TV’s most powerful moments

The Nielson ratings people and Sony surveyed just over 1,000 Americans to determine the top 20 “most universally impactful moments” on television.  Here they are:

1. Sept. 11 tragedy (2001)

2. Hurricane Katrina (2005)

3. O.J. Simpson verdict (1995)

4. Challenger space shuttle disaster (1986)

5. Death of Osama bin Laden (2011)

6. O.J. Simpson white Bronco chase (1994)

7. Earthquake in Japan (2011)

8. Columbine High School shootings (1999)

9. BP oil spill (2010)

10. Princess Diana’s funeral (1997)

11. Death of Whitney Houston (2012)

12. Capture and execution of Saddam Hussein (2006)

13. Barack Obama’s acceptance speech (2008)

14. The Royal Wedding (2011)

15. Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963)

16. Oklahoma City bombing (1995)

17. Bush/Gore election results (2000)

18. L.A. riots (1992)

19. Casey Anthony verdict (2011)

20. Funeral of John F. Kennedy (1963)

via TV’s most powerful moments: 9/11, Katrina, O.J., Nielsen study finds | The Lookout – Yahoo! News.

I’ll grant 9/11, but what about the Cuban Missile crisis? The early space launches?  The Moon landing?  The Watergate hearings?  Ronald Reagan getting shot?  The Berlin Wall coming down?  Operation Desert Storm?

Those compelling moments of watching history unfold didn’t make it but the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton did?  The Casey Anthony verdict?  Whitney Houston?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    Just another example of generational short-sightedness coupled with the immediacy that is television. Since this is asking about tv in general, with only the implication of “news”, the outsize rankings for celebrity and celebrity-related drama are to be expected. Death of Whitney Houston? What about Michael Jackson? Ephemera.

    If I was asked this question, it would take me a long time to come up with 20 things and I would probably only have 5 or 6 that are on this list. This is a “fun” exercise, with little meaning other than they’ve gotten a cross-section of subjective impressions people have of tv “news.” I also note the absence of sport, the other great tv news focus. 1980 U.S. Hockey, anyone? Bruce Jenner before the Kardashians? Nadia Comanici and the perfect 10?

    What about Ollie North and the Iran-Contra hearings?

  • SKPeterson

    Just another example of generational short-sightedness coupled with the immediacy that is television. Since this is asking about tv in general, with only the implication of “news”, the outsize rankings for celebrity and celebrity-related drama are to be expected. Death of Whitney Houston? What about Michael Jackson? Ephemera.

    If I was asked this question, it would take me a long time to come up with 20 things and I would probably only have 5 or 6 that are on this list. This is a “fun” exercise, with little meaning other than they’ve gotten a cross-section of subjective impressions people have of tv “news.” I also note the absence of sport, the other great tv news focus. 1980 U.S. Hockey, anyone? Bruce Jenner before the Kardashians? Nadia Comanici and the perfect 10?

    What about Ollie North and the Iran-Contra hearings?

  • Tom Hering

    Why would Nielsen survey 1000 contemporary viewers when they have the facts at their fingertips? When a list of the “most universally impactful moments on television” is easily determined by ratings history?

    … the top 46 network primetime telecasts between 1964 and 2010. Few post-1990 telecasts are listed … Of the 46 shows on this list:

    21 are Super Bowls, eight are from mini series (six Roots and two The Thorn Birds), and three are series finales (The Fugitive, M*A*S*H, Cheers)

    Eleven are special/rare or highly anticipated events. The first two US television performances by The Beatles, the two parts of the Olympic figure skating competition featuring Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding, two consecutive years of Bob Hope entertaining US troops in Vietnam at Christmas, the two-part television premiere of the classic movie Gone With the Wind, one year of the annual Academy Awards, the television movie The Day After, and the Dallas episode revealing who shot JR.

    Only one “regular” television show appears on this list: an episode of The Beverly Hillbillies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts

  • Tom Hering

    Why would Nielsen survey 1000 contemporary viewers when they have the facts at their fingertips? When a list of the “most universally impactful moments on television” is easily determined by ratings history?

    … the top 46 network primetime telecasts between 1964 and 2010. Few post-1990 telecasts are listed … Of the 46 shows on this list:

    21 are Super Bowls, eight are from mini series (six Roots and two The Thorn Birds), and three are series finales (The Fugitive, M*A*S*H, Cheers)

    Eleven are special/rare or highly anticipated events. The first two US television performances by The Beatles, the two parts of the Olympic figure skating competition featuring Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding, two consecutive years of Bob Hope entertaining US troops in Vietnam at Christmas, the two-part television premiere of the classic movie Gone With the Wind, one year of the annual Academy Awards, the television movie The Day After, and the Dallas episode revealing who shot JR.

    Only one “regular” television show appears on this list: an episode of The Beverly Hillbillies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts

  • Tom Hering

    Now, to the above list, one can start adding the mass viewings that occurred outside of primetime: live coverage of JFK’s assassination and funeral; the live broadcast from the Moon of Neil Armstrong’s first step; the wedding of Tiny Tim and Miss Vicki on The Tonight Show; etcetera.

  • Tom Hering

    Now, to the above list, one can start adding the mass viewings that occurred outside of primetime: live coverage of JFK’s assassination and funeral; the live broadcast from the Moon of Neil Armstrong’s first step; the wedding of Tiny Tim and Miss Vicki on The Tonight Show; etcetera.

  • http://Drhambrick.com Drhambrick

    1989 San Francisco earthquake in the middle of the World Series.

  • http://Drhambrick.com Drhambrick

    1989 San Francisco earthquake in the middle of the World Series.

  • Bob Hunter

    Robert Kennedy’s assassination, as well. I still remember that.

  • Bob Hunter

    Robert Kennedy’s assassination, as well. I still remember that.

  • Pete

    Uh… landing on the moon, for crying out loud? Hello?

  • Pete

    Uh… landing on the moon, for crying out loud? Hello?

  • WebMonk

    This would be partially due to the age of those they are interviewing and the fact that this is a broad survey. Anyone under 40 probably doesn’t remember anything on TV much before 1980.

    Cuban missile crisis? Nope.
    Early space launches? Nope.
    Moon landing? Nope.
    Watergate? Nope.
    Reagan shot? Maybe barely.
    Berlin Wall? Maybe.

    So, Dr. Veith, you’re complaining that lots of people aren’t as old as you?

    Then there is how much and what type of TV coverage something got compared to its actual impact on the world. OJ’s stuff? Zero world impact except for its coverage. Fukushima disaster? Big (and recent) impact, but the TV coverage was uninspired.

    Then there’s the phenomena that more recent things stick out more strongly in our memories than long past things. That’s true of everything, not just TV.

    Let’s file this post under #OldPeopleGripingAboutOldPeopleStuff
    :-)

  • WebMonk

    This would be partially due to the age of those they are interviewing and the fact that this is a broad survey. Anyone under 40 probably doesn’t remember anything on TV much before 1980.

    Cuban missile crisis? Nope.
    Early space launches? Nope.
    Moon landing? Nope.
    Watergate? Nope.
    Reagan shot? Maybe barely.
    Berlin Wall? Maybe.

    So, Dr. Veith, you’re complaining that lots of people aren’t as old as you?

    Then there is how much and what type of TV coverage something got compared to its actual impact on the world. OJ’s stuff? Zero world impact except for its coverage. Fukushima disaster? Big (and recent) impact, but the TV coverage was uninspired.

    Then there’s the phenomena that more recent things stick out more strongly in our memories than long past things. That’s true of everything, not just TV.

    Let’s file this post under #OldPeopleGripingAboutOldPeopleStuff
    :-)

  • WebMonk

    Pete, no one under the age of 43 was even born when man landed on the moon. Let’s call it 50 years old for them to have dramatic memories of watching it on TV.

    You’re really griping that most Americans aren’t ranking it as one of the most impacting moments on TV even though most American weren’t even alive or far too young to remember it?

    Go read the story:
    “To measure impact, Nielsen and Sony created a score for each event derived by the number of people who viewed the event live, the number who could recall details about where they were during the occurrence and the number who could remember discussing what happened with others.

    Yes, let’s get all up in arms about the shallowness and short-sightedness of Americans for not recalling details about where they were and discussing something that happened when they weren’t even born.

  • WebMonk

    Pete, no one under the age of 43 was even born when man landed on the moon. Let’s call it 50 years old for them to have dramatic memories of watching it on TV.

    You’re really griping that most Americans aren’t ranking it as one of the most impacting moments on TV even though most American weren’t even alive or far too young to remember it?

    Go read the story:
    “To measure impact, Nielsen and Sony created a score for each event derived by the number of people who viewed the event live, the number who could recall details about where they were during the occurrence and the number who could remember discussing what happened with others.

    Yes, let’s get all up in arms about the shallowness and short-sightedness of Americans for not recalling details about where they were and discussing something that happened when they weren’t even born.

  • WebMonk

    Tom Hering @2. Read the article – they weren’t getting the most-viewed TV moments, they were trying to find out what the most “impactful” moments on TV were for people. They describe how they measure the “impactfulness” of something, and it’s not just based on how many people watched it.

  • WebMonk

    Tom Hering @2. Read the article – they weren’t getting the most-viewed TV moments, they were trying to find out what the most “impactful” moments on TV were for people. They describe how they measure the “impactfulness” of something, and it’s not just based on how many people watched it.

  • Tom Hering

    I’m listening right now to a radio program about this survey. Turns out Neilsen/Sony gave respondents a list of events to choose from. A list of news events – that led to social media discussions. In order to prove, as the linked article points out, that social media discussions depend on people watching television. So young people should continue to buy television sets.

    There’s your reason for the contemporary bias of this survey.

  • Tom Hering

    I’m listening right now to a radio program about this survey. Turns out Neilsen/Sony gave respondents a list of events to choose from. A list of news events – that led to social media discussions. In order to prove, as the linked article points out, that social media discussions depend on people watching television. So young people should continue to buy television sets.

    There’s your reason for the contemporary bias of this survey.

  • Tom Hering

    Anyways, if we want to know which events in the history of television were “universal” in their “impact,” then we want hard facts from the whole history of television – not the opinions of contemporary viewers. It reminds me of those lists of “great movie moments” that don’t reference anything pre-1980s. Stupid.

  • Tom Hering

    Anyways, if we want to know which events in the history of television were “universal” in their “impact,” then we want hard facts from the whole history of television – not the opinions of contemporary viewers. It reminds me of those lists of “great movie moments” that don’t reference anything pre-1980s. Stupid.

  • WebMonk

    Tom @10, I suggest you turn off the radio. They’re feeding you junk. There was nothing in the study that was measuring it by just social media discussions.

    That should have been obvious. If the assassination of JFK is on the list, how on earth do you think it if the study was measuring how much discussion it prompted on social media???

    It is skewed to more recent events, but not because it was a carefully crafted scheme to generate a misleading study to convince young people to keep buying TVs. Simple demographics and a recent memory bias is plenty to skew it to more recent events.

    Here’s a slightly more complete article on the survey.

  • WebMonk

    Tom @10, I suggest you turn off the radio. They’re feeding you junk. There was nothing in the study that was measuring it by just social media discussions.

    That should have been obvious. If the assassination of JFK is on the list, how on earth do you think it if the study was measuring how much discussion it prompted on social media???

    It is skewed to more recent events, but not because it was a carefully crafted scheme to generate a misleading study to convince young people to keep buying TVs. Simple demographics and a recent memory bias is plenty to skew it to more recent events.

    Here’s a slightly more complete article on the survey.

  • Tom Hering

    From your linked article, WebMonk.

    Sony participated in the Nielsen study with the hope of gleaning clues into consumers’ behaviors and interests. “Television is really the grandmother of all the social devices,” Brian Siegel, Sony’s vice president of television business, told AP.

  • Tom Hering

    From your linked article, WebMonk.

    Sony participated in the Nielsen study with the hope of gleaning clues into consumers’ behaviors and interests. “Television is really the grandmother of all the social devices,” Brian Siegel, Sony’s vice president of television business, told AP.

  • Michelle

    I think this really shows how fickle the average American is in regards to the things we see on the news. If I remember correctly, the Haiti earthquake garnered WAY more coverage than the Japan earthquake, and yet people remember the Japan earthquake because it was the most recent large scale event of its kind to take place.

  • Michelle

    I think this really shows how fickle the average American is in regards to the things we see on the news. If I remember correctly, the Haiti earthquake garnered WAY more coverage than the Japan earthquake, and yet people remember the Japan earthquake because it was the most recent large scale event of its kind to take place.

  • WebMonk

    Tom, yes, and that has what to do with the price of tea in India?

    Are you suggesting that Sony’s statement that TV is a social device somehow equivalent to saying the study was “A list of news events – that led to social media discussions.”

    What radio station are you listening to? Conspiracy Theory 101.1?

  • WebMonk

    Tom, yes, and that has what to do with the price of tea in India?

    Are you suggesting that Sony’s statement that TV is a social device somehow equivalent to saying the study was “A list of news events – that led to social media discussions.”

    What radio station are you listening to? Conspiracy Theory 101.1?

  • WebMonk

    Michelle, I suspect that’s why the study was looking at not just the number of people watching an even on TV, but also which events did they talk about the most. The Japan earthquake also had the “bonus” of having a nuclear disaster, which is always great for generating excitement. :-)

  • WebMonk

    Michelle, I suspect that’s why the study was looking at not just the number of people watching an even on TV, but also which events did they talk about the most. The Japan earthquake also had the “bonus” of having a nuclear disaster, which is always great for generating excitement. :-)

  • Tom Hering

    … that has what to do with the price of tea in India?

    Sony’s television business has suffered $10 billion in consecutive losses over the past eight years. They’re cutting sales projections this year from 40 million to 20 million sets. They kind of need to pursue every possible marketing angle, don’t ya think?

  • Tom Hering

    … that has what to do with the price of tea in India?

    Sony’s television business has suffered $10 billion in consecutive losses over the past eight years. They’re cutting sales projections this year from 40 million to 20 million sets. They kind of need to pursue every possible marketing angle, don’t ya think?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Who shot J. R.?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Who shot J. R.?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The people of my generation and younger are pathetic. Celebrity issues are a waste of airtime. As I read this list a little of me died inside. Whitney Houston shouldn’t have even been in the top 1000, obviously “Who shot Mr Burns?” is much more important.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The people of my generation and younger are pathetic. Celebrity issues are a waste of airtime. As I read this list a little of me died inside. Whitney Houston shouldn’t have even been in the top 1000, obviously “Who shot Mr Burns?” is much more important.

  • WebMonk

    So, yeah, Tom. Sony probably paid for Neilsen to do the study. What does that have to do with anything about the weird falsehood whatever radio program you were listening to was spouting about the study using just social media discussions as the basis for measurement?

    Like I said, that should be glaringly obvious false statement because social media in the modern form didn’t even exist during a lot of the items on the list.

    There is plenty of regular reasons for the modern bias of the results just based on the fact that most of the population wasn’t alive during the moon landing, and people remember more recent events more vividly than they do past events.

    There’s no reason to invoke conspiracy theories of Sony creating a fake study, especially since you’re basing that theory off a blatantly false radio report. There’s no reason to declare modern culture is hopelessly shallow and only interested in celebrities.

    Well… I take that last one back. :-) Modern US culture may be hopelessly shallow, but this survey isn’t a particularly significant evidence of it.

  • WebMonk

    So, yeah, Tom. Sony probably paid for Neilsen to do the study. What does that have to do with anything about the weird falsehood whatever radio program you were listening to was spouting about the study using just social media discussions as the basis for measurement?

    Like I said, that should be glaringly obvious false statement because social media in the modern form didn’t even exist during a lot of the items on the list.

    There is plenty of regular reasons for the modern bias of the results just based on the fact that most of the population wasn’t alive during the moon landing, and people remember more recent events more vividly than they do past events.

    There’s no reason to invoke conspiracy theories of Sony creating a fake study, especially since you’re basing that theory off a blatantly false radio report. There’s no reason to declare modern culture is hopelessly shallow and only interested in celebrities.

    Well… I take that last one back. :-) Modern US culture may be hopelessly shallow, but this survey isn’t a particularly significant evidence of it.

  • Cincinnatus

    Stopped reading at “impactful.”

  • Cincinnatus

    Stopped reading at “impactful.”

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus – Too impacted by the impactfulness of using an impacting word like ‘impactful’? I am impacted by your imploring.

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus – Too impacted by the impactfulness of using an impacting word like ‘impactful’? I am impacted by your imploring.

  • Pete

    WebMonk @8

    Yeah – you’re right. I’m thinking I’ve heard that the moon landing was shot on a Hollywood back lot, anyway.

  • Pete

    WebMonk @8

    Yeah – you’re right. I’m thinking I’ve heard that the moon landing was shot on a Hollywood back lot, anyway.

  • Tom Hering

    WebMonk, the only person talking about a conspiracy is you. I never used the word. My point is that Neilsen and Sony didn’t conduct this survey out of sheer curiosity, or as a public service. Follow the money. There are profits involved for both companies. Neilsen ranks TV viewing, and Sony makes TV sets. It’s important for both of them that the public continue to buy TV sets, and continue to watch content produced for TV. It’s even more important that a young demographic do both – a demographic that’s as likely to enjoy stuff on their phones and laptops as TV programming on TV sets. So, you convince me the survey wasn’t constructed to get a preferred result – especially when one of the criteria they used to define “universally impactful” was how much a TV event was discussed with others in social media (!) . Such construction didn’t require them to limit their list to events that happened after the arrival of social media. Indeed, including pre-SM events helped to make the preferred point that the combination of TV viewing and social media participation increases impact and universality – according to one of their own criteria for impact and universality, of course! In short, both Neilsen and Sony were eager to prove to a young demographic that TV ownership and viewing (in decline) is vital to social media participation (which is growing). No conspiracy required. Just self-interest.

  • Tom Hering

    WebMonk, the only person talking about a conspiracy is you. I never used the word. My point is that Neilsen and Sony didn’t conduct this survey out of sheer curiosity, or as a public service. Follow the money. There are profits involved for both companies. Neilsen ranks TV viewing, and Sony makes TV sets. It’s important for both of them that the public continue to buy TV sets, and continue to watch content produced for TV. It’s even more important that a young demographic do both – a demographic that’s as likely to enjoy stuff on their phones and laptops as TV programming on TV sets. So, you convince me the survey wasn’t constructed to get a preferred result – especially when one of the criteria they used to define “universally impactful” was how much a TV event was discussed with others in social media (!) . Such construction didn’t require them to limit their list to events that happened after the arrival of social media. Indeed, including pre-SM events helped to make the preferred point that the combination of TV viewing and social media participation increases impact and universality – according to one of their own criteria for impact and universality, of course! In short, both Neilsen and Sony were eager to prove to a young demographic that TV ownership and viewing (in decline) is vital to social media participation (which is growing). No conspiracy required. Just self-interest.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom, other than getting attention, I can’t possibly imagine what the “preferred result” from a survey like this would be. Any result is a preferred result in this case, because the preferred result–that people watch television–was predetermined and irrelevant to the survey itself. It’s only an account of what people think the most significant moments on broadcast news television were–no more, no less.

    It didn’t ask–or claim to reveal–that whether or why television is important or should be important. It’s not trying to force some kind of television-centric social engineering into our brains. I honestly don’t know what you’re on about.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom, other than getting attention, I can’t possibly imagine what the “preferred result” from a survey like this would be. Any result is a preferred result in this case, because the preferred result–that people watch television–was predetermined and irrelevant to the survey itself. It’s only an account of what people think the most significant moments on broadcast news television were–no more, no less.

    It didn’t ask–or claim to reveal–that whether or why television is important or should be important. It’s not trying to force some kind of television-centric social engineering into our brains. I honestly don’t know what you’re on about.

  • Cincinnatus

    And besides, how would a rather insignificant survey like this demonstrate to anyone, especially youth, that they should change their media consumption habits? Seriously, Tom. Do you think Sony is so out of touch that it thinks the next brilliant marketing plan is to convince millennials that they should get off Facebook (on their Sony laptops) and tune into the CBS evening news instead?

  • Cincinnatus

    And besides, how would a rather insignificant survey like this demonstrate to anyone, especially youth, that they should change their media consumption habits? Seriously, Tom. Do you think Sony is so out of touch that it thinks the next brilliant marketing plan is to convince millennials that they should get off Facebook (on their Sony laptops) and tune into the CBS evening news instead?

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, whose argument are you countering? First, the pre-determined list of events respondents were asked to rank wasn’t limited to broadcast news – so I know how carefully you’re paying attention to the facts here. Second, watching TV programming on TV sets is in decline. So, no, it’s not a given or irrelevant. And third, I never said that Neilsen and Sony were trying to get young people to give up laptops and Facebook – I said they were trying to get them to keep watching TV, as something vital to social media participation. Try to pay attention.

    What am I going on about? Pretty much nothing. Nothing important. It’s just the mood I’m in today. What’s your excuse? :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, whose argument are you countering? First, the pre-determined list of events respondents were asked to rank wasn’t limited to broadcast news – so I know how carefully you’re paying attention to the facts here. Second, watching TV programming on TV sets is in decline. So, no, it’s not a given or irrelevant. And third, I never said that Neilsen and Sony were trying to get young people to give up laptops and Facebook – I said they were trying to get them to keep watching TV, as something vital to social media participation. Try to pay attention.

    What am I going on about? Pretty much nothing. Nothing important. It’s just the mood I’m in today. What’s your excuse? :-D

  • Cincinnatus

    1) I don’t know what facts I’m missing. The respondents were asked to rank the most important news events covered on television. If it weren’t limited to news, I would have to assume that the bulk of the list would be occupied by fictional “events”: Ross and Rachel get married, etc. Anyway, the viewers ranked the events. So what? How is that pushing any kind of agenda other than our notions of what constitute important events (which is what Dr. Veith is interrogating)?

    2) Yes, the actual viewing of TV programming on TV sets when said programming is scheduled to air is on the decline. So what? If this survey had been sponsored by, say, CBS or FOX or even a cable network like AMC, you might be onto something. But it’s sponsored by Sony, an electronics manufacturer, whose TV’s of late have been lauded for their internet connectability–i.e., their capacity to allow viewers to watch what they want when they want through channels like Netflix and Hulu.

    Sony’s vested interest here is merely in getting some publicity. No one needs to be convinced that their eyes should be glued to a glowing screen of some kind–preferably one made by Sony–and Sony is quite aware of this.

    Why am I even responding to this line of argument? In a mood indeed! It’s a simple survey. Yeah, it shows us that television has been vital to our perception of and “participation” in a certain view of the world and its events. But I don’t think any Sony (or TV) executive thinks the fact of this survey is going to remind people that they should watch television.

  • Cincinnatus

    1) I don’t know what facts I’m missing. The respondents were asked to rank the most important news events covered on television. If it weren’t limited to news, I would have to assume that the bulk of the list would be occupied by fictional “events”: Ross and Rachel get married, etc. Anyway, the viewers ranked the events. So what? How is that pushing any kind of agenda other than our notions of what constitute important events (which is what Dr. Veith is interrogating)?

    2) Yes, the actual viewing of TV programming on TV sets when said programming is scheduled to air is on the decline. So what? If this survey had been sponsored by, say, CBS or FOX or even a cable network like AMC, you might be onto something. But it’s sponsored by Sony, an electronics manufacturer, whose TV’s of late have been lauded for their internet connectability–i.e., their capacity to allow viewers to watch what they want when they want through channels like Netflix and Hulu.

    Sony’s vested interest here is merely in getting some publicity. No one needs to be convinced that their eyes should be glued to a glowing screen of some kind–preferably one made by Sony–and Sony is quite aware of this.

    Why am I even responding to this line of argument? In a mood indeed! It’s a simple survey. Yeah, it shows us that television has been vital to our perception of and “participation” in a certain view of the world and its events. But I don’t think any Sony (or TV) executive thinks the fact of this survey is going to remind people that they should watch television.

  • Tom Hering

    Why am I even responding to this line of argument?

    Because you feel compelled to defeat a superior intellect?

  • Tom Hering

    Why am I even responding to this line of argument?

    Because you feel compelled to defeat a superior intellect?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@29:

    Clearly an impossible task!

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@29:

    Clearly an impossible task!

  • Tom Hering

    You mean for me to achieve a superior intellect?

  • Tom Hering

    You mean for me to achieve a superior intellect?

  • SKPeterson

    Admit it Tom – the most powerful moment in television was when you put your hand up to the screen to pray for Oral Roberts after his 900 ft. Jesus experience. I know it was an impactful moment for me.

  • SKPeterson

    Admit it Tom – the most powerful moment in television was when you put your hand up to the screen to pray for Oral Roberts after his 900 ft. Jesus experience. I know it was an impactful moment for me.

  • http://deaconschroeder.blogspot.com/ Josh Schroeder

    I’m curious: did anyone take national population growth into account?

    What I mean is this – there’s a meme out there that it’s a shame that today’s manufactured pop stars sell more albums than the Beatles ever did, etc., but there were only 190 million people in the United States when the Beatles played the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964, whereas today there are approximately 315 million people in the U.S. And it’s also easier to buy an album with the click of a mouse or the push of a finger on an iPhone.

    I don’t disagree with SKPeterson, but at the same time, it’s easier for more eyeballs to have seen more recent events if, for no other reason, there are more eyeballs today than there were 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

    On a related note, the percentage of households without televisions has dropped considerably over the decades (your family might not have owned a television set when President Kennedy was assassinated, but just about every household had a TV when Osama bin Laden was killed).

  • http://deaconschroeder.blogspot.com/ Josh Schroeder

    I’m curious: did anyone take national population growth into account?

    What I mean is this – there’s a meme out there that it’s a shame that today’s manufactured pop stars sell more albums than the Beatles ever did, etc., but there were only 190 million people in the United States when the Beatles played the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964, whereas today there are approximately 315 million people in the U.S. And it’s also easier to buy an album with the click of a mouse or the push of a finger on an iPhone.

    I don’t disagree with SKPeterson, but at the same time, it’s easier for more eyeballs to have seen more recent events if, for no other reason, there are more eyeballs today than there were 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

    On a related note, the percentage of households without televisions has dropped considerably over the decades (your family might not have owned a television set when President Kennedy was assassinated, but just about every household had a TV when Osama bin Laden was killed).

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Do you remember where you were when they tweeted JFK’s assassination?

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Do you remember where you were when they tweeted JFK’s assassination?

  • Lumpenkönig

    TV?

    You mean people choose to stop texting, web surfing, and playing video games in order to watch TV?

  • Lumpenkönig

    TV?

    You mean people choose to stop texting, web surfing, and playing video games in order to watch TV?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X