Interesting idea.
To get more information I looked in on Wikipedia and found some very useful entries. You might find them of interest.
The more pertinent one concerns simply Australian television, and discusses its origins and development. Its page is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_television
The other concerns mainly the set-up of Australian broadcasting but does describe the various regional as well as subsequent transmission venues (satellite, cable, etc.). Its link is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_television_broadcasting
As I had assumed, when TV first came to the country it was in the five big cities -- Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. Not until 1963 was a coaxial cable laid that linked Sydney and Melbourne, which according to the first article was the true beginning of network television in Australia, as opposed to local markets. The articles contain somewhat contradictory information in a few places, such as the extent of television ownership among households in the two biggest cities by 1960, but the bottom line is that by 1963 TV was well established in the major cities and newer stations were being granted licenses. But vast areas of the country didn't get television until later in the 60s, or beyond.
So you can make the argument that, given the sporadic television coverage across the country in 1963, and the fact that while the ABC and a couple of other companies did own all the stations there was not a true system of networks as it's understood in the US, television would not have been a unitary or readily accessible source of information for many people in the country. On the other hand, millions were reached by TV, and certainly the medium could have continued to exist as easily as radio (i.e., it did not require any resources not available even in the straightened circumstances of post-war Australia). Radio would have been the primary source of news (with newspapers shut down because of the lack of paper) but television would have been there to some extent.
So Nevil Shute was reasonably correct that radio would be the primary means of news broadcasts even in 1963. But to have ignored television altogether -- again, never even mentioning it -- seems a fault. The medium did exist, and there was no reason it could not have been maintained even under the conditions he imagined in post-nuclear-war 1963. (And if for dramatic purposes he wanted to eliminate the medium, why not add a line about the government closing down television, the way he noted the absence of newspapers?) Add to this of course that Shute could not have known the extent to which television would -- and would not -- have penetrated the country six years after he wrote his novel.
What's interesting also is that, as I may have mentioned somewhere, when TV came in it killed off entertainment programming on radio very quickly, which was a huge blow to Australian actors, especially since in its first decade something like 97% of the TV programming in the country was American (with some British). Even these articles state that, despite TV's limited reach, radio's profits fell drastically. Of course, government-owned radio (and TV), run by the ABC, wouldn't have had to worry about commercial revenues since its funding came from the government. But that same revenue source could have maintained TV funding, and since the largest population centers in the country did watch TV by the early 60s, it would make sense to acknowledge the continued existence of TV as regards a majority of the populace, who lived in the eastern and southeastern portions of the country that were reached by TV.
As for America...
Even in the US's lower 48, it was common well into the late 60s for network programming to be delayed one week in some locales. This seems to have been more because of scheduling (wanting to show programs beginning at 7 PM in the Mountain Time Zone, for instance) than lack of microwave coverage. I recall for example that in Phoenix, Arizona, network broadcasts were tape delayed for one week as late as 1966, and this was true of other western markets as well. Like Alaska, Hawaii continued to rely on having programming flown in, and as late as 1977 and later one-week tape delays were common in the Honolulu market.
And as you say, cable systems (owned by many companies, not just AT&T) carried network programming into many areas not reached by broadcast or satellite booster stations, as in much of the rural Midwest and even in larger eastern states, such as Pennsylvania. Yet despite our extensive facilities, there was a tiny handful of very remote areas inaccessible by television even in the continental United States well into the 1980s and beyond. But unlike Australia we had a far higher population spread out over far more of this country in reasonable numbers than lived in the sparsely populated Outback, or anywhere outside the largest Australian urban areas. The vast majority of their population is much more concentrated in a relatively limited area than is the case with the US, which, with a far bigger market, meant that TV would naturally develop far more rapidly and pervasively in the US than in Australia.
reply
share
lmh-10
11 years ago
As luck would have it I grew up in one of those mountain communities in Pennsylvania that only had cable TV. This was in the 1950s. A side effect f this was, because of location, we also received Canadian TV. So I early on saw a different perspective of, for example, the War of 1812.
I wonder if early Australian stations had a large library of entertainment shows to broadcast or if they had just of couple of weeks worth and sent the used tapes back when they got new ones from the States? If the latter case another reason for closing the stations.
reply
share
hobnob53
11 years ago
My recollection is that your state's Governor from 1971-1979, Milton Shapp, made his money wiring large swaths of PA for cable TV in the 50s and 60s. Growing up in and around New York City, with more television than any market in the country besides Los Angeles, I never even knew of cable until the late 60s! (I'm probably about the same age as you.)
I assume to get Canadian TV you must have lived in or near Erie or environs. My first exposure to Canadian television was at a camp in upstate NY in 1964. We could get one of the French-language stations from Montreal. I distinctly remember seeing the Abbott and Costello movie Ride 'Em Cowboy in French (except for the songs) and with no ads. The latter made the biggest impression on me!
Anyway, I think the programming Australia got from the US and UK in the late 50s and early 60s was filmed, not taped. According to those Wiki articles much of the early local programming was put on kinescopes but subsequently erased. Australia relied on foreign programming because it was cheap and easy to obtain, which long stifled native programming. I expect that in the circumstances described in Shute's book, left to their own devices after 1961, Australian television would have relied on studio entertainment (plays or variety shows), plus of course news programs, and augmented this with repeats of whatever programming they had in stock (I don't think they generally shipped anything back but kept it), including movies. In short, a nuclear war would have compelled the local industry to fill the void as best and with whatever they could. After all, it would only have been for a couple of years. But think of how useful it might have been if a TV station in, say, Brisbane, could have broadcast pictures as well as sound from the city to stations in Sydney or Melbourne. Depressing, maybe, which is why the southern stations would decide what to show and when to run it (no live broadcasts of people dying), but it could have provided a useful document for scientists farther south.
Even in a relatively limited state, TV could and I'm sure would have been an important medium for the people who had access to it in the post-atomic-war era of 1961-1963 Australia. Add to this the fact that with travel so limited because of the absence of petrol, television would have provided an important visual link to the outside world. It's too bad that satellite TV didn't begin, on an extremely limited basis, until 1962. Of course, had Shute's novel come to pass, satellite television would never have existed.
reply
share
ib011f9545i
10 years ago
lots of interesting and informed comments here but did anybody mention the actual facts of tv use in Australia in the late 1950s?
If tv came to Australia in 1956 was it would not be all of Australia at once and radio would be the main method of mass communication.
I love the Australian film NEWSFRONT,it is about newsreel camera man in 1950s Australia.
The film shows that tv news is a growing threat to their work but it is small at first.
I am British not Australian but even growing up in the 1960s tv was not broadcasting all day and the news was on maybe twice a day? the news would feature a studio bound anchor and a few film clips by reports outside the studio.
People would have been listening to their radios,not watching tv,how many tvs in Australia in 1959? what did they cost?
reply
share
hobnob53
10 years ago
When television first came to Australia in 1956 it was limited to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, as I recall. But it spread to other cities within a few years. Of course its growth was initially sporadic and uneven, given the country's size and population disparities, but it was reasonably common at least in most urban areas by the early 60s.
The point is not that radio wouldn't be a factor, but why TV wasn't even mentioned. Yes, radio was still the only broadcast medium available throughout the country, and the only one in many rural and remote ares as well, well into the 60s. Its reach was almost universal.
But in the early 60s television was (and even in the fictional world of On the Beach, would have been) a major factor, certainly in urban areas. Whatever its limitations, it too would have played a crucial role, and its ability to add the visual dimension to the crisis would have been invaluable. And in real life TVs were obviously affordable, since within a couple of years they almost ruined the Australian radio industry, at least as far as entertainment went -- much as occurred in the U.S. That couldn't have happened if sets were too costly and therefore rare.
Anyway, again, it isn't a question of radio or television. It's a question of why not both -- where was TV in On the Beach?
I like the film Newsfront too. Not great, but a fascinating look at the media situation in 50s Australia. Another look at it can be had in the biography of the late actor, Rod Taylor: An Aussie in Hollywood, which has lots of detail about the radio industry in the country before the advent of television, where Taylor got his start in the late 40s and became one of the highest-paid actors in the country.
I am British not Australian but even growing up in the 1960s tv was not broadcasting all day and the news was on maybe twice a day? the news would feature a studio bound anchor and a few film clips by reports outside the studio.
I'm American but my wife is British and has often discussed UK TV of the 60s, and from various sources I'm slightly familiar with it in the 50s as well. In some general ways British television in the 60s was reminiscent of American television in the early 50s (in terms of the broadcast day, type of programming, production values, etc.). Broadly speaking I expect the situation was similar in most developed countries when television was new in the 50s and 60s. But whenever it was introduced in any given country, it came of age and grew pretty quickly.
reply
share
puirt-a-beul
9 years ago
It's an interesting issue, but I don't think TV has ever been as established here in Australia as it has/is in the US. Even in the late-60s, when there were special events on TV, some among my circle of friends would have a party where we could all gather and watch it, because not all of us had television sets. And I remember in 1969, with the Apollo 11 landing on the moon (which happened here in the afternoon), my teacher at school arranged to get a TV into the classroom and we all wattched it in awe, because if we'd been sent home to watch not everyone would have been able to.
My memory is that, even for decades after the introduction of TV in 1956, radio remained a far more dominant source of media contact than television. Maybe that, and the fact that radio is simply much easier to simulate for a production, is why Kramer made no particular mention of television.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
reply
share
hobnob53
9 years ago
Hi p-a-b,
You know, I don't think I realized you were in Australia; I assumed you were in the UK. My mistake!
Of course you would know far more about the situation than any of us, but again, my point isn't radio or TV, but why TV is not even mentioned. Also, I'm actually talking about the book, not the film, as I stated in my OP. Surely Nevil Shute, an engineer by training, could easily posit the existence of television and at least some penetration of the medium into Australian life in the early 1960s -- certainly in a major city like Melbourne.
If TV isn't as established in Australia as it is in the U.S. I can only assume it's because of the relatively lopsided population distribution across your exquisite country compared to the vastly higher population and greater all-around density in the States. After all, our two countries are almost the same size geographically. But you have far fewer people and the interior is very sparsely populated, while most of the population lives in what they used to call "the green zone" along the east coast, with a few outposts scattered about to the west and north. That would affect the amount of television physically available in many areas, though with the advent of satellite I should think that situation would eventually be rendered obsolete.
I must visit Australia sometime! Sadly, I suspect I will never get there.
reply
share
puirt-a-beul
9 years ago
Heya hobnob. ;-) Yep, I'm an Auusie. I've been to the UK a couple of times, but not seen as much as I'd like. (I know how you feel. I doubt I'll get overseas myself again, either -- or to the US again, a country that really is spectacular.)
Anyway. I think Shute was showing the country as it was at the time he was writing, when TV hadn't had time to establish itself and people treated radio as the significant and reliable source of information. (Especially the ABC, our equivalent of the BBC.) But also, he was showing a society in a death spiral, with supplies and resources starting to run out, so it makes sense to me that people would be paring their lives back to basics. It takes constant and reliable electricity to run a television, for example; whereas, when I was a kid, my radio was a piezo-electric crystal set, which required no current at all. And possibly what TV resources there were would have ceased broadcasting, whereas you could run a radio broadcast with minimal staff and equipment, especially to a minimal (and diminishing) broadcast area.
Why didn't he even mention it? I don't know. But it's a snapshot of a country at a time when TV was definitely still a novelty.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
reply
share
hobnob53
9 years ago
Shute was of course writing at a time (1957) when TV was new to Australia, but he was writing about 1961-1963, and he must have known that the medium would have grown during that future interim, as it had grown in the US, UK, Canada and elsewhere. Certainly not to its being a continent-wide phenomenon, yet, but on its way, and at least a factor in the big cities.
Yes, it occurred to me that one could say that with limited and diminishing resources the government felt TV was no longer a medium they could afford and would simply cease all TV broadcasts. I'm not sure how real that might be but in a piece of fiction Shute could have invented any scenario he wanted. (One could also say that by shutting down television people were being forced to travel more, go to the cinema and so forth, for entertainment, which arguably would be a greater drain on electrical power.)
Anyway, Shute did write that "the paper famine had closed down all newspapers and news now came by radio alone." He could as easily have included a reason why there was no television in that passage. All this just strikes me as odd given Shute's attention to detail and as I've said his engineering background.
I doubt I'll get overseas myself again, either -- or to the US again, a country that really is spectacular.
I hope you're wrong and do get abroad again. But from the sound of things at least you've been to America...which is more than I can say about me and Australia! Where have you visited in the States? And may I ask -- where do you live? (City, state.) I'm outside of New York City, on Long Island.
reply
share
puirt-a-beul
9 years ago
Oh, hobnob, I'd love to have gotten to Long Island, it's so iconic, but I haven't. I was at high school in California (exchange student) in a town called Redlands, between San Bernardino and Riverside, and have been up and down the west coast, and inland through the South West. I haven't seen Texas or any of the middle -- would love to travel along the Gulf coast, and really would have liked to see the Mississippi. I've been to Atlanta (amazing!) and was lucky enough to do a trip from there up the east coast, through Virginia up to NJ and NY, and then up to Connecticut (stayed with a lovely family in a town called New London, on the mouth of the Thames River, emphatically pronounced the way it's actually spelt!). I've never been to New England, to Boston or Chicago. I did see Washington (D.C.) though, which I thought was stunning. If I could do another trip, I'd probably start in NYC, head off through New England, then to Boston and up north and catch a train across Canada and through the Rockies. I'd love to see the Rockies. (Sigh!!)
I really love mountains, but Australia is geologically mostly inert, and is one of the oldest exposed landforms on the planet -- our highest mountain was worn down to almost nothing before the Rockies even formed, and now doesn't reach 8000 feet in height. (Did you ever see a film called "The Edge"? My eyes well up in that just from the scenery.)
Anyway. So that's me. I guess I've been lucky with what I've seen of the US, but ... hey, I want more!! ;-)
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
reply
share
hobnob53
9 years ago
Oh, I know Redlands, along with Riverside and San Bernadino (site of those horrific shootings the other week), and have friends in the vicinity. I love the southwestern desert and lived for a time in neighboring Arizona, where I have some family. And I lived in D.C. for four years, years ago when I attended university there. I'm a very political person!
The Rockies are magnificent. Yes, you must come back and see them. They vary, so you've got a lot to look at! I did see The Edge, but that was Alaska. Even bigger mountains there. But that's a part of my own country I haven't made it to.
And I well know New London...and since we're on the OTB board, you remember no doubt who it was who lived in New London, near one of the main U.S. Navy bases on the east coast? Lt. Commander Dwight Lionel Towers, USN.
Well, I'm very glad you like my country. I hope the people you met were as agreeable as the scenery! When were you here?
And I'm still curious about which town and state you live in, if I'm not prying too much!
reply
share
puirt-a-beul
9 years ago
Washington D.C. really fascinated me -- such a city of contrasts. Truly awesome neo-classical buildings, and three homeless families camped on the footpath outside my hotel. (Getting out the door of the building was like running a gauntlet.) My second day, standing waiting to cross the road in view of the seat of the (currently) most powerful government on the planet, out of nowhere I got offered a drug buy. But I loved seeing all the locations for Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and The Day the Earth Stood Still, so that put everything else in perspective.
Yes, I realise The Edge was Alaska, but it's still the Rockies. And awesome. ;-) I'd really love to get that far north; the closest I've come was flying over it. (I flew from London to Seattle, and the route took us into the Arctic Circle; I was glued to the window, gazing in awe at icebergs and floes -- we were high enough that you could see way down into the wate, where the ice truned green and darker and finally faded from view. Gobsmacking! And I haven't seen a lot of ice in my life.)
Yeah, I think Americans are lovely people. Most I've met are effusive and good-hearted. I'm often a bit surprised at how insular they are (generalisation alert!), but that seems to be endemic in the culture; and I'm often personally dismayed at how the US administration views the rest of the planet, especially since it keeps positioning itself as our "leader" ... but I could probably say something similar about a few other countries as well. And there's a lot about my own country I'm not exactly proud of.
For my sins, I live in Sydney (the country's largest city, and capital of the state of New South Wales). It's not my home energetically, not at all, but sadly poor health and lack of money mean I can't get out, now or in the foreseeable future. I grew up (you won't be surprised to hear!) in the mountains, in the Great Dividing Range that runs up the east coast, our equivalent of the Rockies, but more time-worn, and so in many spots not much more than uplands. (Here's how it looks literally at the end of the road I grew up on: http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/things-to-do/Walking-tracks/Pulpit-walking-track) But I'm lucky to have travelled a lot for work, so I'm happy to have seen a fair bit of Australia. It's an amazing country.
So: if you could travel tomorrow, anywhere ... where would you go?
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
reply
share
hobnob53
9 years ago
Hi p-a-b...and my most humble apologies! I read your post after you wrote it, four months ago, and intended to reply, but I suppose as Christmas was upon us I let it go for few days and just plumb forgot! Unforgivable of me, and sincere apologies for my neglect. But happily I was back here on the OTB board and in revisiting some threads had my bad memory rudely jogged when I saw your December post.
Anyway, first, I hope all is well....
I loved your comments about being in D.C. and finding the sites where The Day the Earth Stood Still and Earth vs. the Flying Saucers were filmed! I remember one night in 1971 watching the former in Washington and reflecting, first, that all the places in the movie were within a couple of miles of me, and second, of how I couldn't believe the film was already 20 years old! Now it's 65. Boy, do I feel aged.
Yes, we Americans are an odd lot...but then I guess most nationalities are, each in their own way. We are pretty insular; I think it comes from having those two oceans protecting us from the rest of the world (at least in 1787) and these feeling of so-called "American exceptionalism". I think there's something to be said for the idea that when it comes to a big country both its achievements and its mistakes are great. Lord knows we have plenty of both to our credit! (But at least we didn't start Nevil Shute's nuclear war!)
I had a slight acquaintance with someone who lives in Sydney, though it's been nine years since we spoke. He and his wife are Brits who emigrated to Australia in 1980. They much prefer Australia to the UK, though they apparently like the US even better, for some reason. But from what they and the few people I know who've been there tell me the country really is a must. But as I said before, I tend to doubt I'll make it...even if it's a mere 23 hours or so away.
Another friend worked for an American aerospace company for many years and was often posted overseas, including in Singapore and then Australia. His son married an Aussie and decided to stay; I think he lives in Canberra with his family. Anyway, his father once was telling me what his son, an engineer, did for a living Down Under. "He works", he told me, "for something called the C.S.I.R.O. -- and don't ask me what that stands for." To which I replied, "Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization." My friend looked at me in astonishment, and I explained -- "I read On the Beach!"
As to your question of where would I go if I could travel anywhere, my answer probably would be Australia. Of course, there are parts of my own country I've never been to, and a lot of Europe I'd like to see, and some nice tropical islands dotted about the globe...but Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Alice Springs, Perth and Broome would do me fine, for starters!
reply
share