I'm currently stuck on this WHOLE question:
How much weight do you do you give the evidence of Source 2 for an enquiry into public attitudes to the media in the 1950s?
In 1981, the Federal Communications Commission chief Newton Minow addressed the the National Association of Broadcasters. Here he speaks of frequent predictability and sameness in programming.
"When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your own television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. "
Turn on thread page Beta
What does it mean by "How much weight do you give the evidence of Source X....." watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by Adamski2409; 07-11-2015 at 19:04. Reason: Forgot to add this into source 2...
- 07-11-2015 19:02
- 09-11-2015 20:33
Well, it's not much, but going from my experience in GCSE History, in which we were asked vaguely similar questions, they want you to look at the source and say "This evidence is v strong because..." or "This evidence is pathetically weak because" or something along those lines, followed by an essay, or whatever is necessary (I don't know how many marks this is worth) In your case, you might bring into consideration:
1. Who is addressing whom (i.e. would they have a reason for speaking as they did, what is the context, are they someone with first-hand experience, someone with the data showing their statement to be correct, or just someone there to sensationalise?)
2. Stripping away the elegance of the speech, just what are they saying? Do you have reason to believe or not believe it?
I hope that helps