Though in today’s age of media, the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet may seem like boring television compared to intense medical dramas or trash reality shows, they were of great influence when TV was first introduced into the American home. As Gregg Mitman mentions in “Domesticating Nature on the Television Set”, wild-life and nature filmmaking were influential in educational, social, and political norms in the 1950s-70s. The immense influence by the nature shows such as Zoo Parade and Wild Kingdom were due to its ability to close the distant gap between human beings and the natural wonders of the world.
The social influence the nature shows had on the American family was that it gathered the family into one central location. Though the television itself is the tool to bring together the family, the programming on the TV plays a role in whether the whole family would gather together. Cartoons would appeal mostly to children, while adults watch the news programs. However, a connection to nature can be related to viewers of all ages. It presents a topic to the family that can be well-liked by every member. Nowadays, programs on TV are so divergent with various ratings that a single family would almost never regularly watch the same program.
Marlin Perkins’ nature TV shows also had a great educational impact on the younger viewers. The use of ‘incidental learning’ rather than intentional learning about science and nature found the shows an effective form of entertainment. The Lincoln Park Zoo was “entertaining, easy of comprehension, and most constructive”. The show presented an engaging learning process to introduce the kids to natural life and habitat to increase their curiosity, therefore propagating the interest to learn. But in today’s natural TV shows, very few people watch the program for what it has to say as discovery as for the engaging images on high-definition filming. The children are no longer as intrigued by wildlife on television as they have access to domesticated nature playgrounds such as SeaWorld or nature-imitating videogames.
In the political aspect, the market representation and target by Zoo Parade and Animal Kingdom, “animal rights groups and environmental organizations could appeal to pet owners in America”. The show’s ability to increase pet ownership in that decade helped develop along the political messages that environmental activists have been struggling with. But in today’s television, animal programs tend to focus on the detailed scientific discoveries of nature that becomes less emotionally appealing to the audience in a need to protect the environment.
The level of influence of nature and wild life TV programs has decreased tremendously since the days of the premiere of Zoo Parade and Animal Kingdom. In today’s mass media of overflowing information, the core of the nature-TV value has been overshadowed by other forms of mass communication.
Though in today’s age of media, the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet may seem like boring television compared to intense medical dramas or trash reality shows, they were of great influence when TV was first introduced into the American home. As Gregg Mitman mentions in “Domesticating Nature on the Television Set”, wild-life and nature filmmaking were influential in educational, social, and political norms in the 1950s-70s. The immense influence by the nature shows such as Zoo Parade and Wild Kingdom were due to its ability to close the distant gap between human beings and the natural wonders of the world.
ReplyDeleteThe social influence the nature shows had on the American family was that it gathered the family into one central location. Though the television itself is the tool to bring together the family, the programming on the TV plays a role in whether the whole family would gather together. Cartoons would appeal mostly to children, while adults watch the news programs. However, a connection to nature can be related to viewers of all ages. It presents a topic to the family that can be well-liked by every member. Nowadays, programs on TV are so divergent with various ratings that a single family would almost never regularly watch the same program.
Marlin Perkins’ nature TV shows also had a great educational impact on the younger viewers. The use of ‘incidental learning’ rather than intentional learning about science and nature found the shows an effective form of entertainment. The Lincoln Park Zoo was “entertaining, easy of comprehension, and most constructive”. The show presented an engaging learning process to introduce the kids to natural life and habitat to increase their curiosity, therefore propagating the interest to learn. But in today’s natural TV shows, very few people watch the program for what it has to say as discovery as for the engaging images on high-definition filming. The children are no longer as intrigued by wildlife on television as they have access to domesticated nature playgrounds such as SeaWorld or nature-imitating videogames.
In the political aspect, the market representation and target by Zoo Parade and Animal Kingdom, “animal rights groups and environmental organizations could appeal to pet owners in America”. The show’s ability to increase pet ownership in that decade helped develop along the political messages that environmental activists have been struggling with. But in today’s television, animal programs tend to focus on the detailed scientific discoveries of nature that becomes less emotionally appealing to the audience in a need to protect the environment.
The level of influence of nature and wild life TV programs has decreased tremendously since the days of the premiere of Zoo Parade and Animal Kingdom. In today’s mass media of overflowing information, the core of the nature-TV value has been overshadowed by other forms of mass communication.