In this particular chapter of the book, Crisell successfully manages to separate personal opinion from fact, presenting the reader with historical dates and figures that can then be researched into in more depth for opinion and debate. Crisell describes those who have been discussed as the founding fathers of television, and in agreement with Roy Armes explains how he believes this to be the companies such as Marconi, rather than John Logie Baird who many will argue against. By giving the reader a range of names to think about rather than simply his preferred choice, Crisell offers the reader a chance to make their own conclusions and understanding. Unlike many other books that have observed the rise in television, Crisell does not only focus on the history of the BBC but just as closely studies the history of ‘rival’ Bairds ideas and experiments, which all contribute to the rounded perspective and ideas the author ultimately offers.
Crissel describes the launch of television in the UK with close reference to the context and changing state of the nation which was present at the time, such as the influence of the war and economic situation of the county. In effect the reader if given the opportunity to reflect on the key factors which shaped the changing development of television appreciating the subject with a better understanding of meaning. Crissel’s explanations of the subject are further qualified by the consistent use of a direct and appropriate form of language. By selecting this relatively basic linguistic framework the information is a great deal easier to understand as the reader is not distracted by unnecessary complex wording which I found to be a downfall in other sources.
Although my overall reading of this source is a positive one, which arguably formed the main framework of my understanding of the topic, like all pieces of literature there were areas of potential weakness. Firstly, although I initially supported the fact that the writing was overly un-bias, on a critical note I would have liked to have received more of an underlying viewpoint from Crissel as it was not always clear what he thought personally in his evaluations.
Television:
I selected this source in response to the first item I used, hoping that the authors diverse aims and choice of style would fill in any ideas or perspectives that ‘The History Of British Broadcasting’ failed to explore, such as to ‘indicate and describe the particular institutionalisation of culture that emerged with the growth in television’. Moreover, as in my first source there is a weak sense of specific viewpoint, with Williams often described as having ‘controversial and challenging’ views I believed it would be a well-fitted comparable source. Following research into how various critics have described Williams piece, it became more apparent just how powerful and insightful his work is regarded as; ‘A book which has proved to be extraordinarily influential within he emergent fields of media and communication’, ‘A decisive moment in the formation of TV’.
Unlike source 1, the structure and style of this book was less accessible with more demand on effort in finding relevant information and discussions. With a much more dense chapter layout and a more ‘scattered’ ordering of information, finding specific descriptions that related to my subject was initially a very difficult much slower process, as there was no one section that was directly or solely dedicated to it. The general information given, although was highly insightful, did at times take a rather random form, for example within the chapter ‘Institutions Of The Technology’, where Williams on a few occasions leads off the subject, at one point overly discussing governmental intervention and the debates surrounding it as a separate issue. In response to this problem, I found with constant referral to my topic area in mind, I was only gathering the most appropriate data that was requisite to my research and understanding. On a more positive note in relation to the structure of the book, the given aims at the start of each major chapter made understanding the authors intentions a easier process, knowing exactly what ideas and subjects were going to be discussed and explored. The linguistic framework used throughout this source is as in source 1 of a striahgtforward and consistant style aiding an easier and more digestable undertstanding. However, on a more critical note of this aspect in order for me to develop my level of skill and professionism I would now like to be faced with a more challenging use of language where technical vocabularly is used on a more frequent basis.
In terms of the level of fact verses authors opinion, on the surface the source could be argued as being overly driven by Williams personal viewpoint and beliefs in the process and evolution of television. Unlike Crissell, Williams focuses predominantly on the technological arguments surrounding television rather than the institutional factors, stating his controversial views with the rejection that the rise in television should be characterised as a 'technological process'. Williams rejects the arguments which insist that technologies have 'a life of their own', that they emege from a 'process of research and development untarnished by social expectations or political and economic interests'. In further dissagreement with Crisell, Williams just as forcefully rejects that technologies, particularly television, by themselves can determine a social response. Although Williams writes with a strong underlying opinion, the opposing criticisms are often given allowing the reader to gain a more balanced argument of the issues. Williams has been criticised however in relation to his own arguments to fail to provide 'real' evidence for some of his 'unrealistic' views that have been challenged by those such as Mcluhan.
Historical Journal Of Film Radio And TV, Vol 25 No. 3 August 2005 p.445-474
I chose to use this journal as one of my major sources as it discusses the rise in television with reference to topics that my previous sources do not mention, centring around the connection between cinema development and the growth of television.
In comparision to the two book sources I used in my research the style and structure of the journal was much less efficient in its ordering of information and the main language form was inconsistent and at times unsuited to the context of the writing. I found the journal harder to use and break down in terms of what information was appropriate and what was of less relevance. The article also had an unbalanced form to it, for example in terms of the authors opinion against the facts that were being discussed. When debating the rise in television and its major influences the article solely referred to the BBC, ignoring other possible relations that I felt the other texts mentioned in more detail offering a broader understanding.
The article however did have many positive elements that brought about a balance between my research sources, functioning to fill in and offer areas of the subject that had so far been dismissed. For example cinema had not been mentioned at all in my first two items yet its revelence to the rise in television,for instance the conflicts between the two both in the U.S and the U.K was made clear in the article.
The journal was by far the most insightful in terms of offering the most varied views and opinions on subjects however there was rarely any form of evidence provided with arguments which greatly weakened the ideas being expressed. Another issue similar to this was the failing to explain points made which made my undestanding of certain ideas, such as McGiven's beliefs on presenters and everyday film goers. This was a concept I felt interested in, but was prevented from furthering my insight as the explanations were limited. The journal was written with clear reference to the context of the period being discussed which as did the first source I used provided a more in-depth understand with a clear background to the ideas.Although the journal did explore the context in detail, being written recently made me question the validity of some of the ideas given, as I would have preffered a more dated piece that had been written in closer time to the actualrise in development.
Television: An International History
Although my subject area is the growth of TV in the UK, I decided that it would be highly benefitial for me to have wider knowledge and understanding of its progression throughout the world, allowing me to observe its development and process in a broad context. This source covered all aspects of the rise in television, from its invention to the very first audiences. The contributers to the source were of a reliable nature, with most writers having worked within television their whole lives and spent a considerable time researching into its origins.
The structure and ordering of the source's chapters were greatly accomodating in finding the most relevant pieces of factal information. The language was precise and unambiguous with technical language to supplement the arguments of the more complex contributors.Each main chapter was written by a different author which on the surface I believed to offer limited insight and perspective on the individual issues being discussed. However, when read closely, it became clear that each author specialised in their chosen subjects and presented very unbiased information, stating facts and figures with mere suggestions as to why certain events or trends might have taken place in history. As some of the detail was at times more complex to absorb I found that the precise evaluations given at the end were extremely helpful in reminding me of the major points
The main areas that I focussed on within the source were of the history of televsion in the UK and in the US. This is because American television production in terms of development shares the greatest similarity to the UK, thereby making my understanding of the history and context rather straightforward. Although I only covered the history of television across the world in brief detail I found the information given really complelling and would aim to further my understanding in more depth.
As a research source into the rise in television in the uk, this document was really benefitial in providing me with a broad and varied background that ultimatley helped shape my overall understanding of the topic. I believe by selecting a source such as this, I was looking at the 'bigger picure' of my subject to be able now to make more formal judements in a wider context.