What do you think?
Rate this book
The Citizen Machine: Governing by Television in 1950s America
The Citizen Machine is the untold political history of television's formative era. Historian Anna McCarthy goes behind the scenes of early television programming, revealing that long before the age of PBS, leaders from business, philanthropy, and social reform movements as well as public intellectuals were all obsessively concerned with TV's potential to mold the right kind of citizen.
Based on years of path-breaking archival work, The Citizen Machine sheds new light on the place of television in the postwar American political landscape.
Based on years of path-breaking archival work, The Citizen Machine sheds new light on the place of television in the postwar American political landscape.
- GenresHistory
352 pages, Hardcover
First published July 6, 2010
2 people are currently reading
31 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 14, 2011
Everyone knows the television is going downhill fast, right? Surely we can look at this week’s episode of Jersey Shore (please don’t make me!) that set a record for MTV viewership and know that quality isn’t exactly easily found in television programming today. So, should we get nostalgic and remember the old days of TV, where we imagine it was more beneficial and innocent back when the family crowded around the massive console?
Or, consider how worked-up parents get when their children’s television show/babysitter is interrupted with commercials selling cheap toys and junk food. Haven’t you heard many parents reminisce about a time when a television show was simple and enjoyable and didn’t come with all sorts of corporate or merchandise tie-ins?
Wasn’t it the Goo Goo Dolls who said, “Reruns all become our history.” What if that history was wrong?
If I sound snarky, I am….this week I’m focusing on television. First, I got really rattled with the book Citizen Machine by Anna McCarthy (next week I’ll post about The Mind Snatchers). I’d been led by tradition and assumption to believe that the early days of television were more noble and family-oriented. But this book relates that instead, it was simply a tool to manipulate viewers, much like a McDonald’s commercial that interrupts The Penguins of Madagascar. In fact, the way television was used as a means of advertising was actually worse, in that the content was designed around a specific agenda without a clear delineation of where the show ended and the commercial began. In this case, it was government and corporate policies that were subconsciously projected into the mindset (and television set) of the viewer, clearly designed to manipulate their viewpoint on everything from civil rights to labor unions.
As a means of delivering propaganda, the television was perfect. The novelty of its invention made people clamor to view it, with little thought to who and what was behind the productions they watched. Citizen Machine analyzes several examples, and I’m only going to touch on a few. Remember years ago when Chevron ran those ads about how they were placing (dumping) old pipeline into the ocean to create new habitats for fish? Who doesn’t love an aquarium, right? Those kinds of commercials are considered institutional advertising: a ploy to convince you that this big business isn’t just out for a profit but to help the world. In the early years, DuPont was one of the biggest forces in institutional advertising, needing to soften their image in a time that society was suspicious of large corporations.
In DuPont’s case, their image was especially tainted. Known for making a killing selling gunpowder and poison gas during WWI, it was discovered afterwards that they had defrauded the government despite huge profits. The DuPont family "were vocal supporters of the United States’ entry into World War I, although only one of them…would see combat”. They needed to boost their image, and began so with a radio program called The Cavalcade of America. Later, that turned into a television series of the same name. Along with GE, they created “anthology dramas” that appeared, on the surface, as a means of delivering classy content to its audience, but that constantly reminded the viewers that DuPont was providing it to them, “appearing as a civic entity donating cultural goods to viewers and asking only for their goodwill.”
Besides the programming itself, they inserted their slogan “Better things, for better living, through chemistry”. McCarthy then connects how, by aligning their corporate image with science, it added a level of superiority and legitimacy. Anything, in their case, to distract from their business image as a vicious monopoly. They also used the programming to perpetuate the power of the white, successful businessman and his loving nuclear family.
About that white businessman… DuPont did air an episode on their Cavalcade Theater called “Toward Tomorrow”, one that presented an inspirational tale of the rise of the successful black man and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Ralph Bunche. Some viewers were shocked, while others were supportive. McCarthy quotes a letter from one viewer who makes sure she identifies her own race as white and who “requested that television ‘give us more all colored folks performances. It would be a good rebuttal for the crime they (those folks from that town in Miss) commit against us the white race’”. While this viewer was referring to a recent news event, her attitude towards blacks in general is implicit.
From this episode, one would imagine that DuPont scored a victory for blacks and civil rights too, as well as appearing culturally evolved. Actually, it fell flat. The majority of blacks who saw the episode thought it pandering and condescending (it was). They also quickly made the connection that while DuPont had promoted this episode, “company hiring policies did not reflect the image of social responsibility and racial outreach…” In fact, DuPont was actually investing in the South in order to save money on workers who demanded higher wages in the North, even contributing money to political organizations who opposed desegregation.
As seasoned viewers today, can it be said we would be able to catch on to such manipulation? It’s difficult to be sure, when corporations now spend millions on analysts and research experts who try and pull the strings to both our wallet and our emotions with their subtle techniques. McCarthy gives some insight to this in her Epilogue (which should have been its own chapter) where she ties together the modern trend of television experts who counsel viewers on self-improvement but only in one perceived direction.
McCarthy discusses reality television programming as well, but fortunately, her time on that is brief. There’s enough information in the media currently that dissects the trend without her needing to analyze it further. The strength of this book is seeing just how powerful corporations and organizations were and contemplate what and how things have changed, if at all. It’s then a short step to connect the concept to the early years of any new innovation. Well-researched and full of anecdotal details (she even researches the marginalia of notes taken in corporation meetings), it is full of information that gets a bit overwhelming at times. Part of me wished the chapters had been a bit shorter (there are only five) to be able to compartmentalize the massive amounts of information easier. In any case, the material is applicable to any reader, and would be an especially useful asset in a semiotics study on a high-school or college level.
Or, consider how worked-up parents get when their children’s television show/babysitter is interrupted with commercials selling cheap toys and junk food. Haven’t you heard many parents reminisce about a time when a television show was simple and enjoyable and didn’t come with all sorts of corporate or merchandise tie-ins?
Wasn’t it the Goo Goo Dolls who said, “Reruns all become our history.” What if that history was wrong?
If I sound snarky, I am….this week I’m focusing on television. First, I got really rattled with the book Citizen Machine by Anna McCarthy (next week I’ll post about The Mind Snatchers). I’d been led by tradition and assumption to believe that the early days of television were more noble and family-oriented. But this book relates that instead, it was simply a tool to manipulate viewers, much like a McDonald’s commercial that interrupts The Penguins of Madagascar. In fact, the way television was used as a means of advertising was actually worse, in that the content was designed around a specific agenda without a clear delineation of where the show ended and the commercial began. In this case, it was government and corporate policies that were subconsciously projected into the mindset (and television set) of the viewer, clearly designed to manipulate their viewpoint on everything from civil rights to labor unions.
As a means of delivering propaganda, the television was perfect. The novelty of its invention made people clamor to view it, with little thought to who and what was behind the productions they watched. Citizen Machine analyzes several examples, and I’m only going to touch on a few. Remember years ago when Chevron ran those ads about how they were placing (dumping) old pipeline into the ocean to create new habitats for fish? Who doesn’t love an aquarium, right? Those kinds of commercials are considered institutional advertising: a ploy to convince you that this big business isn’t just out for a profit but to help the world. In the early years, DuPont was one of the biggest forces in institutional advertising, needing to soften their image in a time that society was suspicious of large corporations.
In DuPont’s case, their image was especially tainted. Known for making a killing selling gunpowder and poison gas during WWI, it was discovered afterwards that they had defrauded the government despite huge profits. The DuPont family "were vocal supporters of the United States’ entry into World War I, although only one of them…would see combat”. They needed to boost their image, and began so with a radio program called The Cavalcade of America. Later, that turned into a television series of the same name. Along with GE, they created “anthology dramas” that appeared, on the surface, as a means of delivering classy content to its audience, but that constantly reminded the viewers that DuPont was providing it to them, “appearing as a civic entity donating cultural goods to viewers and asking only for their goodwill.”
Besides the programming itself, they inserted their slogan “Better things, for better living, through chemistry”. McCarthy then connects how, by aligning their corporate image with science, it added a level of superiority and legitimacy. Anything, in their case, to distract from their business image as a vicious monopoly. They also used the programming to perpetuate the power of the white, successful businessman and his loving nuclear family.
About that white businessman… DuPont did air an episode on their Cavalcade Theater called “Toward Tomorrow”, one that presented an inspirational tale of the rise of the successful black man and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Ralph Bunche. Some viewers were shocked, while others were supportive. McCarthy quotes a letter from one viewer who makes sure she identifies her own race as white and who “requested that television ‘give us more all colored folks performances. It would be a good rebuttal for the crime they (those folks from that town in Miss) commit against us the white race’”. While this viewer was referring to a recent news event, her attitude towards blacks in general is implicit.
From this episode, one would imagine that DuPont scored a victory for blacks and civil rights too, as well as appearing culturally evolved. Actually, it fell flat. The majority of blacks who saw the episode thought it pandering and condescending (it was). They also quickly made the connection that while DuPont had promoted this episode, “company hiring policies did not reflect the image of social responsibility and racial outreach…” In fact, DuPont was actually investing in the South in order to save money on workers who demanded higher wages in the North, even contributing money to political organizations who opposed desegregation.
As seasoned viewers today, can it be said we would be able to catch on to such manipulation? It’s difficult to be sure, when corporations now spend millions on analysts and research experts who try and pull the strings to both our wallet and our emotions with their subtle techniques. McCarthy gives some insight to this in her Epilogue (which should have been its own chapter) where she ties together the modern trend of television experts who counsel viewers on self-improvement but only in one perceived direction.
McCarthy discusses reality television programming as well, but fortunately, her time on that is brief. There’s enough information in the media currently that dissects the trend without her needing to analyze it further. The strength of this book is seeing just how powerful corporations and organizations were and contemplate what and how things have changed, if at all. It’s then a short step to connect the concept to the early years of any new innovation. Well-researched and full of anecdotal details (she even researches the marginalia of notes taken in corporation meetings), it is full of information that gets a bit overwhelming at times. Part of me wished the chapters had been a bit shorter (there are only five) to be able to compartmentalize the massive amounts of information easier. In any case, the material is applicable to any reader, and would be an especially useful asset in a semiotics study on a high-school or college level.
August 27, 2016
The idea behind the book was intriguing. The author made some interesting points, as well as some, in my opinion, some farfetched points. Ultimately, it felt like I was reading a thesis paper, with the language and dryness that is usually associated with that type of writing.
The basic premise was that television was become more accessible to Americans in the 1950's, the liberal elite tried to use it to educate the population. What a person will read about includes:
- That corporations used the medium as a public relations tool. By offering a "service" to the public that included various television shows, "informative commercials" showing how products were created, and how products that the company made help to ensure American prosperity and promote the an easy American lifestyle. Easy as defined by the elite class, which was white and well off.
- How programs were designed to show the American people how to act in certain situations. As the landmark "Brown vs The Board of Education" ruling was handed down, the people in charge thought it was a good idea to show how racial integration should look like. Using what was then a new technique, various programs role-played certain situations that might be seen in an effort to inform and teach the public.
- How industry leaders tried to balance competing ideas and demographics. In trying to put a new program out, many times they were concerned about balancing opinions. For instance, if there was a program that showed an African American person being successful, it not only had to be in done in an "acceptable manner", but it also had to be done so that southern population was not offended.
- How the liberal media in control of the television industry tried to frame the civil rights fight in such a manner that it promoted the cause. With that said, this caused trouble with southern stations and southern leaders, and as a result there was a significant amount of self-censorship along with trying to "show both sides of the argument".
As I said before the book has an intriguing premise, and the author makes some valid points. However it was written like a textbook, had many run-on sentences, and was written in way that made it difficult for the average reader to enjoy without a dictionary. In my opinion, it seemed a bit pretentious and made what should have been a very interesting book into a ho-hum tale. People who like social history might enjoy this book, but I would find it hard to recommend this book to just pickup and read. The reader may be better served if they used it as a study tool for a class on 1950's social history.
The basic premise was that television was become more accessible to Americans in the 1950's, the liberal elite tried to use it to educate the population. What a person will read about includes:
- That corporations used the medium as a public relations tool. By offering a "service" to the public that included various television shows, "informative commercials" showing how products were created, and how products that the company made help to ensure American prosperity and promote the an easy American lifestyle. Easy as defined by the elite class, which was white and well off.
- How programs were designed to show the American people how to act in certain situations. As the landmark "Brown vs The Board of Education" ruling was handed down, the people in charge thought it was a good idea to show how racial integration should look like. Using what was then a new technique, various programs role-played certain situations that might be seen in an effort to inform and teach the public.
- How industry leaders tried to balance competing ideas and demographics. In trying to put a new program out, many times they were concerned about balancing opinions. For instance, if there was a program that showed an African American person being successful, it not only had to be in done in an "acceptable manner", but it also had to be done so that southern population was not offended.
- How the liberal media in control of the television industry tried to frame the civil rights fight in such a manner that it promoted the cause. With that said, this caused trouble with southern stations and southern leaders, and as a result there was a significant amount of self-censorship along with trying to "show both sides of the argument".
As I said before the book has an intriguing premise, and the author makes some valid points. However it was written like a textbook, had many run-on sentences, and was written in way that made it difficult for the average reader to enjoy without a dictionary. In my opinion, it seemed a bit pretentious and made what should have been a very interesting book into a ho-hum tale. People who like social history might enjoy this book, but I would find it hard to recommend this book to just pickup and read. The reader may be better served if they used it as a study tool for a class on 1950's social history.
June 23, 2016
McCarthy's premise is that various groups—business, labor, activist foundations—saw TV as a tool by which they could take the raw material of American people and mold them into citizens (however they might define that). While I like the premise, in practice McCarthy's focus is narrow, considering only a few programs such as the once-famous Omnibus — how they were made and why, and the obstacles to getting them on the air. It's competent in its analysis of this section, but it's just too narrow a focus, a small slice of the intellectual elite, to really hold my attention or say anything significant.
Read
July 3, 2012This books starts off waxing philosophy about words, so I didn't bother reading it.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews