Culture in a world with earlier TV & radio

I haven't seen anything yet about the types of programs, that is Cliffhangers versus normal programs that end in 30 minutes.

Of course, you had the Little Rascals which probably Turns The Little Rascals into ttl's first family show. ( when I was little I thought it had been a television show because it did have much of the style of some of the early sitcoms. I remember being shocked when I learned that it wasn't. I was used to seeing it as reruns just as I would any other show on local stations.) Perhaps it is as popular as Leave It to Beaver with interesting effects on how children are portrayed in television possibly. It began in 1922 in our timeline so even if you figure that television debuts in the early thirties it is definitely possible to see it transfer.

On the other hand, the Cliffhanger was very popular for between movies to get people to come back and watch. Perhaps instead of Dallas creating the first major Cliffhanger to end of season, we would see sitcoms doing this in the 1940s.

Another interesting point is the soap opera. They were originally named because soap companies sponsored them. Without radio to be the first place where the soap opera debuts, it would be interesting to see if there were any differences between it and television. Of course, perhaps television soap operas if they come first would be the places where you would see the most Cliffhangers.
 
Assuming television is a common appliance amongst the public by 1901 as you said the coverage of WWI would be interesting. Obviously propaganda films will become common amongst all the combatants, but I have to wonder what effect constant media coverage of trench warfare has on public morale. Do some nations prohibit the broadcasting of war in the trenches as WWI becomes more severe? Do other nations experience a significant decline in morale?

Television was quite big in London by 1939, and also across central Germany. The coming of war meant it ceased, and resources went to other things.

This was obviously and mainly because it was cutting edge, and as such expensive and using resources the war effort needed

The Korean War was perhaps where we can draw a closer parallel, where TV remained widespread and news to TV was more than news to cinemas
 
If we drop back to the question in the OP, earlier TV would more likely be more crude and more limited than the roll-out after WW2. Cable would be less practical than over-the-air transmission. Consider the market penetration, or lack thereof, of telephone before the thirties.
That's true of all the associated tech, which makes covering any live event quite a bit harder, unless there's a lot more pre-preparation. OTOH, that puts pressure on electronics companies, among others, to develop better gear... So, how long is it before *Arriflexes appear? How long before they are practical for use in series TV? Or movies?
I haven't seen anything yet about the types of programs, that is Cliffhangers versus normal programs that end in 30 minutes.

Of course, you had the Little Rascals which probably Turns The Little Rascals into ttl's first family show. ( when I was little I thought it had been a television show because it did have much of the style of some of the early sitcoms. I remember being shocked when I learned that it wasn't. I was used to seeing it as reruns just as I would any other show on local stations.) Perhaps it is as popular as Leave It to Beaver with interesting effects on how children are portrayed in television possibly. It began in 1922 in our timeline so even if you figure that television debuts in the early thirties it is definitely possible to see it transfer.

On the other hand, the Cliffhanger was very popular for between movies to get people to come back and watch. Perhaps instead of Dallas creating the first major Cliffhanger to end of season, we would see sitcoms doing this in the 1940s.

Another interesting point is the soap opera. They were originally named because soap companies sponsored them. Without radio to be the first place where the soap opera debuts, it would be interesting to see if there were any differences between it and television. Of course, perhaps television soap operas if they come first would be the places where you would see the most Cliffhangers.
That's all true. It makes me wonder what the effect is on storytelling. That is, does network TV use the OTL structure (teaser, 4 acts, & tag), or does it use a BBC variant, with ads at the end? Or does it keep the OTL "program sponsor" model? IMO, the sponsor model will soon be seen to be impractical, for the OTL reasons: it gives the "name sponsor" a lot of influence over content (as witness the Game Show Scandal), & requires a lot of money from sponsors (who are unlikely to want to spend it).

Something like OTL soap operas may still happen, but they may not earn the derisive name... The question is, does a "bottom" network discover they can finance a show with spot ads before "name sponsorship" becomes standard, or not?

And to (somewhat) tie those together, what does that do to production styles? That is, do OTL B-film directors make TV? (They'd be very well suited to it.) Does a show like "Hill Street Blues" get made in the '40s, when *Arriflexes become practical? (Does that also mean WW2 film crews are better able to record the action? Or am I pushing back the date of introduction on hand-held cameras too far?)

Something else occurs to me: with TV networks in play, does that butterfly the influence of the Hayes Office? Or does the *FCC give it even more teeth?

It seems likely the Poverty Row film companies will either go broke or go into TV by the '40s.

So, does that mean there's more awful junk on TTL's TV even than OTL?:eek::eek: Does it mean OTL B-film directors, actors, writers, actually end up better known TTL than OTL?:cool:

Does it mean film noir never happens?:eek::eek::eek: Or does it mean Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe, Dol Bonner, Nick Carter, Sexton Blake, Perry Mason, Mike Hammer, & a host of others have TV series in the '30s & '40s? (I'd also add any number of B-Western characters, who I can't name.;))

Does it mean Superman & Batman debut on TV, instead of in comics?:eek:
 
So baseball day in canada them?

More like Lacrosse Day in Canada: until some time into the 20th century, lacrosse was the more popular spring sport in eastern Canada. You'd have to have the International League allow broadcasts of the Toronto Maple Leafs and Montréal Royals for a Baseball Day in Canada.
 
Assuming television is a common appliance amongst the public by 1901 as you said the coverage of WWI would be interesting. Obviously propaganda films will become common amongst all the combatants, but I have to wonder what effect constant media coverage of trench warfare has on public morale. Do some nations prohibit the broadcasting of war in the trenches as WWI becomes more severe? Do other nations experience a significant decline in morale?

Likely many militaries adjust to the idea that they need to present a more bloodless, clinical approach to war that focuses more on cool hardware then the brutal realities of war much earlier then OTL. It might also encourage the idea of nice speedy little wars instead of years long slogs like the OTL world wars. On a related note it might also help various civil rights struggles get off the ground earlier when it's easier to communicate to a national audience about various injustices and abuse.
 
Assuming television is a common appliance amongst the public by 1901 as you said the coverage of WWI would be interesting. Obviously propaganda films will become common amongst all the combatants, but I have to wonder what effect constant media coverage of trench warfare has on public morale. Do some nations prohibit the broadcasting of war in the trenches as WWI becomes more severe? Do other nations experience a significant decline in morale?

Assuming this could actually happen, which it wouldn't for reasons Mark E. explained, TV Broadcasts of WWI would have made US opinion be firmly anti war, dido with the Ottomans as they weren't really obligated to join the Central Powers; well assuming Pulitzer and Hearst don't own all the TV stations in the US.
 
Likely many militaries adjust to the idea that they need to present a more bloodless, clinical approach to war that focuses more on cool hardware then the brutal realities of war much earlier then OTL. It might also encourage the idea of nice speedy little wars instead of years long slogs like the OTL world wars. On a related note it might also help various civil rights struggles get off the ground earlier when it's easier to communicate to a national audience about various injustices and abuse.
The U.S. civil rights movement, & the women's movement, both benefit, clearly.

I'm not sure any armed forces except the U.S.'s will go the "video game war" route; casualty-averse is a fairly uncommon attitude, & tech-heavy has been a U.S. approach (in everything) from about the ARW.

Better tech does make radio- & TV-guided PGMs practical a great deal sooner, which does mean DBs don't develop... May mean no kamikaze, either. I'm also imagining earlier radar, so GCI in @@1? *V-1s with terrain-following?
 
Top