#Early television

[newyorkthegoldenage]

Bystanders are all agog as NBC engineers operate a new mobile TV broadcasting facility, December 12, 1937. It was used for experimental pickups of outdoor news events. The setup, consisting of two vans carrying equipment, was built by RCA in Camden, N.J., and turned over to NBC at its headquarters in Radio City.

Photo: Associated Press

[broadcastarchive-umd]

#RudyTuesday Okay, so you’re a television station in the mid to late 1940s. You’ve got a 16mm copy of a movie you want to show. You’ve got a 16mm projector. And you’ve got a television camera. But how do we get them to work together?

How about a paper towel tube and some duct tape? No, wait! How about an old-fashioned camera bellows?

Pictured above is a Dumont projector attached to an Image Orthacon camera – an early version of a film chain.

One in a series of photos from the Rudy Bretz papers at UMD.

[the-nosy-neighbor]

TV from the Period, Continued

TV shows didn't really try to appeal to children, as far as I can remember, so it was nights of watching whatever was on, because you had two choices:  either this or the other channel.  Plus, at the time, it was expected that the adults would pick the show.   I remember watching lots of crime dramas. Magnum PI, CHiPs, The Fall Guy, etc. When I was older, The Cosby Show was the best thing on TV. 

But, the most amazing thing as a kid were the Special Presentations.

Edit: my photos didn't make it, so it appears that I was talking about Tom Selleck, I was not. Sorry Magnum. I will fix the photos tonight or tomorrow.

If you saw this guy, you were in for a nice time. Not to be confused with "A Very Special Episode," which meant some lame thing where they had your favorite TV characters talking about something really depressing or scary, also known as an “After School Special,” though a lot of times those were not filmed with known characters, just really lame low budget deals.  The most famous example of this is where a character on Saved by the Bell was taking diet pills (so excited and so scared).  Definitely worth a watch. 

I actually didn’t see this at the time, and only learned about it as an adult.  Two TV stations.  If Clown does “A Very Special Episode,” I will die.

So, Special Presentations were your really good things. It meant either you were getting something you didn't see a lot (Miss America), a once-a-year treat (Wizard of Oz), or cartoons (Holiday Specials!) I remember how excited we were to have the Wizard of Oz every year.  It seemed random when it happened, but I’m sure there was a schedule that I wasn’t aware of as a kid.  I don’t think we even got the TV guide.  However, there were TV listings in the newspaper. 

Once a year treats included things like "Circus of the Stars." I had forgotten about it until I googled Special Presentation to get that graphic. Actual TV stars would learn to do circus stuff, like trapeze. I am going to drown in nostalgia. Here's a later one in 1992, (Downtown Julie Brown!) with Weird Al, because Weird Al is synonymous with TV. Apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8CTEEOMLgE

It's a massively different experience to have such limited access to shows. I do think that having such limitied access created a shared lexicon for Gen X, as we largely relate to each through pop culture--movies, tv, introduction of VCRs and home video. We even get oddly nostalgic about commercials, since I guess a lot of us were kind of raised by tv and the characters that existed within.

It is a very particular feeling, these rituals providing a window to a moment in time. It is almost tangible, but indescribable. I think Clown is very close to capturing that here, and may do it before the end.

All this to say that the shared culture of tv during this period created a very specific way of thinking about it and excitement to these references. Holiday specials, very special episodes, feature presentations and annual tv events were such a big deal and it is neat to see it replicated, but i think it can also give us some hints as to what we can expect.

[peridotsarelongterm]

Hey, some Good Samaritan on YouTube has colorized not just one, but both of De’s Lone Wolf (1954) episodes (see below for one - the other is called “The Murder Story” and is on the same playlist).

He’s a serious bastard in one and doesn’t live long in the other, but I guess it wouldn’t be pre-Trek De if those qualities weren’t present, so enjoy!

[burningthrucelluloid]

Christmas Carol-cember, Day 10

There’s something heartbreaking about learning about lost media. The time, sweat, tears and work put into a film or TV special or episode that disappears due to a lack of preservation efforts or a missing film print that limits your ability to mass produce more or give it a remaster clean up for future generations. This was the case with this, a musical episode from an anthology series called “The Alcoa Hour” that got Basil Rathbone to play Scrooge. This was an anthology series created by the Alcoa Corporation, an aluminum manufacturing company that, as part of marketing their product, produced this series for the fledgling new networks and the television sets that were popping up in American homes by the late 1950s. Most of the episodes were comedic but they had their share of musical episodes to showcase the talents of it’s stars Alcoa invested in.

As was the case for the early days of television, preserving episodes didn’t seem like a big concern. More often than not, episodes would just be tossed in a box and left to rot or were just tossed away in general. For decades, many people who saw this episode and wanted to see it again were out of luck and there was a belief that it never would. The most anyone had to prove this special existed was an album recording that the Alcoa Corporation allowed to be released. That is until, as luck would have it, archivists discovered a copy of the master reel in the home of a former Alcoa executive living out his retirement. So in 2011, the world that either never got the chance to see it or those still alive to remember it were given a second chance to revisit their childhoods as it was released to DVD.

The camerawork for this special is very rudimentary and the backgrounds look like you could easily push them over, but this was par for the course during this time period and it makes sense if you consider the theatrical staging of this special. The meticulous switching of cameras to be timed and ready to switch to another camera for a separate angle. Such as Fred making his way through a crowd and arrives at the door of Scrooge and Marley where he instantly has to sing his song with Basil Rathbone, “Bah Humbug.” The speed between the two is quick and I’m impressed that the cameras were able to keep up and switch at the right times needed to swap. Robert Weed as Marley is far less raspy than in previous versions, this one has a very commanding voice, one that goes to an operative range. He is not decorated in chains, though he does have them as I suspect the rattling chains would have been too noisy for the microphones.

A lot of decisions made for this special seem to speak to the limitations of television production at this time. Examples like Scrooge commenting on his childhood self, we never see this lonely kid he describes but they make the camera switch to show Scrooge working at Fezziwig. Or when he’s at the Cratchit House and the Ghost of Christmas Present tells Scrooge Tiny Tim will die if the shadows remain unaltered. While Scrooge never directly says his line “let the poor die to decrease the surplus population,” the Ghost of Christmas Present calls out Scrooge for “thinking about this." But while it uses these shortcuts to keep the story going, it does other things that I have to applaud the production crew and director Daniel Petrie for having the ambition to pull off on TV. I like the use of interpretative dance throughout this special. From the opening song “Old Fashioned Christmas” showing people dancing in the street that makes good use to the darkened parts of the set. There’s another during the passage of time from young Scrooge growing in his success yet at the cost of the woman he loved. Literally showing it in the construction of a wall being built that separated her from him. For 1955, it’s VERY clever in its symbolism. Or even a dance sequence in the graveyard once Scrooge sees his name on the gravestone and the dead rise to surround him and cover him with chains as he runs around terrified before he falls to his knees and begs for another chance at life. It’s clearly theatrical but I rather admire that ambition and making the transfer from stage to TV, while a little awkward due to the position of the cameras, feels like an early progenitor to filming stage musicals today.

The music was composed and written by Fred Spielman and, I’m not gonna lie, out of the musicals I’ve been watching so far? This probably has some of my favorite musical songs so far. “Old Fashioned Christmas,” “Humbug,” and “Yes, There Is a Santa Claus” have gotten stuck in my head since watching this special. It helps that the musical quartet The Four Lads, best known for their single “Istanbul, Not Constantinople,” serve as a great Greek chorus throughout the special with their harmonies.

Oh and lest we forget this was produced by an Aluminum Manufacturing company, the special ends with a whimsical commercial of a family surrounded by aluminum wrap Christmas decorations. All that was missing was the cast of MST3K riffing on it.

I won’t deny this version is very rough and it often feels amateurish at times, but I’m willing to forgive that because of the limitations of television recording in this time period. I’m glad I saw it, it’s a part of media history and the fact we have access to it is reason to have a copy in case they go missing or they are removed and no one gets a second chance. Basil Rathbone’s performance as Scrooge is fantastic, the choreography works very well and, even for an anthology show, the songs aren’t too bad. The album sold very well and it was the most people could have to hear it when they weren’t able to watch it. But thanks to the efforts of preservation and a lucky break to find a copy of this episode, everyone gets that chance.

One more caveat: since this version was long thought to be gone, Rankin/Bass created an animated remake in 1978 with Walter Matthau as Scrooge. I almost covered that version until I discovered this and I’m happier to spotlight this significant piece of media history than an unimpressive animated special. Especially when the only thing of interest I have to say about that special is that it was animated by the Japanese-based studio Topcraft Company Ltd. The name may not be familiar, but they did many collaborative works with Rankin/Bass, most famously 1977’s “The Hobbit” and 1982’s “The Last Unicorn.” But the most amazing thing about them? After they went bankrupt in 1985, the studio split in half with many animators joining onto a new studio born out of it’s ashes and reformed under it’s founders who acquired Topcraft's assets thanks to funds from the last film they made under their banner, former Topcraft employees Toshio Suzuki, Isao Takahata and Hayao Miyazaki. They founded this new studio under the name Studio Ghibli.

The Alcoa Hour’s “The Stingiest Man In Town” can be watched on YouTube. Link provided below.

Next time, we’re gonna go back to animation but take a trip to a place where ponies run free and answer the question how can you have a Christmas Carol when there is no Christmas?

[hezigler]

American Sci-Fi on Television - the first 10 years: 1949-1959

We got our homework and chores done faster on days with a sci-fi program scheduled. Hokey as they may seem today, they were some of the best programming available. Adults tolerate our programming choices. Then, The Twilight Zone debut...!

[thepopculturearchivist]

LIFE, February 13, 1950

[evilhorse]

That guy—again!

[vintagecase]

Boardwalk Empire - Nucky Thompson (Steve Buscemi) has an encounter with a rather mysterious and alluring boardwalk "barker", who gives him a glimpse into the future.

It was this clip that inspired me to track down the early model television set shown here, a Western Television Corp, Empire State model, circa 1931. Hat tip: Early Television.

As this brochure pamphlet shows, the Western Television Corporation and its factory were centered in Chicago, IL.

[thecurioustale]

This is some great counterpoint by @fuckyeahisawthat, and is pretty accurate by my understanding. But it's not the whole story, and I wanted to add some nuance:

Visuality has always been important in television, from its inception. Directors, cinematographers, designers (of sets, costumes, etc.), actors, and producers all had a lot of creative ambition, and there was a widespread desire to outdo the competition, bring new innovations to the medium, and "make a name for oneself."

The people who produced TV's nonfiction stable of programming—including news, sports and athletic matches, and features (e.g. long-form interviews, educational content, documentaries and travelogues, etc.)—had a vested interest in the value and potential of their photography, visual demonstrations, onscreen diagrams, and so forth. Generally speaking, these aspects of nonfiction programming would have been deleterious for a viewer to miss out on. Not to say people didn't miss out (e.g. while making dinner), but they often did so at a penalty to themselves.

The people who produced fiction / entertainment programming for TV—e.g. dramas, sitcoms, horror and suspense programs, kids' shows, music programs, and theatrical performances of plays, music, etc. (some of which strain the container label of "fiction" and would better be called "cultural," but I'm keeping it simple)—also had a vested interested in making the most out of the new medium. Exciting, action-packed visuals helped hook kids. Thoughtful, evocative visuals around something like a symphony orchestra performance helped immerse viewers at home into the experience of actually being present in the auditorium—an "evening out" from the comforts of home, and at a much lower price. Shows like The Twilight Zone made clever use of shadows and abstractions to build horror and unease. And, additionally, "radio" wasn't the only progenitor of television: Other cultural sources were progenitive of it too, like stage theater, which had a lot of physicality that you had to see to fully appreciate, and vaudeville, which had a great deal of visuality in its humor and storytelling, and these progenitive sources were also reflected, where applicable, alongside the influences of radio when it came to their respective TV adaptations—and this was true right from the beginning.

Generally speaking, visual effects, visual gags, visual bits, and visual storytelling itself were all of great importance in fleshing out TV shows and specials. Imagine Lucy and Ethel on the chocolate candy conveyor belt line, or the gambler trying to light his lighter ten times in a row in Alfred Hitchcock Presents. One simply cannot miss elements like this and still claim that they have absorbed the storytelling.

So it's not quite right to say that early TV was designed to not have to be closely watched. Rather, the way I would put it is that early TV was (mostly) designed to be as accessible as possible to the casual viewer, i.e. the listener who might have over things going on at the same time—because why leave profitable audiences out of your televisual revolution if you can help it, and why make the switch from radio to television any harder than it needs to be? But, that said, television absolutely was designed with a visually attentive audience in mind, for the most part, right from the start. Hollywood knew what it had on its hands with the advent of television. They knew the visual medium was important, that it would fundamentally transcend what radio had been able to do. They were pushing hard into that exciting unknown. And let's also recall that television was a novelty in its early years and very exciting on a cultural level. People would go over to each other's houses to watch new episodes of their favorite shows, or watch the fights together, etc. Hollywood knew this too, and producers and directors were eager to take advantage of this enthusiasm to the fullest.

I said "for the most part" because there were exceptions, naturally. Some television really was produced to be primarily auditory. One of the biggest categories for this would have been "women's" daytime programming like the soap opera—which was designed with hardworking housewives in mind and in any case didn't have the time or budget for much visuality in its production. What visuality did exist was often there solely to entertain audiences with aspirational clothes, housewares, and pictures of idyllic midcentury life, and, complementarily, to likewise entertain them with the scandalousness of scoundrels. Another category in this vein would have been popular sporting events, which were very well-narrated on TV, with all the same care and attention to detail utilized by radio announcers, so that if a viewer at home wasn't able to be fully visually attentive they could still listen in and get a good sense of the action, and perhaps they could pay closer attention to the TV screen at moments when the action was especially interesting. And, as was mentioned, a third category of "audio-first" television would have been those TV shows that did hop over from radio. They carried the trappings of radio with them because they had formulas that worked and loyal audiences. These productions often had very little visuality except as set dressing. The 1950s incarnation of Dragnet is a good example of this that I can attest to. TV Dragnet was the televised version of its immediate predecessor of the same name on radio. (But consider that the times changed rapidly, and, just ten years later, the more well-known 1960s incarnation of Dragnet was already something of an anachronism in its terse speaking styles and punchy pacing (very radio-inspired). By the time color TV began taking over at the end of the 1960s, Hollywood was already mining deep into the world of visual potential with the television medium, and "make it so that you don't have to actually watch it" would have assumed an increasingly niche meaning, referring less so to the ethos of the entire production and more so to the aesthetic principle of not overcomplicating or overcluttering that still-tiny boob tube. Or at least that's my interpretation. I'm not actually a part of the television industry, and never was, so what do I know?)

But, to get back to the thread of my plot, even at the beginning of television, categories like the above were the exceptions. Visuality was always important. If that doesn't appear obvious to modern eyes, that's probably because of some conventions of the medium interfering:

The key problems with visuality in television took the form of two main challenges: small visual fidelity and small budgets (at least compared to motion pictures). The budgetary issue speaks for itself, so I won't dwell on it. But as for visual fidelity:

Early television had very little visual fidelity to play with—certainly nothing in comparison to the quality of the pictures that people would still regularly go and watch at the movie theater. Pictures were small, and many people's antenna reception was less than flawless to begin with. So the visuality that did exist on television had to be some combination of simple, bold, and familiar.

The boldness component had more to do with taking advantage of the limitations of the medium to innovate new forms of creativity that looked compelling in the medium. (I mentioned The Twilight Zone, for example, whose visual mood-building at times is vaguely reminiscent to me of very early film from decades earlier, when costumes and set designs often looked like they were out of paintings or dreams—the pioneers of motion pictures having likewise made the most of the severe limitations of their nascent medium to create astonishing visual ideas.) Meanwhile, it is the simplicity and familiarity components which allowed for a lot of television programming to be watched without actually being closely watched per se.

This simplicity interacted with the storytelling in some interesting ways. It's one of the lesser reasons that early television was so cautious, formulaic, and "staid" by modern standards in its camerawork. Interior establishing shots would usually showcase the visual forms that would become relevant in the course of a scene or program. Camera shots would linger for longer so that viewers had time to make sense of what they were looking at. (A sadly neglected bit of craftwork nowadays, as a lot of modern storytelling doesn't actually engage with its own elaborately-constructed environments, and doesn't really care about the realism or realness of those environments.) Similarly, upcoming visual effects / gags / etc. would often be lampshaded in the narration or dialogue ahead of time, and the rudiments of gags introduced or explained, so that audiences wouldn't be forced to identify objects and actions on the screen strictly through visual means. Moreover, in scripted programming it was commonplace for the plot and the action to run heavily through the dialogue, as was mentioned in the previous post (and also through the sound and foley work, which was often done very thoughtfully). And, thus, through simplicity there was a certain amount of redundancy and accessibility built in so that it was possible for audiences to make sense of what was happening, to an extent, without actually seeing it. Some television programs were more forgiving about this, having simpler set designs, less visual storytelling, fewer visual effects / gags / etc., and simpler soundscapes than other programs. Even in prime-time programming this wasn't rare; you could pick a scene at random from something like, say, The Donna Reed Show, and probably still be okay in following the action even if you didn't look at it whatsoever. But such programming made these concessions at its own expense, and most of the classics, which have stood the test of time, do not fare as well under such lack of scrutiny by the viewer: You just can't ignore the visual dimension of I Love Lucy or The Dick van Dyke Show, etc., and not be seriously penalized for it.

But even shows like those, which weren't as simple in their visualities as their less-illustrious contemporaries, were more forgiving than a lot of modern television programming. How? That's where the familiarity component comes in. Shows like these, and a great deal of television programming in general, benefitted from being familiar to audiences. Recurring shows such as sitcoms and dramas, with familiar characters and almost entirely familiar scene locations, could be watched less closely and still appreciated uncommonly well due to the audience's prior knowledge of the functionality of these familiar stage sets and the visual performance styles of the actors. Even beyond individual productions, this helped to crystallize entire genres of television, with audiences building inferred expectations about what a given type of show was supposed to entail. And this adherence to formulas and tropes was done faithfully by Hollywood, making it much easier for viewers to look away from the screen for a bit and return without getting totally lost.

But by the time I came on the scene, in the '80s and '90s, watching a TV show without watching it wasn't really a thing for the most part. You could do it with some niche programming—I used to like to run The Weather Channel in the background sometimes—but, for the most part, if you tried to watch, say, The Simpsons, or Home Improvement, or Yan Can Cook without looking at the screen...you were missing out on a lot, to the point where you would struggle to follow what was actually happening and/or fully appreciate the humor and storytelling.

That's more or less everything that I wanted to say. Television was visually ambitious and intrinsically visual right from the beginning, despite also being highly accessible to listeners and perhaps "modest" to our modern eyes.

It's fascinating how some of these conventions of listenability survived for so long, with the previous poster mentioning that the associated principles were still being taught at least as recently as the beginning of this century. It's definitely true that, specific to this century, a lot of high-end television programming has moved away from its television roots and toward the paradigm of motion pictures. That was not a thing in the 1990s; you can basically track it back to when widescreen TVs took over 4:3 sets as the default.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

Why hole yourselves up in a stuffy office when a terrace comes with it? Sid Caesar conducts a writing conference for his new TV show, Caesar's Hour, on the terrace of his penthouse office, October 28, 1954. Left to right around the table: Aaron Ruben, Joe Stein, Tony Webster (standing), Caesar, and Mel Tolkin. In the background, Howard Morris and Carl Reiner, Sid's fellow comics, lounge against the rail.

Photo: Robert Wands for the AP

[broadcastarchive-umd]

#RudyTuesday Network crews setting up for television coverage of the 1948 National Conventions in the Philadelphia Convention Hall. Republicans met in June, Democrats in July.

“Television is at the root of the heat trouble in the convention hall. Before television, when the bright lights were used only at intervals for the benefit of photographers and motion picture cameras, there was relief from the furnace-hot rays of the big lights. But television instruments are at work all the time. Consequently, the hot lights are blazing from the start to the end of the session.” – Maurice Early, The Muncie Star, July 18, 1948

One in a series of photos from the Rudy Bretz papers at UMD.

[the-nosy-neighbor]

Who is W, and an Exploration of the TV's We Have Seen

So, as I was perusing awayfrompryingeyes.net, which is fitting, given the handle.  (I have the prying eyes, its me.) Not to do this to you, but Webster’s Dictionary…I’m kidding.  I am curious about the origin of the phrase, because that might shed some light, but all we really need to know about it is that it has a connotation of nosiness, sneakiness, getting into someone else’s business. 

What I saw this time, on reviewing the website, is the specifics of W’s description of the TV and what was on it.  In previous posts about framing, I had mentioned that this image, which I assumed was the QA’s picture, given the wooden phone, TV, and red notebook:

You can see this phone, notebook, and TV in this shot.  Even lightened, I can’t determine if this is the same TV, but I know that it is the same phone and notebook, and the clock on the left is not included. 

So, we have EOVWXY:

I’m not sure on this one still.  I think that this is the same tv as the one with the Cinderella cartoon.

W describes their experience as this:

There was something on the old website. We have since remodeled, but everything still feels burned into my mind. Videos, text, crude drawings- Invading this space that had been created. I felt nauseous when I found it. I was Paranoid too, more so than I have been. (emphasis mine)

There are a couple of levels about this statement, so what we know:

In the first image of the TV, it is playing Juliella, and has an image of Barnaby as the fairy godmother and Julie as Juliella, though I can’t remember the exact timeline of the release of this image vs the EOVWXY video.

The images of the TV’s both include the strange wooden phone (toy phone?) and the red notebook.  However, both W and QA were in possession of these things at different times.  (And the red book includes a description of the first time that someone interacted with the material, which seems to point to W, as QA has their own rant of the same kind in Staff Only)

I can’t tell if there is a car on the left in the second TV image because of the darkness of the photo.  Even lightened, I can’t tell, but there is something red-ish in the left corner, though it looks more like a corner than the rounded edge.

We know for certain that the 2nd tv image is in the Staff Room, based on the photo set and the mucky walls.

In the third image of a TV, it is included on a secret page, EOVWXY, which was found by utilizing letters on the website that were misaligned.

I find it really strange that W points to an outside force for the EOVWXY video, as it is very obviously a person filming a TV, in which Wally appears.  Wally is definitely not recording that video.  Given W’s description in commercials: 

When the website first launched, I had found something playing from a very old television in my home. I was compelled to turn it on. I could see something, I could hear it too, but I had nothing to record it with.

This is W saying that they could hear or see something, but they didn’t get a recording.  So this isn’t the moment they are referring to?  There was some sound to that video, but the picture and the sound may not have recorded well.  Why wouldn’t we assume that W is the one filming EOVWXY?

Side note (probably more suited to old person tv post):  If you tried to record a tv with a video camera, you saw this kind of thing:

It looked like the show, but you could see a line moving up or down the image.  This picture is possibly more specifically a view of shifting the view of the screen.  I think this had to do with finding channels with a dial or adjusting the top and bottom of the screen with knobs. 

Side note to the side note, this is cool:  https://www.hackster.io/news/simulate-changing-the-channel-on-an-old-school-television-with-this-modified-set-cc326518bcf0

This youtube video is a good example of basic old tv function:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoF5KnjF2_s

Really thorough video of an old console tv with a super early VCR:

I am drowning in nostalgia!

Anyway, if a person was recording a tv with a video camera, as we see in EOVWXY, you would see the lines.  (explanation:  Lines on old TVs when recording with a video camera are usually caused by a difference in refresh rate between the TV and the camera. The TV's refresh rate is usually 50 or 60 Hz, while the camera's frame rate is usually 24, 25, 29.9, 50, 60, or 120 Hz. The black lines appear because the camera captures pixels that have faded by the time it tries to image them. The lines may also move because the camera and monitor are not synchronized. This phenomenon is called “bar rolls.”)  It may be as simple as those bar rolls don’t exist because the show isn’t actually broadcasting.  Wally is communicating in a different way.

However, I do think the age of the TV is important.  I don’t think Wally is going to show up on a modern LCD television, because I don’t think he understands how they work.  He can visit in the TV, because he knows those TV’s.  He was on those TV’s and whatever familiarity he gained by being on the show, he is using now to contact us.  (I think this makes for a good argument as to why he can be seen and heard on this tv, and why the commercials video came through on this tv.  It makes a bad argument for his ability to function on the internet, unless there is a bridge of some kind, like so:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfkDq6gkTmQ.  This video is of a person using an old style tv to stream. Wally learning about the internet through a tube TV makes sense, but it is a reach at this point.  I think if Wally and co were using the TV to directly interact with children, then he would be excited about the increased interactivity of the internet.)

Then:

I had taken a photo and listened to dialogue that I believed to be from the show itself. I felt like an idiot, I hadn’t recorded anything, I was so entranced by what I was seeing.

From this, we can assume that the first picture is what W is talking about.  It had image and sound and they took a picture.  This firmly establishes W as the photographer of that picture, and in possession of the notebook, the tv, and the phone.  There is the possibility that when W says “the show” we are talking about the puppet portion of the universe.  Juliella would be more a Special Presentation event if being true to tv history (see my old person post about TV for more information.)

W goes on to say: 

Since then I haven’t turned it off. I wouldn’t let that mistake happen to me again, if I kept watching and listening I knew something would come back. I was finally rewarded in December. The channel it appeared on didn’t make any sense, but I didn’t care. Video evidence and audio started playing, one after the other. I’ve captured and compiled together whatever I could. I can’t make sense of anything, older television always felt strange to me anyways. (emphasis mine)

So, we saw a thing in the TV that we didn’t record, the first recording was the Commercials video, which is attributed to a TV, most likely the one in the first image.  The channel didn’t make any sense…(more info on my old person tv post) could it be that it was on an aux channel?  Or a channel that they don’t get locally?  (Like, growing up, I got 10, 12, 13 and sometimes 23.  If anything appeared on any of the other channels, I would have been surprised.  Also, if we can accept that this is a Sesame Street as an analog, then any channel other than 13, our PBS station, would have seemed odd.) 

Then, there is the EOVWXY video that has obstructed sound, and Wally’s eyes fighting through the static.  We can’t say for certain that W filmed this video.  They only time they mention documenting the happenings is the picture and the video:

Then footage would disappear, I would have to move to another channel, where another would appear and then disappear again. I knew I had to stop though, I was too exhausted and I was tired of waiting through hours of static just to find another commercial. I don’t know how this was happening. But the show never appeared beyond clips of Eddie Dear. I don’t want to post this publicly on the WHRP site, at least not yet. I can’t stomach anything that's happening.

There is the possibility that EOVWXY is filmed by the QA.  We have established that the other person who had all three things:  tv, red book, and wooden telephone is the QA.  In addition, there is a note on the TV on the table that says if the TV breaks, to get it repaired ASAP.  In the last photo in the series with the TV, it is a different TV, and even older, so it makes me wonder if the TV finally gave out and they had to replace it with a TV of a similar age so that they could receive the broadcast. 

They are tired and have to stop looking, which we found out later that they lost track of three months.  So December, they start recording, having to change the channel when the video stopped, flipping around until they found it again.  The Commercials video must be the video they are referencing (and they are on the same page).  It appears W has edited this video out of clips they found in the static.  W describes the video as being mostly Eddie Dear.  ”But the show never appeared beyond clips of Eddie Dear.”

But this isn’t true either.  The video has a large portion of time devoted to the other characters, in the form of drawings, voice work, and cartoons.  Eddie is the only character portrayed as “real.” As discussed before in conversations about framing, there are separate and distinct levels of reality, and this quote pushes us to believe that the puppet form is “the show.”  When we see puppets, that is Welcome Home.  The cartoons and obsession with the holiday feels like the 1,000 holiday specials we grew up with and came to associate with the holidays.  More on this in the old person TV post. 

More on this topic later.

[thursdaymurderbub]

[sohannabarberaesque]

Not to be confused with Shaggy's catchphrase "Zoinks!"

By way of Yowp's excellent blog of early television development, ultimately by way of the New Rochelle (NY) Standard-Star for May 16, 1940:

Mrs. John S. Merritt of 9 Leffingwell Place, who claims to be the city’s first participant in a television broadcast, appeared last night [15] on Paul Wing’s spelling bee televised by NBC from their studios in New York. Friends and relatives, who were gathered about the Merritt home, waited anxiously for Mrs. Merritt’s appearance. She came on and the announcer asked her to spell “yoicks.” Mrs. Merritt hesitated a bit and then answered “y-o-i-c-k-e-s.” She got the “gong.” “I’d never seen or heard the word before,” she said today. Yoicks is an exclamation used to urge foxhounds in a chase. It was Mrs. Merritt’s first venture in radio or television—and “undoubtedly my last,” she said.

(Still, you wonder how the writers on Scooby-Doo back at 3400 Cahuenga came up with "zoinks!" as Shaggy's go-to phrase of stunned disbelief at encountering the monster of the week.)

[everything-anything3345]

We close out our broadcast day with this public service announcement: This has been "A ZIV Television Production".

We will resume normal broadcast operations during the daytime hours. Goodnight.