Philo Farnsworth: the kingmaker

There’s a lot of meaningless “end of the century” yacking about who is the most “important” person of the century. It’s meaningless, of course, because there isn’t a single most important person. We could list a hundred or so geniuses who moved the state of knowledge and productivity forward–Edison, Ford, Bell, Morse, Salk, the Wright Brothers, etc.–but beyond that, we can’t get too choosy.

When a consensus is reached about the “person of the century,” I suspect it won’t be an inventor, a doctor, or an industrialist. No, it will be an authority figure. After all, Americans worship authority more than they value that fuzzy and abstract quality we know as “progress.” Franklin Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao…one of these guys will be crowned the Grand Poobah of the century.

Maybe the state of technology has taken leaps since the Middle Ages, but the state of humanity remains firmly planted in that bygone era, and the need for kings and queens is an instinct that hasn’t atrophied one little bit. At any given time, we take the state of technology for granted. If it exists, then so be it, and if it doesn’t exist, then we can’t comprehend a sense of loss since you can’t easily count what isn’t there to be counted.

What is easier to comprehend is human faces and human voices, which are now piped into your living room in living color 24 hours a day. The king used to live in a castle–and he still does, in one form or another–but he can put his smiling visage or those of his spinmeisters in front of billions of eyes with the push of a button.

It’s a far greater leap–in terms of sheer power–than the invention of the printing press. A press only influences those who can read, and who have sufficient attention spans. That’s a self- limiting constraint right there. Television, by contrast, has appeal to anyone who can see and hear. The ability to appeal to lower-order human feelings–emotion as opposed to the intellect–is unlocked by television.

Don’t believe that? Consider this: the average Americano spends about four hours per day watching the boob tube. How long do they spend reading? Outside of the job, I’d guess 15 minutes a day maximum (hopefully most of which will be wisely invested in perusal of the Saipan Tribune.)

Let’s consider the overlap between new technology and the ancient realities of human nature. So if we had to do the undoable and pick a person of the century, I’d offer this candidate: Philo Farnsworth, who is credited with inventing the first practical television. (Related credits for TV development are also listed for Messrs. Baird, Zworykin, and Baird).

The ability to simultaneously push the emotional buttons of an unlimited amount of people–this is the story of the century.
TV is, of course, a great way to also convey information quickly. CNBC, for example, the financial news channel, is a blessing for those interested in things financial. Our local cable news show on KMCV is a great resource–it gives us the latest community news in the quickest possible format.

By contrast, however, most television–even that passed on as “news shows”– isn’t limited to a clean and straightforward presentation of facts.

A scribe such as myself must acknowledge this: a picture is worth a thousand words. Add some mood music and the right faces and voices, then mere written words are nothing by contrast. Writing is called “copy.” TV scripts are called “programming.”

Indeed, people were programmed long before computers ever were. Mr. Farnsworth, you uncorked one heck of a genie.