I thought of it after reading the editorial in the TV Guide I reviewed last Saturday. In it, the Editors (probably Merrill Panitt) reported on an interesting suggestion by Democratic Representative Torbert Macdonald that schools should teach children courses in "critical viewing" of television. As children watch anywhere from six to 40 hours of TV a week*, often indiscriminately and uncritically, they need to be taught the importance of "selecting programs and evaluating what they see."
*I hate to think of where I might have fallen on that spectrum.
Pannitt agrees with this idea in principle; after all, it would be good not only for the children but, as they grow older and audiences become more critical of what they watch, it could potentially be good for improving programming as well. But, on the other hand, he points to the words of a New York TV executive who reminds us that "If we produce shows that bore children to death, TV can teach them nothing" because they won't be watching it.
Acknowledging the truth of the statement, the editorial notes that "we doubt that if the proposed school courses are set up they will signal the total extinction of Batman, Gomer Pyle, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and The Monkees.*" In much the same way as a balanced nutritional diet doesn't try to eliminate every treat from the menu, there's always going to be room for "elements of nonsense, fantasy and Walter Mittyism." However, the hope is that "the courses would probably cut down the volume of this stuff and get a wider audience for some of the more constructive material now being offered to children."
*Intriguing, their choice of shows, don't you think?
find this discussion most interesting, for many reasons. As you know if you've been reading the blog the last couple of years, the controversy about the quality of programming is one that's raged for years, frequently in the pages of TV Guide, and the timing of this editorial would fit right in with the general debate. We're used, therefore, to seeing TV Guide express concern, for example, about the TV diet that children are fed. On the other hand, TV Guide has frequently been against the idea of controlling the content of programming, particularly when it emanates from outside bodies such as the government. The shorthand for this. although we could have a protracted discussion on this at a later date, is censorship. We'll use that word because it comes up frequently in these conversations, and TV Guide itself used it when discussing the content that appears on television.
One of the arguments made by those against censorship, for example TV Guide's Edith Efron, is that it absolves the viewer of his or her own responsibility in the matter. If the government, or some other authority, decrees that thus-and-such shouldn't be show on television, then you’re spared having to decide whether or not you would have watched it if it had been broadcast. This leads to a lot of righteous breast-beating from some parts, people who might say “of course I’d never watch a public execution if it were televised,” secure in the knowledge that they’ll be true to their word – they won’t watch it, since it isn't televised. But as Joyce Carol Oates once wrote, when the demon beckons, “You won't know until it beckons. To you. So long as it temps others you can judge - can sneer - can express shock, disgust, outrage, and prim disdain - the usual emotions of punitive people. But you won't know. I didn't." Or, put another way, someone once said that the difference between an honest man and a man of integrity is that the man of integrity does the right thing even when no one is watching.
o one argument against censorship is that we should require the viewer to make choices, keeping in mind that ultimately, the market decides, and insofar as the market is a bellwether for public opinion, the public will get what they want. At the very least, society will be prepared to accept the consequences which emanate from the decisions they make. The other argument you hear, and this is probably the more prevalent one, is that “if you don’t like what you see on TV, change the channel. Nobody’s forcing you to watch it.” It is, on the face, undeniably true; however, it’s a truth that exists in the laboratory, outside of the real world. In reality, where most of us spend most of our time, it’s not that easy.
For one thing, we have to live in a world where other people do watch “that kind of thing,” and to the extent that it affects their behavior, we have to live with the consequences of that behavior. I've always found this most compelling when it comes to programming that objectifies women. If men, through constant exposure to shows that portray women as nothing more than sex objects, willing or unwilling, then it’s more likely that’s how men will see them. That's dehumanizing enough, but add a dollop or two of violence to the mix, and then see what happens. If we're taught not to show restraint, isn't that what will happen?
*The violent part, anyway. As for the anti-social part, I suppose the jury is still out.
nd yet, there’s something about the smell test here that supports the overall contention. After all, why does an advertiser bother to put commercials on television if they don’t think the viewer’s behavior (in this case, their shopping habits) will be influenced by it? It’s somewhat fatuous to argue that viewers who fall for commercials – blatant attempts to get them to buy Product X, with no bones made as to why it’s being shown – will have the discernment to filter out the behavioral messages presented in their favorite shows. Isn't it?
So while I don’t accept the premise that viewers are completely influenced by their environment, neither do I think they can be totally unfazed by it. There has to be a residue that rubs off on them, the difference being the moral and philosophical background the viewer brings into it. And with that, we're back to the question of personal responsibility. Again, within the comfort of a lab setting, people with well-formed consciences (or at the very least people who understand and appreciate the value of a civil society) will be able to watch television with a discerning eye; they neither become hostage to the behavior shown on screen, nor do they accept programs that promote a message at odds with that of the wider society. As I've said, this is true only in the context of a controlled experiment, preferably one that doesn't rely on the behavior of others to determine the results.
And so we return to what started this discussion: the idea of teaching "critical viewing." Now, I'm all for critical thinking, which is really what we're talking about; I think it's a skill that's in short supply nowadays, and schools ought to be teaching kids how to think. But too often that crosses the line, from the mechanics of thinking ("here's how it's done") to being taught what to think instead ("here's how you should think about this"). While the idea of school classes in critical viewing is not censorship per se, there's no doubt that the whole idea carries with it the whiff of elitism, the idea that people in general have to be taught not how to watch TV, but how to watch the right programs. Who determines what makes a program "right"? I'm thinking here of everything from HGTV's recent decision to axe a show hosted by two brothers who opposed gay marriage* to shows that were preempted in the South because they portrayed blacks and whites together. Is this how we want to teach "critical viewing"? Will it improve the viewing experience? Does it provide us with more varied, well-rounded programming? Or is it simply another form of censorship? It has the potential for mischief written all over it - anyone besides me comparing this to how schools teaching about nutrition has led to governments trying to ban supersized soft drinks?
*Proving once again that HGTV will never have a show entitled "Interior Design for Heterosexual Males."
Now, perhaps I'm not the right person to be talking about this, given that The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a staple of our Friday-night DVD viewing, but while I'm all for better programming on television, I do have a problem with the idea of labeling shows as ones a viewer "shouldn't watch" simply because they're not "good" for you, for whatever reason. To me, it sounds a whole lot more like taking medicine than watching television, and while I appreciate what medicine can do for me when I'm not feeling well, that's not why I usually watch TV. I recently read an article about why book discussion clubs aren't necessarily a good thing - they can force you to focus more on your reaction to a book than what the book actually says, and consequently you become more self-aware, becoming the focal point yourself rather than the book you're ostensibly reading for pleasure or enlightenment.
*I'm not advocating that, by the way. My tastes could easily give you an upset stomach.
The fact remains that in a market-based economy, the market will determine what's on television. Unless and until networks (both commercial and cable) and advertisers decide otherwise, shows with niche audiences and low ratings will be consigned to the trash heap, and most of our programs will simply be pallid clones of what's already gone before. Extend this to other forms of entertainment - books, movies, music - and what we're left with isn't a pretty picture. And that's why we should care.