Although television was first regarded by many as “radio with pictures,” public reaction to the arrival of TV was strikingly different from that afforded the advent of radio. Radio in its early days was perceived as a technological wonder rather than a medium of cultural significance. The public quickly adjusted to radio broadcasting and either enjoyed its many programs or turned them off. Television, however, prompted a tendency to criticize and evaluate rather than a simple on-off response. ...

Although television was first regarded by many as “radio with pictures,” public reaction to the arrival of TV was strikingly different from that afforded the advent of radio. Radio in its early days was perceived as a technological wonder rather than a medium of cultural significance. The public quickly adjusted to radio broadcasting and either enjoyed its many programs or turned them off. Television, however, prompted a tendency to criticize and evaluate rather than a simple on-off response.

One aspect of early television that can never be recaptured is the combined sense of astonishment and glamour that greeted the medium during its infancy. At the midpoint of the 20th century, the public was properly agog about being able to see and hear actual events that were happening across town or hundreds of miles away. Relatively few people had sets in their homes, but popular fascination with TV was so pronounced that crowds would gather on the sidewalks in front of stores that displayed a working television set or two. The same thing happened in the typical tavern, where a set behind the bar virtually guaranteed a full house. Sports events that might attract a crowd of 30,000 or 40,000 suddenly, with the addition of TV cameras, had audiences numbering in the millions. By the end of television’s first decade, it was widely believed to have greater influence on American culture than parents, schools, churches, and government-institutions that had been until then the dominant influences on popular conduct. All were superseded by this one cultural juggernaut.

The 1950s was a time of remarkable achievement in television, but this was not the case for the entire medium. American viewers old enough to remember TV in the ’50s may fondly recall the shows of Sid Caesar, Jackie Gleason, Milton Berle, and Lucille Ball, but such high-quality programs were the exception; most of television during its formative years could be aptly described, as it was by one Broadway playwright, as “amateurs playing at home movies.” The underlying problem was not a shortage of talented writers, producers, and performers; there were plenty, but they were already busily involved on the Broadway stage and in vaudeville, radio, and motion pictures. Consequently, television drew chiefly on a talent pool of individuals who had not achieved success in the more popular media and on the young and inexperienced who were years from reaching their potential. Nevertheless, the new medium ultimately proved so fascinating a technical novelty that in the early stages of its development the quality of its content seemed almost not to matter.

Fortunately, the dearth of talent was short-lived. Although it would take at least another decade before areas such as news and sports coverage approached their potential, more than enough excellence in the categories of comedy and drama emerged in the 1950s to deserve the attention of discriminating viewers. They are the most fondly remembered of the Golden Age genres for both emotional and intellectual reasons. Live TV drama was, in essence, the legitimate theatre’s contribution to the new medium; such shows were regarded as “prestige” events and were afforded respect accordingly. The comedies of the era are remembered for the same reason that comedy itself endures: human suffering and the ever-elusive pursuit of happiness render laughter a necessary palliative, and people therefore have a particular fondness for those who amuse them.

Which of the following best serves as the title for the passage?