Hope this is an OK topic for the LITB board.

In 1961 the FCC chairman Newton Minow gave a famous speech in which he denounced television as a "vast wasteland" filled with mindless game shows, depictions of violence, and "generic sitcoms filled with totally unbelievable families."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGRgLfaGwo

I sincerely hope he wasn't referring to our favorite show by that last remark. If so, I would say he was pretty obtuse. But it does bring up the fact that people often criticize the families in classic sitcoms as "unbelievable." For the life of me, I've never understood this criticism. What is "unbelievable" about the families in LITB, FKB, TAGS, etc.? They have normal problems that people can relate to, exhibit good qualities as well as imperfections, and a solid moral lesson is imparted. If Minow was upset by the violence in westerns and police shows, then you'd think he would have applauded the good moral values in the family sitcoms.

But it does bring up the fact that people often criticize the families in classic sitcoms as "unbelievable." For the life of me, I've never understood this criticism.

Its unbelievable if you grew up in an enviroment that did not have what was portrayed.

Its unbelievable if you grew up in an enviroment that did not have what was portrayed.

True - but Minow seemed to mean unbelievable in an absolute sense.

H For the life of me, I've never understood this criticism. What is "unbelievable" about the families in LITB, FKB, TAGS, etc.? They have normal problems that people can relate to, exhibit good qualities as well as imperfections, and a solid moral lesson is imparted. If Minow was upset by the violence in westerns and police shows, then you'd think he would have applauded the good moral values in the family sitcoms.

Let me begin by stating that I believe the "vast wasteland" observation is as valid today as it was 60 years ago. The reality TV shows, and the "pop" shows are mind numbing.

As far as the "unbelievable" aspect, well several things. The homes usually appeared "straightened up for company" ...where's the ironing board with the box of Pampers sitting half used on top of it next to the paper plate with half eaten pizza slices that were abandoned when the babysitter had to go answer the front door?
Where is the neighbor with the noisy lawnmower right outside the dining room window just as we are sitting down to Sunday dinner?

How many fathers wear their office suits around the house after dinner until bedtime? How many mothers do their housework wearing pearls?

I believe the shows go to excess lengths to depict their characters "on their best day", when most Americans just do not have lifestyles that are that starched and pressed.

Peggy Bundy was always a little more fixed up than most middle class mothers I remember, full make up and a hair do just to sit around the house all day eating bon bons?

And the Huxtables? Don't even get me started!! LOL!

Basically I do not think such shows serve as an accurate portrayal of the way most people that I've ever known, actually live their lives.

The homes usually appeared "straightened up for company" ...where's the ironing board with the box of Pampers sitting half used on top of it next to the paper plate with half eaten pizza slices that were abandoned when the babysitter had to go answer the front door?
Where is the neighbor with the noisy lawnmower right outside the dining room window just as we are sitting down to Sunday dinner?



Not our house. We did not live in a pigstye, nor were our neighbors mowing lawns on Sunday.

Sorry that you lived like that.

I think the vast wasteland comment is more applicable today. Some sitcoms are total gutter humor. Who needs it?

Not our house. We did not live in a pigstye,
Sorry that you lived like that.

Well, I don't really think that I lived in a "pigstye". Perhaps you were not intending to editorialize quite to that extent, but lacking more familiarity, one may never know?

Life is a series of interruptions, bordered by impromptu events, THAT was my intent. While I am sure that the babysitter in my example DID NOT INTENTIONALLY leave the ironing board in disarray when she had to answer the front door, what would you propose as an alternative, making the person at the door wait while we wrap the pizza in foil and stash it in the fridge, hide the box of pampers, and stash the ironing board in a closet?

The point I was trying to make is that with unexpected interruptions, things like that get left out, ...and darned if they don't get noticed unintentionally while we have out guard down attending to more pressing priorities.
And the shows of the 50s are rather unrealistic in the way they deny that aspect of life.

Of course there are the "Vinnie Verducci" households too, but we were not allowed to go inside those until the 70s. :)

I think the vast wasteland comment is more applicable today. Some sitcoms are total gutter humor. Who needs it?

The sad thing about that, I absolutely love a good documentary like they used to do on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, both of those venues have deteriorated to the point of being nearly worthless, IMO.
And PBS' Nova, Nature, and POV shows? Absolutely the high point of my viewing week.

But my friends, they all ridicule me for even being interested in such shows. They all want to watch the Kardashians, and other slop of that caliber. Such shows make me nearly comatose with boredom.

And don't forget the little 14 month old running around the house without any britches, because he was only halfway to being "repampered" when the doorbell rang.

LOL, I had this one neighbor who when I was like 7-8 years old, and I'd go over to visit, there were always empty beer bottles and ashtrays full of cigarette butts on the kitchen table.
I remember asking once "are those still there from last night?" And was told no "only since breakfast".

The sad thing about that, I absolutely love a good documentary like they used to do on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, both of those venues have deteriorated to the point of being nearly worthless, IMO.
And PBS' Nova, Nature, and POV shows? Absolutely the high point of my viewing week.

But my friends, they all ridicule me for even being interested in such shows. They all want to watch the Kardashians, and other slop of that caliber. Such shows make me nearly comatose with boredom.

Ah yes the Discovery Networks. Which in the last few years have gobbled up the HGTV networks, snd have not yet figured out how to screw them up.

And the ABC-owned A&E networks, which used to have interesting things like Evening at the Improv and Biography. Now we get giant pimples, weird toes and other assorted claptrap.

Let me begin by stating that I believe the "vast wasteland" observation is as valid today as it was 60 years ago.

There was FAR more quality on TV in 1961 than today.

As far as the "unbelievable" aspect, well several things. The homes usually appeared "straightened up for company" ...where's the ironing board with the box of Pampers sitting half used on top of it next to the paper plate with half eaten pizza slices that were abandoned when the babysitter had to go answer the front door?
Where is the neighbor with the noisy lawnmower right outside the dining room window just as we are sitting down to Sunday dinner?

How many fathers wear their office suits around the house after dinner until bedtime? How many mothers do their housework wearing pearls?

I believe the shows go to excess lengths to depict their characters "on their best day", when most Americans just do not have lifestyles that are that starched and pressed.

Peggy Bundy was always a little more fixed up than most middle class mothers I remember, full make up and a hair do just to sit around the house all day eating bon bons?

And the Huxtables? Don't even get me started!! LOL!

Basically I do not think such shows serve as an accurate portrayal of the way most people that I've ever known, actually live their lives.


Who wants to tune in to a TV show to watch empty pizza boxes and half-used pampers? I think most people could do without that kind of "realism," and I'm sure most TV execs at the time realized that.

The other problem I have with this objection - and I know it's a common one people make - is that it's superficial. Just because Ward chooses to keep his suit on at the dinner table (note, he already had it on when he came home), that makes the family unbelievable? Just because June dresses nicely around the house, that makes the family unbelievable? She was Barbara Billingsley, a Hollywood actress; she's not going to appear on screen wearing an ratty bathrobe and curlers.

As for not depicting those annoying details we all live with, like the lawnmower while eating dinner: well, the shows did depict those things, but only if they were relevant to the plot. A writer isn't going to stick some random incident in the script if it doesn't advance the plot.

Yes, June in pearls and fully dressed for breakfast and Ward in a suit for dinner is a common observation. Really irrelevant to the plot, just details for nitpicking.

For a short time I worked all nights many years ago. For me the power mower wasn't just an annoyance--it meant lost sleep.

Seems like Jerry Mathers in an interview said that one of the producers or writers on the show was like Ward in the fact he wore a tie around the house.

It's definitely not an unrealistic notion in a time when most men wore suits/ties that some would wear them at home.

Seems like Jerry Mathers in an interview said that one of the producers or writers on the show was like Ward in the fact he wore a tie around the house.

It's definitely not an unrealistic notion in a time when most men wore suits/ties that some would wear them at home.

Agreed. THe only thing unrealistic for me and the enviroment I grew up in where the pearls and that was explained away, so... It all depends how you grew up.

Just because June dresses nicely around the house, that makes the family unbelievable? She was Barbara Billingsley, a Hollywood actress; she's not going to appear on screen wearing an ratty bathrobe and curlers.


I don't believe that a majority of middle class households during that period had Hollywood actresses showcasing their wardrobe as they labored through their everyday drudgery. THAT is the unbelievable part. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Hey, if someone wants to dwell on fantasy, and believe that a shining knight in white satin is going to come sweep them off their feet and escort them to the ball riding a unicorn, that's fine with me . We all have fantasies. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily believable.
And I believe recognizing that, in a nutshell, was what inspired the "unbelievable" observation in the 1961 speech.

Seems like Jerry Mathers in an interview said that one of the producers or writers on the show was like Ward in the fact he wore a tie around the house.

It's definitely not an unrealistic notion in a time when most men wore suits/ties that some would wear them at home.

Ed Norton wore the same clothes at home that he did at work, now THAT was believable!

Minow's speech is contradictory. On the one hand, he gripes about violence and then he turns around and disses "unbelievable families" which everybody assumes to mean stuff like Beaver and FKB. So what did he want TV to be? 24 hours of documentaries and news? We've had 24 hour news channels for the last 40 years and I don't think anybody would argue that it has improved American culture.

So what did he want TV to be? .

You raise a very good point, since when has America EVER been of one mind?

There are always going to be "murder she wrote" stalwarts, just as there will always be a "Jerry Springer" gallery.

Can't please everyone.

I suspect that what he wanted, was TV that served as a classroom to advance the values that HE felt were most deserving of promotion.
Which at the time, as I recall, tended upon the "stay in school, eat your vegetables, oppose communism at all costs, and the American dream will be yours" mantra. All heavily infused with a "keep up with the Jonses" mindset to keep the boys on Madison avenue happy.

So, dramas depicting individuals who strayed from that course, only to suffer tragic demise would likely have been high on his list.

Now we get giant pimples, weird toes.


"Toe Bro" was the closest one of those trash reality shows ever came to capturing my attention. I watched perhaps 5 or 6 installments, mostly because I recall my grandmother having a podiatrist that she visited regularly, and I viewed that level of specialization with curiosity.

Having a job where people bring one of the most neglected, potentially gangrene infected parts of their bodies and shove them in your face, must be a heck of a way to earn a living.

Newton Minnow was just plain wrong when he made that speech. However nowadays looking at what television has degenerated into, his speech would not even scratch the surface of what TV has become. Calling what TV is these days a vast wasteland would be a compliment.

I always thought that Saturday morning cartoons were supposed to be part of the "Vast Wasteland" complaint?

I actually miss those.

I also suspect that context might be missing as far as our ability to appreciate what his motives might have been.

As FCC chairman, I doubt that his intent was solely to smear the medium which he presided over. Could he have been trying to plant seeds that would one day help secure funding for what would become PBS?

We know that in the not too distant future they would neuter the opening sequence to Gunsmoke, believing it to promote "showdown" type confrontation, and within the same time frame they would start to introduce shows that were more socially "conscious".

Perhaps by "unbelievable" what he meant was that the casts were all too white, and all too happy? (I've heard that complaint before).
Perhaps shows that would come along such as All in the Family, Sanford and Son, and Room 222 were seen as "more believable"?
Just a thought.

LOL, of course none of those shows featured a father figure wearing a suit and tie in his children's bedroom at 8:30 PM telling parables, either.

Minow's speech is contradictory. On the one hand, he gripes about violence and then he turns around and disses "unbelievable families" which everybody assumes to mean stuff like Beaver and FKB. So what did he want TV to be? 24 hours of documentaries and news? We've had 24 hour news channels for the last 40 years and I don't think anybody would argue that it has improved American culture.

Well said. And when you remember that TV had informative programs like Mike Wallace and other public affairs stuff, I'm not sure what Minow's problem was.

I always thought that Saturday morning cartoons were supposed to be part of the "Vast Wasteland" complaint?

I actually miss those.

Yes, he did mention cartoons as well. And also constant advertisement (well, I do agree with him there).

I believe that the "too white and too happy" aspect deserves serious consideration as well. It is a complaint that I have heard before regarding these oldies.
In fact, a number of shows that followed soon after might be considered to lampoon this onesidedness.

Beverly Hillbillies, Addams Family, and the Munsters all make light of the old school mainstream sitcom family type.

And the Victorian ethos has been under attack, ever since.

LOL, I just read elsewhere that as a result of this harsh assessment, Gilligan's Island creator Sherwood Schwartz named the ill fated boat that the series is based around the"S.S. Minnow"

As a reflection on what he OTHERWISE thought television should be, the remainder of his speech states:


"Television and all who participate in it are jointly accountable to the American public for respect for the special needs of children, for community responsibility, for the advancement of education and culture, for the acceptability of the program materials chosen, for decency and decorum in production, and for propriety in advertising. This responsibility cannot be discharged by any given group of programs, but can be discharged only through the highest standards of respect for the American home, applied to every moment of every program presented by television. Program materials should enlarge the horizons of the viewer, provide him with wholesome entertainment, afford helpful stimulation, and remind him of the responsibilities which the citizen has toward his society"


Sounds an awful lot like "stay in school, eat your vegetables, and oppose communism at every opportunity"

LOL, I just read elsewhere that as a result of this harsh assessment, Gilligan's Island creator Sherwood Schwartz named the ill fated boat that the series is based around the"S.S. Minnow"

As a reflection on what he OTHERWISE thought television should be, the remainder of his speech states:


"Television and all who participate in it are jointly accountable to the American public for respect for the special needs of children, for community responsibility, for the advancement of education and culture, for the acceptability of the program materials chosen, for decency and decorum in production, and for propriety in advertising. This responsibility cannot be discharged by any given group of programs, but can be discharged only through the highest standards of respect for the American home, applied to every moment of every program presented by television. Program materials should enlarge the horizons of the viewer, provide him with wholesome entertainment, afford helpful stimulation, and remind him of the responsibilities which the citizen has toward his society"


Sounds an awful lot like "stay in school, eat your vegetables, and oppose communism at every opportunity"

Sounds a lot like the values of LITB. So I'm not sure why Minow was complaining about family sitcoms.

Sounds a lot like the values of LITB. So I'm not sure why Minow was complaining about family sitcoms.

I really get a gut feeling that Minnow has a stronger affinity for "indoctrination to be an obedient servant" than you do.
And I'm not siding with him, or against you by making that observation.

But, in the short exchanges we've had in this thread, I get the impression that you, and others here, see LITB as a means of reinforcing values that you would personally like to believe in. And I have a feeling he is working from an entirely different set of priorities.

Maybe he was a closet libber, and he felt that the subordinate role that June was cast in was "unhealthy"? Or, perhaps that Eddie's petulance was not adequately punished? Those really aren't points I raise for the purpose of debate. I just use them to illustrate that matters of perspective can differ, one person to the next. He might be less forgiving of perceived flaws in the storyline than a fan enamored by the fantasy of the neckties, wingtips, and strands of pearls. :wave:

But then I have my own perspective on what "fits" and what doesn't as well.
I watch the shows like Gunsmoke, and other shows based upon the frontier, and it just amazes me the way all the people have perfect teeth, Or you might have a house mom living in an old shack with a dirt floor 30 miles from nowhere, and she's in full make up and wearing a beautiful neck to ankles floral dress, while she's doing heavy chores.

Kinda unbelievable, to use a word we've already batted around some.
I see such fantasy as distortions of the truth. YMMV

Huge difference between unbelievable and asking one to suspend their disbelief.

Oh happy daggar gets plunged into someone during shakesphere, yet we know it was a fake dagger or was not really plunged, yet we understand what the actors were trying to portray. In real life people really do plunge daggers into themselves and others.

We like to giggle that people back in the day all had bad teeth, but that was not true. Even today not everyone gets cavities and some seldom go to the dentist and we have more sugar today than back in the day.

Huge difference between unbelievable and asking one to suspend their disbelief.

Oh happy daggar gets plunged into someone during shakesphere, yet we know it was a fake dagger or was not really plunged, yet we understand what the actors were trying to portray. In real life people really do plunge daggers into themselves and others.

We like to giggle that people back in the day all had bad teeth, but that was not true. Even today not everyone gets cavities and some seldom go to the dentist and we have more sugar today than back in the day.

Good point. Suspension of disbelief is a part of most art forms, as a matter of fact. Art is not a direct transcription of real life. It is usually "stylized" to some extent.

LITB certainly presented the ideal - what we should aspire to. Or rather, the Cleavers presented this ideal. But they were seen against a background of less than ideal reality (the Haskells, Mondellos, etc.), which is what drove the conflict of the plots. Zeroing in on some surface aesthetic aspect, like how the characters dressed, is to miss the whole larger point of what the show is trying to convey. And by the standards of the day, I don't think LITB looked unnaturally squeaky clean. Beaver was consistently scraggly and scruffy. Tony Dow has pointed out in interviews how the show had more realism than many shows coming out at the same time.

I suspect that was pretty much what Minnow was getting at. The art form of the fantasy they were trying to project had overwhelmed reality. It made good entertainment, but after a while you have to start wondering, was there some more organic explanation for why Hoss, Adam and little Joe were still living with their Pa as they approached their 30's?.

Suspension of disbelief goes only so far.

I suspect that was pretty much what Minnow was getting at. The art form of the fantasy they were trying to project had overwhelmed reality. It made good entertainment, but after a while you have to start wondering, was there some more organic explanation for why Hoss, Adam and little Joe were still living with their Pa as they approached their 30's?.

Suspension of disbelief goes only so far.

Non-married adults continuing to live with their parents was not at all uncommon in farm communities. This would have especially made sense in the case of a thrice-widowed father who needed help and support.

And just for the record, back during the time period in question, (a) I absolutely hated it that someone thought that my Saturday morning cartoons were misguided. (b) I didn't see a thing wrong with the sitcom families that I wanted to feel a part of, (c) the violence somehow always seemed "deserved" since it was the bad guys who invariably had to deal with the justice that awaited them, and (d) I felt that the 6 hours I spent in school per day Monday thru Friday was more than enough time to devote to education.

The thought that someone wanted to take my cartoons away and replace them with educational TV seemed like absolute tyranny.

SO, don't get the impression that I am siding with Minow, just because I claim to understand where he's coming from.

In retrospect, I can see that his concerns were not invalid.

I really believe that context is key to this discussion. I do not believe that Minow intended so much to discredit and disgrace our cherished icons. I think that he had a more clear-cut agenda.

If you look back at the roots of what we now call "Public Television", back in 1961 was called "National Educational Television and Radio Center". And up to that time, had primarily been funded through the private Ford Foundation.

Shortly after (within one year) Minow gave this speech, on May 1, 1962 President Kennedy signed the Educational Television Facilities Act (https://www.google.com/search?q=Educational+Television+Facilities+Act&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD6svoiIfrAhUQZc0KHeCCCyAQBSgAegQICxAn&biw=1383&bih=634)

Which effectively took responsibility for funding certain aspects of National Educational Television from the Ford Foundation, and saddled it upon the US taxpayer.

So really, although the speech might sound like a condemnation of values that you cherish, I don't believe it was anything more than a pretext to socialized television. Minow was simply giving warning that "hey, we are going to start paying for this, because we feel that important opportunities are being missed."

Bruised feelings be damned, I think it all had more to do with justifying the expenditures that they (we) were about to take on.

Non-married adults continuing to live with their parents was not at all uncommon in farm communities. This would have especially made sense in the case of a thrice-widowed father who needed help and support.

Earlier, you tried to leverage your position by stating that even Tony Dow had personal insight attesting to the reality of the show.

So I'm going to simply point out that even Pernell Roberts is on record as stating the family relationship with 3 grown men living subordinate under the same roof with their father was unrealistic. ;)

Non-married adults continuing to live with their parents was not at all uncommon in farm communities. This would have especially made sense in the case of a thrice-widowed father who needed help and support.

The Barkley kids all lived at home. I doubt that Audra would have gotten an appartment in town until Mr. Right came along. Also, both the Cartwright and Barkleys had big ranches to run. Other than separate houses on the ranch, why would the kids live someplace else? Would they buy homes in town and commute back to the ranch?

What about the Walton kids? They lived at home, but there was a war on and for that reason alone it made sense for the girls to stay home.

So really, although the speech might sound like a condemnation of values that you cherish, I don't believe it was anything more than a pretext to socialized television. Minow was simply giving warning that "hey, we are going to start paying for this, because we feel that important opportunities are being missed."

You're probably right. Minow wishes people remembered the "in the public interest" part of the speech more than the "vast wasteland" part.

Absent a cover story that "we are trying to fix what is broken", the Government suddenly pumping money into broadcasting might be seen as (shudder) "propaganda".

A practice we had vilified Russia, China, and Cuba for, during that era.

Well, a whole lot of what's on PBS is propaganda. LOL!

Well, a whole lot of what's on PBS is propaganda. LOL!

Regrettably, we are guilty of a great many "sins" that we credit to our adversaries. Not to turn this thread into a political debate, but I don't think that TV was expected to succeed nearly to the degree that it did, and given the overall timing, it doesn't require an over abundance of imagination to suspect the government decided "hey, we need to be in on this"

Personally I'm surprised that the CIA didn't set up a front corporation to rescue the Dumont network, but they probably missed (timing) that opportunity. :bluesbros

ROFL,For years I suspected that Walter Cronkite had a hidden agenda. But I guess in retrospect he didn't.

Now, Eric Sevareid ,.... I guess they did uncover at one time that he had loose ties to the Eastern Block. :o

My mother was a huge Sevareid fan and now you say he had ties elsewhere. Wow that’s a mind blower. Anyway I’m not an intellectual like a lot of you but I know LITB was totally unreal and not at all like real life for the times when Ward and June were all dressed up hanging around the house. They were elitists. Some of you might have lived in a ‘starched and pressed‘ environment like the Cleavers (dinner at 8 in the dining room) and even though we didn’t live like the Munsters we didn’t have everything perfect and no one has to feel sorry for me.

Well, a whole lot of what's on PBS is propaganda. LOL!

PBS does not have wide appeal. Mostly elitist stuff that we are forced to finance with taxes.

It's totally unneeded with the hundreds of channels available now. Even with all the niches out there PBS probably could not compete if you took away the taxpayer support.

ROFL,For years I suspected that Walter Cronkite had a hidden agenda. But I guess in retrospect he didn't.

Now, Eric Sevareid ,.... I guess they did uncover at one time that he had loose ties to the Eastern Block. :o

Sevareid and Cronkite were great compared with what passes for news/journalists now.

Now Moyers, don't get me started on him.

Journalists are a dime a dozen now. Cronkite, Edwards, Huntley and Brinkley were all decent white guys who reported the news not their opinions of the news. Different times even Bar-bar Wah-Wah and Nancy Dickerson had trouble breaking into broadcasting.

PBS does not have wide appeal. Mostly elitist stuff that we are forced to finance with taxes.

It's totally unneeded with the hundreds of channels available now. Even with all the niches out there PBS probably could not compete if you took away the taxpayer support.

I agree. I watch some stuff on Masterpiece, but I firmly believe if that stuff was on commercial TV in the US it would get more viewers.

Oh, yes, there are some shows that would make it without the taxpayer. Other examples are the This Old House franchise, Nova, and Antiques Roadshow.

My mother was a huge Sevareid fan and now you say he had ties elsewhere. Wow that’s a mind blower. .


Hey, "Eric the Red", I don't know how we could have missed it? LOL!

I don't think that I learned of his communist leanings until after he was dead (due to this fabulous thing we call the internet). But it's kind of engaging to take that knowledge back and view some of his apparent "posture" with that as a reference point. He often told the side of things that his peers didn't, which is what I liked about him. I just didn't know why.

Sevareid and Cronkite were great compared with what passes for news/journalists now.
.

I do not disagree with you one bit. Most of what we are spoon fed today veers mostly into the realm of "infotainment".....People like to be told what they prefer to believe anyway, with actual facts being of secondary importance. Objectivity frequently suffers.

Cronkite, Sevareid, Huntley, Brinkley, and even Dan Rather now seem like admirable relics of almost mythic proportions.

As a teenager, I enjoyed listening to short wave radio, and one of the things I enjoyed most was listening to foreign news casts. I noticed that many of the same news stories we were getting locally, somehow had a different flavor or feel from those foreign sources. I guess I was slowly becoming familiar with what we call "spin". It intrigued me.

Probably had a great deal to do with shaping my current political outlook, which is probably best summarized as "contrarian". If all the talking heads are telling me to "turn right at the next intersection", my suspicion is that must mean there is something to the left that they prefer that I not see.

So, (just in illustration) I try to review both Fox News and CNN before trying to distill out what works for me.

Back to Cronkite, I liked him, he certainly seemed believable.But there was just something about his "Israel can do no wrong" theme, that was troubling. His versions often differed drastically from what I was hearing on BBC. And of course once you become aware of an apparent anomaly, you start sensitizing towards it, and you notice it more and more.

Looking back, I think that the last names of his writers tell the story.
Even the mighty Atlas, it seems, suffered bias some days.

Nancy Dickerson had trouble breaking into broadcasting.

Nancy Dickerson, with her mid-day news casts, made an indelible mark on my young mind. She was fabulous.
Somehow over the immediately following years, I managed to confuse the actress Angie Dickinson with Dickerson, to the point that I believed the actress had her roots with NBC news. Seemed to make perfect sense to my teenage mind. My friends were a bit skeptical over my claims of remembering her from NBC newscasts, but I was convinced.

A story that seemed only more convoluted after learning that JFK once had an affair with Dickinson. I don't think that I got that sorted out until about 30 years ago. :cool:

Oh, yes, there are some shows that would make it without the taxpayer. Other examples are the This Old House franchise, Nova, and Antiques Roadshow.

The one where the guy builds stuff using only 19th century hand tools is a favorite of mine.
I spent the last 10 years of my working life restoring antiques. (just a bridge to get me to retirement age) And I used to thrill on the "oh, so THAT's how they did this" aspect.

I always thought that Sander Vanocur was kinda cool too. He seemed to have an uncanny knack for being there just as the **** was hitting the fan.

If I may I steer back to the topic of realism and LITB for a moment:

I can testify that my grandfather used to wear a suit and tie while visiting the beach resort with his children (this would have been maybe late '50s thru' early '70s). My grandfather was an Italian immigrant bricklayer and construction master. No elitism in him at all, but this was simply his style.

One more note: It seems to me that every show, story, etc., has a distinctive world that one must enter, without demanding that the show, story, etc. conform to one's own sense of "reality." Call it suspension of disbelief if you will, or dramatic convention, or even fantasy. I simply accept that the world of LITB is a world where people sometimes wear suits at the dinner table, then move on and focus on what the show is actually about.

I doubt that kids actually talked they way the kids do on LITB, either. It's a stylized slang created by the writers to make for entertaining dialog and depict these particular characters in a colorful way.

I can testify that my grandfather used to wear a suit and tie while visiting the beach resort with his children (this would have been maybe late '50s thru' early '70s). My grandfather was an Italian immigrant bricklayer and construction master. No elitism in him at all, but this was simply his style.


People did wear suits more then and even today I see the new immigrants still wear suits and they are taking walks while we wear activewear while walking the same bike paths.

Nor is it simply a matter of fans of the show wanting to wallow in good-looking fashion or whatever. The suits and dresses on Ward and June symbolize stability and maturity. It was a visual point the writers or director of the show wanted to make. Expecting everything to resemble mundane reality strikes me as a naïve way to approach a TV series or any work of fiction.

OK, so maybe Ward could have been more casual like he was in the earlier seasons. But the point is, his suit-wearing doesn't invalidate the show.

And I'm not saying there isn't a point at which a show might cross the line into unbelievability. Of course suspension of disbelief has its limits. But I don't think LITB crosses it.

I think that one veiled concern that Minow might have had is that it's far more likely that on a cold and grey Chicago morn, another little baby child is born in the ghetto.

And as that kid grows up wondering why "suspension of disbelief" doesn't fill his belly, he starts nurturing contempt for that strand of pearls and other trappings of that standard which seem so far away from his reality as to be a joke, against him.

Sad, but I think that empty beer bottles and over flowing ashtrays on the kitchen tables were more common across America than were "worsted -wool" bedtime speeches. Hence "unbelievable" hits the mark for more Americans than not.

I think that it's one thing to project over the top standards on shows such as "Dynasty" where parents can explain away the excess by telling junior that such folks have their heads up in the clouds.
But when you start projecting "the good life" as part of the everyday fabric of America, I think it sends an unsavory message to all the have-nots, that is hard for them to overlook.

Nor is it simply a matter of fans of the show wanting to wallow in good-looking fashion or whatever. The suits and dresses on Ward and June symbolize stability and maturity. It was a visual point the writers or director of the show wanted to make. Expecting everything to resemble mundane reality strikes me as a naïve way to approach a TV series or any work of fiction.

OK, so maybe Ward could have been more casual like he was in the earlier seasons. But the point is, his suit-wearing doesn't invalidate the show.

And I'm not saying there isn't a point at which a show might cross the line into unbelievability. Of course suspension of disbelief has its limits. But I don't think LITB crosses it.

I agree. Certain sitcoms have episodes that to me are unwatchable. There's not 1 Beaver I'd categorize that way.

And I'm not saying there isn't a point at which a show might cross the line into unbelievability. Of course suspension of disbelief has its limits. But I don't think LITB crosses it.

Twilight Zone crossed the line. It was a great show. Sometimes LITB was unbelievable but watchable except Chuckie’s New Shoes.

Hey I laughed out loud about filled ashtrays and empty beer cans for breakfast but what a sad way to be raised.

I think there is a tendency by many Americans to try and live in denial of some of life's less sparkling realities.
And perhaps the Cleaver's lifestyle was a hallmark example of such denial. It's nice to aspire to be all you can be, to project the best possible image, and all that. Smoke and mirrors are not evil, in and of themselves.

Just as the wizard of Oz was much more impressive from behind the curtain. Yet I do believe it was those flying monkeys who left the more indelible impression.

I just watched an episode of Green Acres last night, probably the first time in 15 years I watched that show. And I may have to reconsider my position on this thread after watching Oliver out there sitting in his suit and tie on that tractor in the field, personifying that high standard. And Mrs Douglas was wearing a full compliment of jewelry as she performed her house chores. Hard to believe they allowed their son to run around in tatters like that.

All those coral colored kitchen appliances made quite a statement too.

https://i.imgur.com/nsY0Xwj.png

Hey I laughed out loud about filled ashtrays and empty beer cans for breakfast but what a sad way to be raised.

"Hey, I thought we WAS upper class? Afterall, those beer bottles all said "Champagne of Bottled Beers" on them" :rotflmao:

This has been a fun topic to read.

Television critic R.D. Heldenfels called 1954 "Television's Greatest Year", and wrote a book about it (https://www.amazon.com/Televisions-Greatest-Year-R-Heldenfels/dp/0826406750). I keep a copy on my shelf. There are many reasons he calls 1954 TV's greatest year, but it's part because the DuMont Network was still operational at that time. DuMont offered many public-affairs programs which educated viewers, such as Concert Tonight (live broadcasts of the Chicago Symphony), Washington Exclusive (news and politics), The Johns Hopkins Science Review (science), etc. The Johns Hopkins show was nominated for one Peabody Award and won one, as well.

With the shuttering of the DuMont Network in 1956, there began to be very few educational programs on network TV. The NTA Film Network, which also offered a few, closed circa 1961. NTA aired programs such as Newsbeat with Mike Wallace, Mantovani, and Open End.

In 1958, TV had just faced its first major scandal, with the quiz shows being revealed as hoaxes. The Quiz Show scandals rocked US television. I believe Minow raised valid points about the state of television in 1961. It's true that TV didn't get better, with programs like My Mother the Car (1965) Lost in Space (1965), and The Flying Nun (1967) airing afterwards, but that didn't mean Minow was wrong about the decline of American television; rather that he was prescient. The Golden Age of Television had ended.

Perhaps I am overly ponderous, but when I came across the following 1959 interview of Rod Serling, it made me think of the subject of this thread.
Serling was at the time just about to embark upon his "Twilight Zone" series.....and gives a fairly insightful peek into the issues he faced as a writer dealing with censors, meddling sponsors, and peers within the industry.

In view of the fact that the "vast wasteland" speech would come just two years later, I find it difficult to not see a "Pogo Possum" (the enemy is us) aspect to the original complaint.

enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpKkHCVbSyw

I just watched an episode of Green Acres last night, probably the first time in 15 years I watched that show. And I may have to reconsider my position on this thread after watching Oliver out there sitting in his suit and tie on that tractor in the field, personifying that high standard. And Mrs Douglas was wearing a full compliment of jewelry as she performed her house chores. Hard to believe they allowed their son to run around in tatters like that.

All those coral colored kitchen appliances made quite a statement too.

https://i.imgur.com/nsY0Xwj.png

LOL EB was the hired hand - not their son ...

Yeah, Eb called him Dad sometimes, but that was just a running joke.

LOL EB was the hired hand - not their son ...

Back in context with the O.P. Where you think that the Ziffels would have placed on Newton Minow's assessment of family believability?

Considering that their "son" is a pig, not very high.

I've often wondered if shows such as the Addams Family, the Munsters, Beverly Hillbillies, and Green Acres were not an intentional swipe back at the FCC over the "wasteland" accusation?

Maybe that, and maybe at that time they desired to get audiences from "flyover country"--then as of the "rural purge", they showed they didn't want those audiences anymore.

I've often wondered if shows such as the Addams Family, the Munsters, Beverly Hillbillies, and Green Acres were not an intentional swipe back at the FCC over the "wasteland" accusation?

I do believe Gilligan's Island was a direct swipe (https://boingboing.net/2019/09/23/gilligans-islands-s-s-min.html) at Newton Minow, chairman of the FCC.

I do believe Gilligan's Island was a direct swipe (https://boingboing.net/2019/09/23/gilligans-islands-s-s-min.html) at Newton Minow, chairman of the FCC.

I think Sherwood Swartz actually said he named the Minnow boat just for that reason

LOL, they should have named Arnold Ziffle "Newton".

LOL, they should have named Arnold Ziffle "Newton".

Excellent Post = 5 stars !

I think Sherwood Swartz actually said he named the Minnow boat just for that reason
Yep!

Huge difference between unbelievable and asking one to suspend their disbelief.

We like to giggle that people back in the day all had bad teeth, but that was not true. Even today not everyone gets cavities and some seldom go to the dentist and we have more sugar today than back in the day.

I think about this post often when watching portrayals of frontier life. Seems as though most representations of "dentist" that I see in those old movies, tends to be a barber who also performs extractions, usually as a sideline..

But what really gave me a chuckle, the 1968 flick Bandolaro, Raquel Weich is a hostage of two fugitives escaping fast and furious across the western desert on horseback, large possee in pursuit, so time is at a premium. Several days and nights pass, and yet still there is Raquel... with a salon hairdo, and flawless makeup. Just not a realistic portrayal. it's a false fantasy.

And, I see similar often on shows such as Gunsmoke, People living a spartan life way out in the middle of no where, hardship all around. Yet there they are dressed for Sunday, doing their chores.

Hollywood feeds us a very deceptive veneer, there is little room for doubt, IMO.

And, I see similar often on shows such as Gunsmoke, People living a spartan life way out in the middle of no where, hardship all around. Yet there they are dressed for Sunday, doing their chores.

Hollywood feeds us a very deceptive veneer, there is little room for doubt, IMO.

Hi GentlemanJim - Can you give a specific instance of what you mean by "dressed for Sunday, doing their chores"? Dress in the 19th century was a lot more formal to begin with.

Wearing a petticoat and formal form fitting dress while tending livestock in the barn just as one example.

Maybe if you are Audra Barkley, then yes. But if you are the married mother of two working a ranch on your own where your husband has been in prison for 8 years, and your nearest neighbor lives 12 miles away....credibility starts to crumble.

Unrealistic portrayals.

Michael,
I think that part of it is called "character framing", where, just as an example, they intend to make the farm marm a victim of a struggle, perhaps between her newly escaped convict husband, and a bounty hunter with "evil intentions"

So, they dress the farm marm up, and present her as a subconscious object of desire, to gain the audience's indulgence that she is womanhood's fairest flower. Therefore more deserving of their pitty. (the damsel in distess aspect)

Kinda hard to set that up dressed in overalls

Examining the other side of this coin, I've gotten myself in trouble for "appreciating" Peggy Bundy too much, because contemporary women I know feel that her image (constant hairdo, perpetual make up, ever refreshing wardrobe) is artificial...excessively kept up for appearances.

And that any expectations of mine that I deserve similar,... border upon being sexist

And, I had never really thought about that. But, I guess they are right, she takes exceptional care of herself for a lower middle class couch muffin.

I mean, when you are out there in the nether regions where just surviving is an accomplishment to be proud of, which of the following are you more likely to see?

https://i.imgur.com/RP5tiXZ.png

Wearing a petticoat and formal form fitting dress while tending livestock in the barn just as one example.

Maybe if you are Audra Barkley, then yes. But if you are the married mother of two working a ranch on your own where your husband has been in prison for 8 years, and your nearest neighbor lives 12 miles away....credibility starts to crumble.

Unrealistic portrayals.

What do you think they would be wearing? Go look at WW2 images from Europe. Many were doing manual labor wearing the business-type clothes that they had, not the clothes that you might feel would be suitable.

The Ingalls wore fairly accurate clothing. The tops of the skirt/blouse outfits were fairly form-fitting. It's what they had. I guess you want them to own suitable baggy overshirts?

I have mucked many a stall in form-fitting clothes. Why? because I have only one a$$ so my clothes have no need to be baggy. I have never bought special clothes to muck stalls.
https://i.postimg.cc/026fvWh1/Bach.jpg

Now you want to complain that Victoria and Audra Barkley were wearing pants from a 1970's halter-horse class or that no man would shave his chest and go shirtless in the barnyard like Charles Ingalls, that's cool because that is not accurate (wearing the pants, chest shaving I have not heard of it).
https://i.postimg.cc/0j8P1KVb/s-l300.jpg

We do know that women have been wearing types of make-up since at least Cleopatra. I can imagine if a woman's survival depended on a man feeding her, she is going to do what she needs to, to be in his favor.

What do you think they would be wearing? Go look at WW2 images from Europe. Many were doing manual labor wearing the clothes that they had, not the clothes that you might feel would be suitable.

The Ingalls wore fairly accurate clothing. The tops of the skirt/blouse outfits were fairly form-fitting. It's what they had. I guess you want them to own suitable baggy overshirts?

I have mucked many a stall in form-fitting clothes. Why? because I have only one a$$ so my clothes have no need to be baggy. I have never bought special clothes to muck stalls.
https://i.postimg.cc/026fvWh1/Bach.jpg

I think you have got the wrong idea about what I mean by "form fitting".

You know those dresses that button-hook all the way up the neck to the jaw, that fit the torso and mid section so tight that even a B cup looks generous? With the flowing skirts all the way down to the ankle with about 6 layers of petticoat underneath to "fluff" it out to about 5' diameter ...that kind of a dress.

Holly wood dresses these commoners up to gain our appreciation so that we can iconize their image...

But tell ya what...go out and get yourself a copy of the movie Bandolero like I was talking about earlier, and watch it.

When the three stars escape the city, there wasn't even time for them to pack a toothbrush or a roll of toilet paper. And they were on the lam for 4+ days, being aggressively pursued by the posse. Yet after 4 grueling days in the desert, Raquel looks like she stepped right off the cover of Vogue...not a hair out of place, and exquisite makeup. (albeit with no such dress, just the hair and make up are my example here)

Hollywood seduces us with this imagery, but it doesn't make it reality.

And for that matter, why would a young woman being kidnapped want to make herself attractive? It's not really a smart thing to do.

"Oh gee, I hope these two lecherous outlaws who kidnapped me, think I'm attractive" That's what Minow meant by unbelievable or improbable