Television Has Had A Significant Influence on The Culture of Many Societies - IELTS Task 2 Sample Essays

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

Television has long been one of the most powerful forces shaping cultural life across the world, influencing what people watch, value, and discuss. In my view, although it can sometimes erode local traditions, television has overall contributed more positively than negatively to cultural development. This is mainly because it broadens cultural awareness and strengthens social cohesion through shared narratives, despite its tendency to commercialise culture.

To begin with, television has played a largely constructive role by expanding cultural horizons and reducing ignorance between communities. Before the spread of broadcasting, many societies developed in relative isolation, relying on stereotypes and hearsay to understand other ways of life. By contrast, television exposes viewers to foreign languages, lifestyles, and social norms through documentaries, news coverage, and international drama. For instance, a teenager in Bangladesh can learn about Scandinavian education systems, Japanese work culture, or African music traditions without leaving home. This exposure does not automatically replace local identity; rather, it can enrich it by encouraging comparison, curiosity, and critical thinking. In this sense, television functions as a cultural bridge, enabling societies to modernise intellectually while remaining rooted in their heritage.

However, the negative impact of television cannot be dismissed, particularly in terms of cultural homogenisation and the weakening of indigenous practices. Because global entertainment is often dominated by a small number of media industries, local cultures may be pushed to the margins. When children repeatedly consume imported shows that celebrate consumerism, individualism, and glamour, they may begin to view their own traditions as outdated or inferior. A clear example is the decline of folk theatre and oral storytelling in many regions, which struggle to compete with polished television content. Moreover, television can reduce culture to a marketable product, where festivals, clothing, and even language are reshaped to fit commercial trends. This commodification risks turning culture into performance rather than lived experience.

In conclusion, while television can undermine local traditions through cultural standardisation and commercial pressure, its overall influence has been more beneficial. By widening perspectives and fostering intercultural understanding, it has supported cultural development in a way that is difficult to replicate through other mass media. Ultimately, the impact depends on how responsibly societies produce and consume televised content.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

Television has profoundly shaped how societies form, transmit, and revise cultural values. I would argue that its overall impact has been more negative than positive, not because it merely imports foreign culture, but because it restructures cultural development itself. In particular, television encourages passive consumption over participation and gives disproportionate cultural power to those who control the screen, while offering only limited educational and civic benefits.

The most damaging cultural effect of television is that it turns citizens from cultural participants into cultural spectators. Culture is not simply something people watch; it is something they practise—through community rituals, local art, neighbourhood debate, and intergenerational storytelling. Yet television’s dominant mode is effortless entertainment, which gradually replaces active cultural engagement with a habit of constant viewing. For example, in many countries, family evenings that once involved communal meals, music, or discussion have been replaced by silent screen time, where one narrative is broadcast and everyone else becomes an audience. Over time, this alters cultural development by weakening the “skills” of culture: listening, debating, performing, and producing. In other words, television does not only influence what people think; it changes how societies learn to live together.

Equally concerning is the way television concentrates cultural authority in the hands of broadcasters, advertisers, and political actors. Because airtime is expensive and audiences are monetised, what appears on television is rarely neutral: it is curated to maximise profit, shape public opinion, or maintain ideological comfort. As a result, cultural norms—beauty standards, gender roles, acceptable speech, even national identity—are repeatedly framed through a narrow lens. Consider how news channels can intensify polarisation by sensationalising conflict, or how soap operas often normalise consumer lifestyles that most viewers cannot realistically sustain. This does not simply reflect culture; it manufactures it, rewarding conformity and punishing nuance. The cultural outcome is a society that becomes more image-driven, more reactive, and less capable of independent judgement.

In conclusion, although television can inform and occasionally educate, its broader cultural legacy is more harmful. By promoting passive spectatorship and centralising cultural control, it weakens the participatory foundations on which healthy cultural development depends. Ultimately, a society shaped primarily by screens risks becoming culturally louder, yet intellectually thinner.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!