view raw text
SIGHT AND SOUND Le Mishki NEW YORK, May 14. On the basis of a j person-to-person, door-to-door, house-to-house survey conducted with one family down the block and another home around the corner, this department is privileged to make public today some findings of a startling and revolutionary nature. It seems that children are no longer that dominant influence in the choice of what TV pro-grams should be watched in the even ing. In fact, a slight trend has even been discovered that the children no longer give a damn what the family looks on the home screen. This, of course, runs directly contrary to all accepted notions of television broadcasting. It strikes at the very roots of one of this countrys most hallowed institutions, togetherness, and raises havoc with the whole concept of what used to be known as un-American, and a Communist-inspired plot to overthrow the American way of life. AAA But facts are facts, and cannot be denied. "You outa your head?" said one parent, when questioned in the survey. "Joey wants to look at the shows WE watch even if theyre on at 10 or 11 oclock at night." "My 8-year-old," reported another, "doesnt look at childrens programs any more. She says theyre kid stuff." "No, my kids arent j watching TV," said a third. She happened to be visiting the second. "Theyre rehearsing for the school play tonight." AAA Even though the final tabulations are not yet in, it would appear that several conclusions can still be drawn from such indicative replies. Conclusion No. 1 might very well be that todays crop of small fry, born and bred into a world where television has already become an established fact, no longer think of it in terms of novelty and entertainment such as the kids of six, eight or 10 years ago thoughfof it. To the present generation, television is as much a part of the home as the furniture, the refigerator, the automatic washing machine and automatic dryer. And they can take it or leave it alone! Its always there anyway. AAA Conclusion No. 2 might run alon the line that rAaybe the broadcasters are making just as big a mistake in programming entertainment especially for children, as thinking that what appeals to them will also appeal to their parents. It turns out, actually, the other way around. The survey would indicate, according to the results in thus far, that the kids are curious about whats on the air AFTER their own programs go off. And that they .too would like to watch- Jack Paar and the Late Late Show, and vintage movies from 1938 or thereabouts, if permitted to stay up that late. Who knows? Maybe Jack Paar has a larger audience of tiny tots waking up for a glass of water at 11:30 pjn. than anybody realizes. AAA And finally, Conclusion No. 3 seems altogether inescapable: to watch or not to watch TV has now reverted to the parents for final decision. It wasnt so long ago that the choice of what to look at on the home screen was made by the noisy ruckus of the offspring in the family, demanding "The Mickey Mouse Club" and "Popeye the Sailor" in place of Edward R. Murrow andor the Chet Huntley and David Brink-ley news reports. Since by this time, the "Mickey Mouse Club" and "Popeye the Sailor" have become familiar figures to those same children, it follows that their curiosity as to what else is on the air must also be satisfied. And instead of demanding the programs aimed at their own level, these same offspring are now asking to see the programs their parents watch instead. All previous surveys to the contrary notwithstanding, this is one of te most drastic reversals "of form that television has faced in its whole short-lived span of existence. i Then, too, there is still another possibility disclosed in this person-to-person, door-to-door, house-to-house survey. That is that the kids today are much more wordly and sophisticated than the children of even six, eight or 10 ago, and want much more adult fare in the first place. For this, of course, television will have only itself to blame. Thats just what it has been aiming for ail these years, hasnt it?
