Blog
post (from readings) #14: (Due Monday, April 1) Wu, Tim. Ch. 10 and 13 in The Master
Switch. Post thoughts or questions about the reading to the class blog for
discussion. What struck you as interesting? What did you learn that you
think you might remember five years from now?
I kind of laughed when I read that Ralph Lee Smith picked up a phone call from a New York Times Magazine editor and told the editor that he had no idea what cable television was. I obviously don’t fault him for it, there was really no way that anyone knew what it was at the time. But the quote that really startled me was, “[Cable] had the potential to heal American politics, revive local communities, and offer every American direct access to the world’s knowledge and wisdom.” I feel that cable does the opposite. Liberal networks like MSNBC and CNN often clash with conservative networks like Fox News. Hotly-debated issues in TV spark debate, disagreement, and anger. As far as the “knowledge and wisdom” part, I think that television destroys it. So many networks on television are garbage, in my opinion, and shrink people’s brains. I don’t think that the cable Smith envisioned is the same that is one TV today.
ReplyDeleteWhile we learned about the history of the television with the in-class Ken Burns documentary, I was interested to get a further look at Filo T. Farnsworth in the reading. Farnsworth was the only one of the group that I had learned about prior to this class, so it was interesting to read about him in the historic context of Wu's reading. Like Eric, I too found Ralph Lee Smith's comment about not knowing what cable was.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting things I have learned from reading The Master Switch is how technologies -- especially communications oriented ones -- are the products of a confluence of a series of events; it is somewhat serendipitous that these inventions, from the telegraph to the television, are all the results of like-minded inventors who play off of each others' inventions. Three inventors were able to make the television come to life over a series of ten-plus years, continuing the trend of other communications-related technologies. I was also somewhat surprised to learn that in many cases a lack of formal technical training, as with John Baird, tends to help inventors because they have less predisposition to try things that others with formal expertise would consider impossible or absurd.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading about Archibald M. Low's idea of smellyvision and tastyvision. If we can figure out a way to do this, I think the Food Network could become the most popular channel in television history. Reading about Philo Farnsworth was fascinating, particularly his quest to invent the television. It was sad, and a testament to the power of David Sarnoff, that Farnsworth was "acknowledged on the medium he invented only once, in 1957, when a quiz show panel failed to come up with his name as the man who invented electronic television."
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting, like Eric and Pete, but also interesting is that when an editor call Ralph Lee Smith on the phone to talk about "cable television." I not only thought it was funny that he didn't know what cable television was, but also the fact that he didn't even own a TV.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, Smith not owning a TV is a good reason in my book for him to not know about cable television in that time.
Chapters 10 and 13 illustrate how dynamic invention is in its beginnings, before innovators come in and pigeonhole design or distribution. I enjoyed learning more about the primitive prototype of television and how inventor Archibald Low envisioned mediums that would appeal to all senses, including smelly vision and tasty vision. It’s interesting to read about the initial visions for a medium I know so well and see how organizations like the New York Times and GE were on board from the get go.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I’m struck by David Sarnoff’s role as a master manipulator. He continually hijacks invention, re-brands it and markets it as his own, all while asserting influence over the federal government. With Sarnoff’s help the federal government catered to monopolies, deterred investments during the great depression and stepped on first amendment rights and the free market economy. It’s insane that the FCC was able to deny the public a product because society wasn’t “ready” for it. Since history repeats itself, I find myself wondering about the influence corporations like RCA have over legislation surrounding new invention.
I was also interested to learn about the stigma that accompanied cable in its early years. The comparison of cable to a dive bar is especially amusing, given its status today. It’s hard to believe that as recent as 1966, the FCC was banning cable, despite Manhattan’s reception issues, and even more sensational that Richard Nixon is one of history’s greatest media apologists.
Chapters 10 and 13 continue the trend of the book, showing that powerful men and government officials overwhelming influenced the development of communication technology. Like Julia, I question whether there are people like David Sarnoff today--people who control small competitors through government influence until they can develop the technology themselves-- just as Sarnoff did to Baird and Farnsworth.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed the irony of chapter 13. It was interesting to read about cable's battle against the FCC and it's unlikely hero in Nixon. Also, I did not realize that public access channels development from a mandate for "the creation of local content."
Wu mentions in chapter 10 how the mechanical television was similar to how “Pong” is to the current Playstation. As in current times, it’s seen as outdated, but nonetheless at one point, it was the best option available. While I agree with this analogy, I would also argue that the mechanical television should be considered a stepping-stone in technology. It seems that the better technology is, the more convenient it is for the consumer. Mechanical televisions, although innovative at the time, just couldn’t survive the demand and needs of the public. The American consumers had already been spoiled with a practically hands-free radio player that delivered entertainment all with the ease of turning a knob and relaxing. The mechanical television would require a great deal of legwork that in my opinion took the entertainment out of television. It wasn’t surprising that the invention didn’t last too long, and how fast Americans demanded better, more productive products.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the story about John Logie Baird in the beginning of chapter 10. I think I enjoy it most because of the comparison to Doc Brown from Back to the Future, one of my favorite movies. Its amazing that a man who went from making undergarments to absorb dampness and exploding shoes to making one of the world's first televisions. The fact that he had little knowledge of electronics is also very impressive because he created a device people couldn't imagine and tried techniques that a person who had knowledge of electronics would never have tried.
ReplyDeleteI found Baird to be a very interesting character. The man goes from inventing shoes that explode to television. And his using human eyeballs during a (failed) experiment was interesting to say the least.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought was that people in radio must be angry and threatened by the possibility of television. Which is why I found it so funny that David Sarnoff’s first instinct was to try to take over immediately and make it a monopoly controlled by him.
The whole process behind the invention was very interesting. It was like a competition between the men. I had no idea that that’s how the invention of television happened. It was almost kind of strange the way it all happened, with these men all trying to develop the same thing at the same exact time and making different strides. Almost like a race.
I also found it terrible how underhanded and sneaky Sarnoff was, not allowing television on prime time until it suited him best. People were able to get away with so much more back in that period than they would now if they tried the same things.