EOTO: The Television

 The creation of the television was by far one of the most fascinating discoveries I’ve ever looked into; and ironically enough, the miscommunications during the inventing process is the sole reason why the invention of the television was so necessary! While the origins of the television can be traced back to Samuel F.B. Morse’s telegraph and Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone, the true inventors of the television can be traced back to four men: Charles Francis Jenkins, John Logie Baird, Kenjiro Takayanagi, and Philo Farnsworth. These four men, being from all over the world, discovered different parts and pieces of what the television is today. 

Starting in 1925, Charles Francis Jenkins created the transmission of synchronized images. Although not exactly a piece of the television, this invention essentially paved the way for motion pictures and video feeds. The following year in 1926, we saw the entrance of John Logie Baird and Kenjiro Takayanagi into the television hemisphere. Slightly earlier in the year, John Logie Baird invented the very first mechanical television in London, which we know today as the first ever blueprint of a television. In later months, Japan’s own Kenjiro Takayanagi created the first all-electronic television receiver, which paved the way for Philo Farnsworth. The following year in 1927 we saw the emergence of Farnsworth with the television we all have in our homes now; the electronic television, which for obvious reasons busted down the door for future video technologies. 

Although it was initially made as a newfound form of interpersonal communication, television affected every part of our lives; from broadcasting and entertainment, to politics. This new sphere of communication brought a sense of reality and realness to world events. It altered small things like purchasing choices through advertisements, to more broad things such as how we believe and perceive the world around us. More specifically in the sphere of entertainment, it brought a new level of seriousness for jobs such as acting and athletics, as the televisation of shows and live sporting events allowed for people to be paid for what was once a hobby or a side job! However the biggest impact of the invention of the television is located in the realm of politics.

The best examples of how much politics was impacted through the invention of the television can be seen through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Fireside Chats,” the Nixon v. JFK debate, and the coverage of the Vietnam War. Former President FDR was the first president to ever be televised, using his “Fireside Chats,” in which he would address the nation with their concerns, and/or discuss any new policies or steps that have been taken by the government. This was quintessential for the transparency process between the government and it’s governing body, and it additionally helped make the executive office a tad more personable. Then followed the biggest television controversy in history: the coverage of the Vietnam War.

The Vietnam War was the first ever televised war, in which they showed through video and photo footage the true cruelties of the war, and just how bloody it had gotten. Consequently, this led to the public being able to strongly empathize with the soldiers, and therefore began to protest both the war and the draft. Whether it was the idea that they didn’t understand why we were involved in the war, or that it was the first time we had seen real footage of the war, is not important. What is important is the outcry this caused, leading to one of the biggest anti-war protests in history.

Finally, we meet in 1960 with the Presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F Kennedy. Similar to the others, this was another TV first. This was the first Presidential Debate on live television, which introduced us to the idea of influence by sight. With the invention of the television, politicians were becoming increasingly judged by how well they looked/carried themselves on television. Leading up to the debate, it was said that Nixon felt under the weather, and additionally refused to wear make-up. While Kennedy, looking sharp as ever, was caked up in full health and ready to go. Another key factor in this debate was the predisposed opinion that JFK was the “conventionally more attractive” candidate, which is still something people argue over to this day as it pertains to his eventual “victory” in the debate. However, ultimately here is when we saw just how influential carrying yourself physically is when choosing between presidential candidates, as you cannot hide behind a radio microphone, and “image” is more than just a simple reputation. These three isolated monumental moments in history paved the way for many more image-based decisions and opinions to be had with our citizens, all thanks to the invention of the television. 

Despite this drastic increase in frequency of communication, the new job industries created, and the transparency offered, the invention of the television has had its negative effects as well. As the saying goes, “too much of one thing is never good,” and so it is in the current day and age that we start to see some of these effects television has had on us over the years. This is including, but not limited to: Harm physical health (ie. sight), cognitive health, and reinforce stereotypes. Even still, we proceed with letting television corrupt us not because of the enjoyment of these negative effects, but because of the even greater positives it possesses us with. Education, communication, and innovation would never be the same without the invention of the television.

Protecting Dissent

Since the beginnings of American culture, we have always strived to be a better nation. Whether that be through amending the Constitution, or attempting to correct the social injustices of the past. However there is one thing that has remained constant throughout all these years: the level of protection we have over our freedom. In fact, we have what is called the "eight values of free expression." These are included, but are not limited to: checks on governmental power, promotion of innovation, the promotion of tolerance, etc. Although the one I will be discussing today is the one I feel is the most important in this day and age: protecting dissent. 

Protecting dissent is the idea of protecting the minority views of a group of persons on any given topic. These topics can range from racial issues, socio economic issues, to even basic everyday “controversial” topics. This specific value of free expression really resonated with me, especially given the current state of our nation. I feel as though so much arguing is going on in our country, and we are so quick to shoot down opinions that aren’t deemed “correct” by society, that we have completely lost any respect and self control we once had for each other. It is almost as if we stop listening as soon as we hear a dissenting opinion we do not like. If the Supreme Court is allowed to have the justices explain their dissenting opinions, why is it that we as citizens cannot allow each other to do the same? 

In fact, sometimes the dissenting opinions are the ones which raise the most questions and force us to engage in critical thinking. For example, the 2007 Supreme Court case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. saw a viscous, eye opening dissent from none other than former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This case had to do with gender discrimination against a woman employed at Goodyear Co., in which she initially won the case, but the Supreme Court held the overturning ruling by the federal court, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In her dissent, RBG attacked her fellow justices, claiming “The court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” targeting the idea that these men she shared the honor of being a part of the Supreme Court should have done a better job to protect rights for all. 

Another way to further elaborate on how important it is to still be “protecting dissent” can be seen through what we call “cancel culture.” The true definition of cancel culture is something that is often debated, with some people claiming it is “people canceling anyone they disagree with,” to “a misrepresentation of people’s actions,” to even “actions taken to hold others accountable.” With this term being so loosely defined, we can see the spread of these definitions be categorized by political opinions in this graph provided by PEW Research Center. Given the context of the times, this could widely be explained by the more “liberal scope” society as a whole seems to have today, especially on many social media platforms. With cancel culture, if one person gains enough traction on their tweet, Instagram post, Facebook post, etc. regarding a “controversial opinion” someone has, that celebrity or even “normal” person can be “cancelled” in minutes. For some, this could mean losing brand deals or their large following.To others, it could mean losing friends or family members.Either way, the effects of cancel culture linger, and just like your shadow, never seem to go away. And, unfortunately this is mostly applicable to whatever political views are not of the majority at the time. So, with society today, differing views on gun laws, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the vaccination/mask mandates, can be grounds for cancellation if you dissent the idea of stricter gun laws and mandatory vaccinations. 

For many reasons that may not be visually evident, protecting dissent is a vital part of the first amendment and the protection of our individual rights; and it is what has, and will keep this country lively and growing as time continues.

The U.S. Supreme Court

 A supreme court is typically the highest court in its respective country. But the Supreme Court of the United States, is the highest, most powerful court in the world. The supreme court has the ability to not only hear the appeals from both state and federal courts, but they also hold the power to initiate judicial review; keeping the branches of government in check through the checks and balances system. It is because of this, and many other reasons, that it is so perplexing to me that most look toward the President when voicing their opinions/concerns with the government and the nation's current state; when it is the Judicial branch that serves as an anchor holding this nation and its people steady. 

Based on the videos I've watched and the articles I've read, it seems there are many things about the supreme court that I was not already aware of. One of the biggest things that comes to mind for me was the quantity of requests and the process of granting certiorari. In the video, they explained how they receive over one hundred cases weekly, tallying up to about seven thousand a year; all of which have to be individually read and contemplated by members of the court. They then hold these weekly conferences to make decisions on these specific cases, such as which to grant/deny certiorari to. One of the key things in the discussion the justices had when breaking down that process was the concept of if they deny certiorari to a specific case, it does not mean it has been officially ruled on by the supreme court. This was definitely news to me,  as it implied it is not about right or wrong/agreement or disagreement, as much as it is about if it is a ruling worthy of reviewing by the high court. This is also applicable to the idea of equality. As they mentioned in the video, high priced attorneys versus a prisoner writing their petitions are not ever a part of the consideration process, further implementing that sense of equality; even in the most tedious and large quantity aspect of the Supreme Court's duties. 

Another thing worth noting that I had never known or even considered before about the Supreme Court, is how they inadvertently communicate with each other through the attorneys during oral arguments. In the video, they demonstrated and explained how during oral arguments, they often ask certain questions, not always for their benefit, but also to inadvertently raise awareness or provoke certain thoughts to their other justices. I thought this way of communicating is extremely effective and a fascinating way to communicate with each other, given that there are so many minds operating in different ways when hearing a case. This is a great way to ensure all their minds/thought processes are maybe not on the same page, but at least in the same chapter.

Moving forward, the most surprising thing I have learned after my research of the Supreme Court, was that they, despite being the most powerful judges in the country, cannot act upon a case unless it is brought to them first, or a appeal for certiorari is requested. Although I am well aware each justice taking cases on personal vendettas/opinions would not be equal or fair, it was just one of those things I feel like we as a society are trained to think; all people with great power, abuse it. For the Supreme Court however, that could not be any farther from the truth. Because of this, the Supreme Court can be seen as somewhat of a latent activist, only being able to act when the situation/problem is brought to them. 

All in all, the biggest takeaway point for me regarding the newfound information of the Supreme Court, is the idea that they can never seem to escape controversy. When thinking about the Supreme Court, it is important to understand that, just like in any life occurrence, not everyone is going to have the same opinion or belief in certain decisions, but the court is not there to please everyone, it is to protect; in any way they deem necessary, whether obvious or not. 

Continuing the discussion of the latter, these videos and articles definitely changed the way I view the Supreme Court. I felt as though this in depth behind the scenes view of the inter-workings of the Supreme Court in a sense rehumanizes them to the public. As they mentioned in the video, getting the opportunity to be a part of the Supreme Court is akin to "being appointed to the supreme court is akin to being struck by lightning" . These members of the high court are getting this extraordinary experience, but at the end of the day they are just real people trying to do their job and maintain the hard earned freedom our ancestors fought for. And, ironically enough, I feel as though the Supreme Court and all its duties need to be better represented in the media. They are not this big bad legislature to be feared, rather they arguably are the most forefront and honest leaders of our nation, with their opinions are all laid out in their in decisions, dissents and all.