Assignment 5: For the Love and Hate of Television--Amir Abou-Jaoude

Television is a relatively young medium, born in the 1950s, yet, during the sixty or so years that television has been part of American life, it certainly has had a huge impact on society. Americans were shocked when they heard of John F. Kennedy's assassination on television and wept when the Challenger disaster unfolded. Presidential debates have been broadcast on television, memorable advertisements have gone across the airwaves, and quality serialized stories have been told. Television reaches a huge audience, and is an effective way of disseminating information.

I  believe that only a limited number of comparisons can be drawn between the Nobel Prizes and award shows like the Emmys, because the two awards recognize achievements in vastly different fields. The Emmys celebrate achievements in television, while the Nobel Prizes honor literary, scientific, and political accomplishments. However, despite their differences in focus, the Emmys and the Nobel Prizes are alike in one regard--they are both awards, given arbitrarily. While I will admit that the Nobel Prize is the more prestigious award, one could argue to some extent that they are just as meaningless as the Emmys. Not every great writer has won a Nobel Prize for literature--F. Scott Fitzgerald, James Joyce, and Leo Tolstoy were among those who were snubbed--and not every great scientist has a Nobel Prize to his name--as of this date, Stephen Hawking has not won the award. There are plenty of television shows that, while they reflect quality programming, have not won an Emmy either. These awards are designed to bring attention to achievements in their respective fields, but they are both arbitrarily given.

The Emmys attract more attention, I believe, because the format of the awards show is designed for television. The celebrities in attendance waltz down the red carpet. Then, the actual ceremony begins, led by an emcee who fills the evening with jokes. The most anticipated awards are handed out last, forcing the audience to remain glued to the television until the winners are announced. This show is made with television in mind--the people behind the show want to attract the home viewers, and make them care about who wins and who loses.

I would bet that if Nobel Prizes were handed out in a similar fashion, more people would pay attention to them. If the Nobel Laureates came to Stockholm in expensive tuxedos and dresses and went down the red carpet, much more attention would be paid to the event. Still, when the Nobel Prizes are announced, there is no host making the audience laugh, and there are no presenters eagerly waiting to open the envelope. The Nobel Prizes are a quiet affair. They are not designed to be broadcast on television in front of millions.

Does this disparity between the Nobel Prizes and the Emmys say anything about our society? I don't think so. Still, it does say something about the power of television to spread information. Television makes the Emmys a huge event. Without the televised ceremony, we would be reading about the winners quietly in the news or hear about them on television. The lack of televised coverage makes the Nobel Prizes a smaller event. Since the Nobel Prize ceremony is not broadcast on CBS or ABC, we read about the winners quietly in the news. In reality, both are arbitrary awards, but television makes the Emmys more important to us than the Nobel Prizes. If anything, the contrast between the glamorous Emmys and the quietly announced Nobel Prizes tells us of the power of television.