USSR in 1950's


In the US:

Early 1950s: In 1950, only about 9% of American households had a TV.

Mid-1950s: By 1955, ownership had grown to over 50% of households.

1960: By 1960, 90% of U.S. households had a television set.
 
@Shady's Fox The info I quoted was definitely not Wikipedia. This is not the lounge and no one here is trying to win the internet, just exchanging ideas. Maybe lighten up a bit, eh?

There was very little "child oriented" TV in the US until 1965 or so, even if one had a TV . Mornings TV shows were exercise and cooking with game shows towards noon. After noon were soap operas . Daytime TV was very boring to most Boomer kids, trust me. I was technically not a boomer as I was born early WWII but I experienced "Boomer times" as a teen.

Children in the US in the era were encouraged to go play outside (even in the winter). Prime time was programming made for grown ups. All of it was very wholesome, no sex or no direct violence. Even married couples on TV slept separately in twin beds. It wasn't until Gen X (1964) came around that the amount of programming for children increased to where it is now. Boomer children were expected to play with other children, ride their bikes, engage in sports and socialize. The only time there was much child oriented TV was Saturday mornings.

TV's real influence with children in US began with GenX. And by the 1980's parents started to use TV as a baby sitter.

So, no it wasn't until GenX and later that TV started to have a big difference on kids.
 
Last edited:
someguyontheinternet said:
US media is currently controlled by a small number of companies and billionaires, which is more harmful?
Click to expand...
Just Currently ? It always was that way. TV channels were radio channels that looked to use the new technology to continue their previous control over programming and shows. It resolves to very similar if not identical results
Social Media includes TV channels that are looking to use new technology to continue their previous control over what people now stream and watch.

The main difference is the how much info is available. The sheer volume is more than a lot of people can handle, we now have information overload.
 
I think the internet is interesting because it allows easy access to a large diversity of perspectives from many different media channels including individuals. that change has had a large impact politically and socially
 
The internet is a tool. It can be positive and or negative.

I love it because I have the ability to research anything I need to solve problems. I suppose it can be negative to some who find it detracts from their quality of life.

The internet is "a la carte". Social Media "lives" on one layer of the internet. One can access what it offers, depending on their needs. This site is my only "toe" dipped into it's depths. I'm pretty much a loner.
Research is another layer. So is Music, film and other entertainment. It is, as you say, diverse at the moment.


Everything, including the internet is constantly in flux
 
Life in general messes people up. It doesn't where you come from or what's going on there life is culprit who is responsible for the condition of society.
 
These technologies can be used for expansive thinking or for siloed thinking. It really depends on the viewer. In the 1950s the world was much smaller than it is now and people's information streams were more limited and local. That made them more susceptible to propaganda. Now the world is huge and the internet can give you access to all kinds of information streams.

Yet it seems that the majority of humans occupy the most superficial layers of the internet, mainly social media. It's hard to say if this is a critical thinking issue, or a user-friendly issue, or just that people find their online niches and get really comfortable. I don't know. For myself, social media has enriched my life. I would also absolutely be dead if it weren't for it because I connected with alternative health communities that saved my life.

I suppose it comes down to those who love learning / know how to learn vs. people who just want to be told what to think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top