The controversial show of half-time Kendrick Lamar presents Serena Williams
Serena Williams joined Kendrick Lamar at the Super Bowl Halftime Show. Lamar interpreted his piece of Diss “Not Like Us”, about the ex of Williams, Drake.
Forty-two years ago today, almost half of the American population decided to take the same action at the same time, sitting down to watch the last episode of “M * a * s * H. ”
Is it even conceivable now?
A show on a fictitious surgical hospital in the mobile army during the Korean War galvanized the Americans, bringing 106 million from a nation of 234 million – more than 45% – in front of their televisions.
Now, it seems that only a major war or a massive crisis would create unity, as did the terrorist attacks of September 11, because tribalism has taken over politics in a polarized country.
“M * a * s was an excellent example of a cultural touch on which everyone could get along,” said Steve Caplan, a complementary advertising and media instructor at the University of Southern California. “I find it very difficult to imagine in this environment that there could be culturally montage by any content.”
It is not only because of the differences in separation of the Americans, but even more because of the way in which the media landscape has broken out since the final of the program on February 28, 1983.
M * a * s * H started its 11 -year race in September 1972 on CBS, one of the three commercial networks of the country at the time, with ABC and NBC. Less than 10% of people had cable television. The Fox network would not come until 1986.
Neither the observation of the frenzy nor the on -demand television was available when the final M * a * s * H – called “Goodbye, Farewell and Amen” – attracted what remains the most public for an American television program, although it has been exceeded several times by Super Bowls. New episodes appeared once a week during the television season, from fall at the start and the race until May.
Video games, now a popular entertainment option, were quite primitive. The World Wide Web, which launched the in -depth use of the Internet, was not invented until 1989.
A lot of choices, but there is a drawback
“It does not matter that M * a * s * h is a better spectacle or worse than (the HBO series) ‘Succession’, and I think it was probably a worse show, what M * s * H had for him was simply that everyone saw it,” said Gabriel Rossman, associate professor of sociology at the UCLA. “You could ask your friends:” What did you think of M * a * s * H last night? ” In a way, you cannot necessarily do with the estate. ” ‘
Rossman said consumers benefit from the plethora of entertainment choices available now, but that common cultural references are often lost in the mixture. This could have contributed to the current polarization, although Rossman indicates more the evolution of the media.
As part of the three-networks system, he said, there was an incentive to the diffusers to take a centrist position to please the widest possible public. However, in 1987, the Federal Commission for Communications under President Ronald Reagan repealed the Doctrine of equitywhich required that the stations allow contrasting points of view on disputed subjects of public importance.
This made room for a very partisan conversation radio from the conservative rush of Firebrand Rush Limbaugh, whose program became national the following year. Fox News followed in 1996 as a television point focused on the curator, endearing antipathy to liberal points of view.
In the past decade approximately, the growth of social media as a forum to evacuate discord and the political rise of a figure of division like Donald Trump favored extreme tribalism which led not only to be in disagreement with the opposing side but also Demonize.
“You can have this kind of supporter and resentment strong even if the ideological differences are small,” said Rossman.
William Egginton, Professor in Human Sciences at Johns Hopkins University and Author of the Book “The scalding of the American spirit” “” said that these attitudes erude the common good. He blames a large part of the efforts of an abundance horn of media to seek income by drawing a niche audience, often based on algorithms.
The “voracious” pursuit of the media of an audience
“The economic driver of the media obtains eyelashes, and the way you get eye globes is to get your audience as moving as possible by your history and your catch,” said Egginton. “And you will get them to be as delighted as possible in their attention. It is a vicious circle. He repeats himself, voracious, again and again, and all he does is to worsen all the time. ”
This hardly lends itself to the so -called more water cooling – somewhat attenuated by remote work – colleagues chatting and linking common concerns and interests. Popular television programs are a long time one of these safe discussion topics, but with media fragmentation, they do not draw the audience numbers before.
Egginton declared the coverage of certain adult new developments – such as the Notre-Dame Cathedral Fire In 2019 – always provides a mass connection. More reliable than this are major sporting events, which are generally regarded live instead of demand.
Egginton said he could feel that the world’s common point in the 2022 World Cup football final won by Argentina against France.
“You always had the feeling that you were living through a historic communion event with other people from around the world,” he said. “I think there is something in the sporting events that allow it.”
Super Bowl reigns supreme in the viewer
In the United States, the best example is the Super Bowl, which has long been the most watched television event in the country each year. The most recent NFL title game on February 9 made a record of 127.7 million viewersAlmost 39% of the country’s population.
Even there, the points of view faced were not limited to fans of the two teams. Jonathan Metzl, professor of sociology and psychiatry at the University of Vanderbilt, noted the very contrasting reactions to the show of half-time featuring the star of rap Kendrick Lamar, many of which are expressed with color on social networks.
Metzl saw a similar model when looking for his latest book, “What we have become: Live and die in a country in arms. “He said that half of the country reacted to mass fire by calling for more stringent firearms, and the other half saying that more firearms are necessary.
“It is not only that we have no unifying experiences. It is that when we see the same thing, we do not agree on what it means ” said Metzl. “What was good with M * a * s * h is that we could have debated what it meant, but we all experienced it and there is something very unifying on this subject. And now, for various reasons, even when we all see the same thing, we are divided on this subject. ”