ALAN writes:

I would like to confirm Paul’s remark about the “virtuous delightfulness” of American television programs for children in the 1950s. I was there too, and I remember it well.

Children in the 1950s were the last generation to grow up in homes that were not saturated by television. It was there, but our parents used it selectively. They were principled enough to permit us to enjoy it in limited doses. They did not permit it to dominate our lives or theirs.

Because of that, children who grew up in the 1950s still spent thousands of hours of their childhoods actually doing things instead of watching other people do things on TV. To replace the former with the latter is, in effect, to neutralize children’s capacity to think, imagine, and initiate;  to pre-empt the most vitally important part of childhood, which is play (consisting equally of imagination and self-initiated activities);  and to produce a generation of spectators, sycophants, and trend-followers.

Modern parents who imagine they are doing their children a favor by exposing them to TV (any TV) from infancy onward are tragically mistaken.  They would do them a favor by not having any TV at all in their homes.

The situation was different in the 1950s, both because of the selectivity exercised by parents and because virtually all TV programs then upheld a common code of moral standards. Rebecca Bynum has written:

“Watching old movies or television shows from fifty years ago, one is immediately struck by the moral tone which then prevailed even when, or especially when, these stories depicted immoral acts.  In the 1950’s parents felt perfectly safe leaving their children to watch the “Andy Griffith Show” or “Gunsmoke” or pretty much anything else on television. We didn’t need specialized children’s programming then.  We were unified by our values….”

That is precisely why programs like “Lassie” and “Fury” were wonderful entertainment for children and families. Peter Graves said many years afterward that he was proud to have worked in the “Fury” series because of the moral code consistently upheld in the stories.  That same iron code of moral standards was upheld rigorously in programs like “Father Knows Best,” “Leave It To Beaver,” and “The Donna Reed Show,” and by television characters ranging from Charlie Ruggles, Captain Kangaroo, and Mr. Green Jeans, to Jimmie Dodd, Annie Oakley, and Amos McCoy, to Sky King, Roy Rogers, and the Lone Ranger.

Such programs are light-years removed from the junk (this is a conservative description) that American parents now permit their children to absorb.  Two things could not be more unlike.  The conventional wisdom is that this proves that modern parents are far better and wiser than parents were in the 1950s. What it actually proves is that modern parents agree to swim in a culture-wide swamp of moral rot.

Paul is also right in saying that June Lockhart was excellent as the mother of “Timmy” in the “Lassie” series from 1957 onward. I would say the same about actress Jan Clayton, the mother in the original “Lassie” series (1954-’57).  Each of them was flawless in her portrayal of a mother who was pretty, sweet, feminine, and principled.

To this American boy in the 1950s, the collie was not the selling point for “Lassie.”  It was a handsome collie, but it was just a trained animal.  The most impressive elements of the “Lassie” series to me were the writing, the moral uplift, the family, and the stability, warmth, and sanctity of their farm home. Many episodes from the early seasons include scenes of extended dialogue, intelligently written and superbly spoken, directed, and edited.  The wonderful veteran character actors George Cleveland and Andy Clyde worked for years in the “Lassie” series late in their lives.

Secret of the Silent Hills was the lovely, memorable theme music heard at the opening and closing of each episode of “Lassie” in those early seasons.  And who could forget the serenity in the closing scene in which Jeff and Lassie are seen walking near a stream and a flock of sheep in a wide, uncluttered expanse of rolling farmland?

Craftsmanship, discipline, restraint, polish, loyalty to home and family, patriotism, good manners, and an unyielding code of moral standards – those are some of the virtues  that made American TV programs for children and families as decent and worthwhile as they were in the 1950s.  They are also the reasons why modern hip critics deride such programs:  Those virtues stand at odds with the permanent Leftist Revolution. Such critics thus provide a good example of what Ayn Rand called “Hatred of the good for being the good.”

— Comments —

Jewel A. writes:

I remember loving Lassie until I was ten, when I was attacked and pinned by a vicious collie, whose owners never trained it. One of the most frightening things that ever happened to me as a child. Still, it doesn’t detract from the beautiful stories on Lassie.

You can watch episodes on YouTube, which I did after reading your post.

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

Here is June Lockhart as Number One Outer Space Mom.

Laura writes:

They don’t make them like that anymore.

Paul writes:

The photo of June Lockhart and Lassie is a perfect description of the series.

Well here is a link to the song Alan remembered.

Alan writes, “The most impressive elements of the ‘Lassie’ series to me were the writing, the moral uplift, the family, and the stability, warmth, and sanctity of their farm home.”  This is a perfect description.  I was not and still am not a fan of animal movies (except movies such as Old Yeller and Bambi) unless the animal is used as a device to elicit feelings and virtuous thoughts.  The talking animal shows so prevalent today are stupid.  Lassie never spoke except in animal language.

But let’s return to a positive tone. Alan also describes perfectly what was dominant: “Craftsmanship, discipline, restraint, polish, loyalty to home and family, patriotism, good manners, and an unyielding code of moral standards.”  These were the mere fundamentals that we did not stray from except occasionally, as all children will do.  I expect many young people find Alan’s cultural description as some sort of unachievable existence.

Yet Alan’s described behavior was as easy as turning over in bed.  You could not consider other behavior.  Sure we did not act perfectly always, but we knew what the standards were and felt guilty when we did not measure up.  Guilt is like having a Monday test or paper hanging over your head as you delay all weekend.  It can weigh you down like a ball and chain hung at the neck.  If you are a young person and don’t feel the moral ball and chain set out in the Ten Commandments, something is wrong.

The ease of living up to moral standards is what Laura and the rest of us are fighting for.  The standards should be so ingrained that we don’t often think of violating them.  It is possible.  Of course, Jesus and the Blessed Virgin must be asked for help.  The asking is more automatic behavior that is ingrained.

The Simpsons show illustrates the degradation our culture has embraced.  The show causes people to enjoy the violation of every Commandment.  It is evil.  It is a Vegas standup comedian performing before not only our children but also ourselves.

So we must support Laura.

 Jane S. writes:

Nowadays, it’s almost impossible for me to find a movie or a TV show that I wouldn’t be embarrassed to watch in the company of my nephews.

 Karl D. writes:

Alan said:

“Children in the 1950s were the last generation to grow up in homes that were not saturated by television. It was there, but our parents used it selectively. They were principled enough to permit us to enjoy it in limited doses. They did not permit it to dominate our lives or theirs.

Because of that, children who grew up in the 1950s still spent thousands of hours of their childhoods actually doing things instead of watching other people do things on TV.”

While I agree with the rest of Alan’s post I have to nitpick with the previous statement. I would say it was really the 1980s that was the kick off point where TV took over and kids began to be weaned on it. It is also the time where programming began to change and the channel selection went from 13 to 100 and beyond with the advent of cable. The 1980s also saw the beginning of the home video game play stations from Atari and Coleco. I am a Generation Xer who was a child in the 1970s. The programming was still dominated by shows from the golden era of television. Shows I used to watch were “Make room for Daddy,” “Abbot & Costello,” “Lost in Space,” “My Three Sons,” “Andy Griffith Show,” “Gomer Pyle,” “Bonanza,” “Tom & Jerry,” “Bugs Bunny,” “Heckle & Jeckle,” “Popeye” and other classic cartoons.

Some of the more modern shows were “Gilligans Island,” “The Brady Bunch,” “The Partridge Family” and the always wonderful “Little House on the Prairie,” a show I will still watch to this day. While very hippy-dippy there were some “educational shows” like “Sesame Street,” “The Magic Garden,” “Zoom” and “The Electric Company” which many kids seemed to love. I personally did not.

As a child of the 70s, I can assure you we were always outside riding our bikes, skateboarding, playing stickball, street hockey and every other sport you can think of. We were also in Little League. By the late 80s and early 90s that all began to change. Last year, I went to my old neighborhood for the first time in 20 years. It was a beautiful spring Saturday afternoon. What I saw shocked me. Besides the demographic change, It was a virtual ghost town. The streets and schoolyard that should have been teaming with kids was empty.  There was maybe four kids (East Indians) out on bikes accompanied by their parents who had them covered head-to-toe in protective padding and helmets. The people playing basketball were adults in their 30’s. It’s pretty easy to guess where all the children were.

Will G. writes:

I would not say that the wholesome programming translated to a wholesome generation. After all, these shows were for the baby boomers who grew up to rebel against everything. I have often wondered if their parents (the June Lockharts) were too confident in their own abilities and neglected to teach their children to depend on God in all things. Their religious faith was a sterile one. I think their children called them on this flaw but instead of having a Christian revival they just burned down the whole house in a tantrum.

Hannon writes:

I am of the camp that believes entertainment reflects the condition and outlook of a society rather than being a driving force for change. The 1960s revolution had its effect on TV as on everything else Americans do socially (and personally). As did Karl D., I grew up in the 1970s and recall an interesting blend of wholesome older programs like those cited here along with increasingly schlocky modernist creations. One of the most far out was H.R. Pufnstuf, which still retained the good vs. evil theme; on the same day I could probably find “The Partridge Family” or “Andy Griffith,” as well as “Alfred Hitchcock” and “The Outer Limits.” It was a Golden Age of television admixture and which programs were intended for children vs. adults made little difference to me. It was the latchkey principle applied to the one-eyed monster.

My surroundings were exceptionally rich in outdoor venues and activities a boy could discover on his own and with friends. Stamp collecting and making balsa gliders from scratch supplemented these adventures. In spite of all this I watched a lot of TV, probably four to five hours per day at least. This included “The Tonight Show” and monster movies and all the rest. Flip Wilson, Carol Burnett, you name it. If anyone wants to revisit impressions of any TV show I recommend reading the comments on Jump The Shark. There are a lot of thoughtful and interesting perspectives there.

Today almost everything on TV seems like it is produced for a society of lost souls. Maybe it is. But when I was a kid, the messages were written by people with different outlooks themselves and the producers had motives of profit that could at least accommodate moral strength and real character– because they knew these values existed in a substantial portion of their audience. Again, programming follows society, not the other way around.

For me the paragon of such goodness was Bugs Bunny. The Warner Brothers cartoons were not made for children but we all loved them and still do. I believe Lawrence Auster characterized Mr. Bunny as the anti-revolutionary. No wonder he has been replaced by Sponge Bob Squarepants.

Jeanette V. writes:

Just a small caveat: Even in the Golden Age of TV Christian were sometimes portrayed as crazed lunatics. I was watching some old “Have Gun, Will Travel” shows and I was so disappointed that they showed a Bible-quoting preacher as a vile hateful man.

Mary writes:

Believe it or not, last night, right before I read this post, I watched the original episode of “Lassie” with my youngest. We both enjoyed it and I agree with all the good things said about it. As a child I used to watch “Lassie” on Sunday nights, before the “Wide World of Disney,” I believe, which was in turn followed by “Bonanza” if memory serves. It is certainly nice to look back on those days of innocent TV programming. But in looking at the medium of TV critically it is obvious that television, rather than being corrupted by the culture, was indeed a principal corrupter (not to say single-handedly, it had plenty of help). It had/has unprecedented access to our homes and families and into our brains through imagery, which our parish priest recently pointed out as the most corruptible of the senses. I used to think of TV as a mirror of American society. If it is, in fact, a mirror it is of the funhouse variety: a mirror which distorts and manipulates what it is reflecting; a mirror that doesn’t tell the truth.

The qualities of TV that make it dangerous can be summarized in this way: it is passive; it is ubiquitous; and it is addictive.

TV is the first truly passive medium. All other forms of entertainment require varying degrees of participation, whether in a live audience or holding a book, turning pages, and using the mind to form ideas and images. One could listen and enjoy music or the radio while washing dishes or reading the newspaper or whatnot. TV was the first medium to require simply sitting and watching, making excellent receptors of all kinds of stimuli and information, most of it not to our benefit. Such was the power of television that living rooms were soon designed to accommodate them: a sort of altar – not to overstate – but with furniture positioned around it; a demi-god or idol if you will. One could go so far as to say that television replaced the hearth as the center of family living. Yes, they both glow with light, but one is a life-enhancing warmth that draws families together, the other keeps families apart and isolated, even as they sit together.

TV has been available, since at least the 60’s, for all the waking hours (now of course it never ends). It has helped kill conversation; the practice of nightly reading and reading aloud; insinuated itself into the family dinner hour; usurped wholesome pastimes and hobbies; kept children indoors on Saturday mornings and in the after-school hours.

TV addicted us to partaking in daily entertainment. Since entertainment is a pleasure the feedback we get from our brains makes us want more. Now a day doesn’t pass for most Americans in which some form of screen-related entertainment is indulged in for hours. Millions park their rears on the couch in the evenings and watch straight through “primetime”; millions of others start in the morning with “Good Morning America.” Obviously not every bit of it is corrupting us – but let’s be honest and admit that most of it is, from Miley Cyrus onward. These are images most people will be exposed to, whether it’s on the Internet (a form of TV) or just in a teaser for the nightly news that was played during “Dancing with the Stars.”

The bottom line is, we can lament the loss of America’s innocence but we must be meek as doves but wise as serpents and realize that the television has played a principle role in that loss. What else can be blamed – if I’m missing something. please tell me. TV started very early on appealing to our basest human impulses in the form of violence and sexuality, brought directly into the home. “Lassie” was on but so was “Laugh-In.” TV’s easy access and addictive quality and pleasure stimulating aspect long ago turned Americans into sitting ducks, ready to receive Hollywood’s values with the click of a button.

Laura writes:

I agree with Mary. Television is a drug. It’s habit-forming and even in the age Alan describes, some children watched way too much of it. Not all parents were selective. My husband was a child in the 50s and a major portion of his childhood was lost to the tube, which in addition to uplifting shows such as “Lassie” included all those mind-numbing game shows.

Human beings need to waste time and do things that are useless. That’s what recreation is, but television is such a dead-end. When my mother was a child, she and her brothers and sisters would sit up late and play card games. That was social. We spent a major part of our childhoods piled on the couch with glazed eyes, watching “I Love Lucy” or “Love American-Style.” I stupidly believed by the time I was a teenager that television was a very temporary phase and that society as a whole would reject it. I wasn’t much of a prophet! I couldn’t have imagined then that Fahrenheit 451 would become real and people would have enormous screens and even watch television in the car and in bus stations and doctors’ offices. Nor could I have imagined that intellectuals en masse would start to consider television shows high art. By the time I went to college, I hated television and wanted nothing more to do with it. I couldn’t stand the sound of a laugh track. I am still mystified as to why people sit through commercials or why junk on a big screen is better than junk on a small screen. I would rather be held in a medieval dungeon with cold, dripping stone walls than be stuck in a hospital or nursing home in a bed next to someone who is watching TV all day. That’s my idea of hell on earth.

Joe A. writes:

I wonder if Alan sees 1950s and early 1960s television through the soft lights of sentimentality and perhaps a bit of nostalgia.

As the father of young children, I recognize that eliminating television altogether is risky in the age of total electronic immersion and would create a significant chance of unsupervised and uninterpreted viewing at the homes of their friends.

Calling out a few of the old programs in particular, I would like Alan and everyone to reconsider their true nature:

“Lassie.”  A classic if ever there was one. The father is unquestioning to external authority. Be it the town mayor, military officers, policemen, “experts,” Hugh Reilly never fails to submit meekly and obediently.  June Lockhart exemplifies a form of “Prairie” or perhaps “Heartland” feminism in which, while outwardly submissive to her husband, she is actually his numinous better and the font of wisdom and correct behavior.  This is also one of the first examples of a television family in which the child Timmy, played by Tommy Rettig, often schooled his father and indirectly his mother, on the true importance of a child’s wishes and perspective.  Weak father, elevated mother, and a twist on the Noble Savage is a good short description of the unrecognized basis to “Lassie.

“The Lone Ranger.”  What boy doesn’t thrill to the William Tell overture and the cry of “Hi-yo Silver, away!”?  But did you know of these “guidelines” used in writing storyline scripts for the television series?  Among many that are hardly controversial, we have these politically correct gems:

       *When he has to use guns, The Lone Ranger never shoots to kill, but rather only to disarm his opponent as painlessly as possible.

       *Even though The Lone Ranger offers his aid to individuals or small groups, the ultimate objective of his story never fails to imply that their benefit is only a by-product of a greater achievement—the development of the west or our country. His adversaries are usually groups whose power is such that large areas are at stake.

         *Adversaries are never other than American to avoid criticism from minority groups. There were exceptions to this rule. He sometimes battled foreign agents, though their nation of origin was generally not named. One exception was helping the Mexican Juarez against French troops of Emperor Maximilian, as occurred in the radio episodes such as “Supplies for Juarez” (18 September 1939), “Hunted by Legionnaires” (20 September 1939) and “Lafitte’s Reinforcements” (22 September 1939).

         *Names of unsympathetic characters are carefully chosen, never consisting of two names if it can be avoided, to avoid even further vicarious association—more often than not, a single nickname is selected.

        *Criminals are never shown in enviable positions of wealth or power, and they never appear as successful or glamorous.  (Okay, this one is counter today’s narrative.)

Sound familiar, anyone?

“Superman.”  Created by Cleveland high schoolers Jerry Seigal and Joe Schuster, Superman is the story of newborn alien Kal-El who is rocketed away to Kansas as his homeworld is blown to pieces by its nova sun.  Adopted by earthlings and given his earth name Clark Kent, Superman is superior to the natives in all ways, especially as a moral arbiter.  It is almost redundant to point out that Superman is an alien immigrant and before long the bumpkin American-earthers can’t get along without him as Superman deals with all manner of injustice, criminal and social.  “El” is of course the Semitic root for “god.”  Some speculate Kal-El is meant to evoke the Hebrew phrase, “Voice of God.” Superman is the savior of America, get it?

“Dragnet.”  Joe Friday entertained and thrilled audiences from 1947 to 1970.  While watching several episodes with my family, I was shocked – genuinely shocked – to hear Jack Webb lecture the incidental characters on the useless danger of private gun ownership, the bigotry that rejects interracial integration of white Los Angeles suburbs through protest and political activism.

“Father Knows Best” might just as well have been named “Father is a Clown” as its brand of Prairie Feminism, on radio and television, featured the buffoonish Robert Young’s Jim Anderson in one failed scheme and hair-brained plot after another.  In each case, Margaret, portrayed by several actresses, quietly and patiently attempted to guide him to success, but was rudely rebuffed each time, realizing she was always correct only after yet another humiliation.  Sometimes, to mix things up, his children would stand in for his wife as his moral tutors.

In the same vein we must include the noxious “The Honeymooners” and its animated clone “The Flintstones” which are even lower forms of anti-male bigotry for their reduction of the female roles to superficial consumerist models.  In “The Flintstones,” we are taught the many benefits of deception when sneaking behind your husband’s back to do what you were going to do despite his objection.  Deception also figures prominently in “The Munsters” although it is often depicted as a failed strategy.  Hermann Munster is, of course, honorable if bumbling.

“The Addams Family” and all its kookiness is perhaps the only 1950s/1960s family program to offer a straight-forward look at a normal, traditional American family in which sex roles are honored right along with manly authority tempered by earned respect for his wife’s judgment.  The children are obedient and respectful but hardly repressed, indeed encouraged.  Gomez earns an honest living and his wife would never consider deceit or treachery but is rather completely supportive of the family’s patriarch.

Oddly enough, one adult program from the era that was reliably and authentically American is the self-identified progressive series, “Star Trek.”  While superficially liberal, the show was the product of combat veterans of World War II and Korea which grounded its production in a way typical Hollywood natives could never understand.  After all, when a “liberal” program proclaims the preamble to the Constitution of the United States before a tattered Old Glory — as the very Aryan leader of the Yangs (Yankees) defeats the remaining Oriental Kohms (chicomms), that’s saying something.  One notable episode ended with a convincingly delivered wonderment by William Shatner’s Kirk on the realization that the oddball sun worshippers they just aided did not actually worship the sun.  They worshipped THE SON. THE SON OF GOD. Other episodes called out the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, Magna Carta and the Bible.  Of course the ship’s name was unabashedly American, named for the highly decorated World War II aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Enterprise.

In any case, the roots of our social meltdown go back at least to the post-war period and feminist, statist, anti-white propaganda was enthusiastically promoted by Hollywood, perhaps especially in the children’s programming.  It is possible modern “Star Wars” and “Avengers” type action shows are better and more realistic in that the men perform actual manly roles and they usually fight for their own people, their own tribes, and make no bones about it.

The discussion continues here.

Please follow and like us: