The Role of Television Today - Essay Example

137403 THE ROLE OF TELEVISION TODAY When the audio-visual invention that was television took over from the audio-based radio, it was hailed as mankind’s most entertaining media, a media that promoted or at least reflected family values. However, after providing us years of exemplary programs involving entertainment, films and current news, television has slowly but surely eroded into the realms of the macabre, highlighting sex, violence and pathology in the hope that its audience will be shocked and intrigued. There are many debate as to whether television promotes anti-social and immoral behavior or whether it is merely reflecting a changed more violent and perverse society. Television program makers stand accused of removing family shows to make way for programs full of gossip, bad language, gratuitous sex, and violence. Such changes have been made some argue for the sake of being more realistic, yet are merely shameful attempts to boost viewer ratings. If successful the viewers will be glued in front of the tube, and will be panting for more programs cast in the same mould. This tendency on the part of television show producers is increasingly evident both in case of television serials and news as well as television talk shows. Television serials and news thrive on producing shock waves. A prime example is that the WB and Fox networks aired (at 8 o’clock on Wednesday, February 10, 1999) incidents about a small town high-school student named Jack. Jack was reported to be gay; the program revealed that Jack’s 15 year old girlfriend had already been sexually active for the last 2 years. The same program featured coverage about another friend’s mother who was an adulteress. There was coverage about a girl named Julia in San Francisco being beaten by her boyfriend. There was also an unmarried stripper in Los Angeles who gave birth to a child. Such programs are shown to boost ratings in the hope of raising the advertising revenues of the television networks. The social consequences of such programs are not good for the health of American society. They are part of a vicious circle that is making immoral and even illegal behavior seems to be socially acceptable and speeding up the moral decadence of the country (Rosenzweig, Jane. “Can TV Improve Us?”) Television serials and news channels are accused of spreading anti-social behavior and increasing violence among its audience, especially children, given their age-bound susceptibility. Television producers could respond by saying that they are not responsible for peoples behavior, that it is the responsibility of parents and teachers to teach children how to behave. However that attitude blatantly ignores the power of television to influence the young, the naïve, and the poorly educated. Serials like “Murphy Brown” and “Maude” portrays abortion as nonchalant, ‘everyday’ occurrences, which ignores the guilt that some women feel afterwards and the arguments of the pro-life lobby. Another series “Felicity” dwells too much on the graphic side of date- rape without discussing the heinous nature of such a crime, or the often-harrowing experiences of real life rape victims. The Kaiser Foundation survey recently reported that 76 percent of U.S teens claim to feel comfortable having sex at young ages for the simple reason that both television and movies (their prime educators in this field), “make it seem moral” to do it. There are proven links between underage sex and the increased occurrences of unwanted pregnancies and the alarming spread of sexually transmitted diseases. There is a noticeable lack of television programs that advice teenagers not to have sex so young, or at least take precautions against pregnancy and avoidable sexually transmitted diseases (Rosenzweig, Jane. “Can TV Improve Us?”). Television talk shows are increasingly catering to argument-culture as well as shout-down cultures; both based on the misconceived notion that opposition is the best and only way to winning. There is no scope for sane, lively and open discussion; the aim of the characters is not to understand the opponent but to win that too as emphatically as possible. This unfortunate point is well highlighted by The Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman’s wry statement that, if she did not wish to appear on a talk show, all she had to do was to confess: “I can see both sides; its complicated”(Tannon, Deborah. “TV’s War of Words”). In talk shows reflecting argument-culture, characters with opposing views (mostly political) face-off against each other, engaging in heated argument as each tries to outdo the other by sheer vocal power rather than by laying out concise and productive views. Scream Television shows like “Crossfire” and “Hardball” adopts the shout-down culture, presenting spokespeople on both sides who forcefully articulate views that are far beyond what is considered ‘normal’. Over a half-hour period, around 4 to 6 characters put forward their views in rapid, shouting formats. The prime example is the Jerry Springer show, which specializes in getting people from ordinary walks of life to come on his show and fight (Tannon, Deborah. “TV’s War of Words”). While the characters on these talk shows know that they are putting on a display, they are guilty of corrupting and confusing the information they put across to their audience. Television program producers are not interested in presenting useful information that could improve the lives of their viewers; they just want cheap thrills. Ultimately, it is the audience that bears the brunt of such distortion of important public issues (Tannon, Deborah. “TV’s War of Words”). During television’s initial years, many advocacy groups tried to dissuade television show producers from reflecting anti-social themes of sex, pathology and violence in their productions. These protests (such as the sit-in by the Gay Activists’ Alliance at ABC in 1973 protesting against depiction of gay acts on “Marcus Welby M.D”. Or the anti-abortion group’s protests against the portrayal of abortion in “Murphy Brown” and “Maude”. There were further protests from the Prevent Teen Pregnancy group’s protest against the improper presentation of date rape in “Felicity”) had very little impact at that time, which dwindled all the more as time went by (Rosenzweig, Jane. “Can TV Improve Us?”). Television program producers tend only to present their opinions, unwilling to show differing perspectives from their own. While negatives weigh heavily against current television serials, shows and news, there are a few exemplary exceptions, which do not fall prey to the general trend. Examples of these are CBS’s “Touched by an Angel” and WB’s “7th Heaven”, which cemented their place in family hour entertainment (Rosenzweig, Jane. “Can TV Improve Us?”). As opposed to the more violently articulate talk shows, people prefer normal, down-to-earth talk shows such as “Larry King Live” (which scored 0.5 percent or 538,000 households in a recent Nielsen poll {Tannon, Deborah. “TV’s War of Words”}). Perhaps the best example of such programs is the “designated driver” concept first introduced in 1988 by Harvard professor Jay Winsten. Its message was aired during 4 seasons on 160 prime-time television shows, with a Gallup poll finding an astounding 67 percent of adults had viewed it. More significantly, it had a great impact on the audience’s elementary consciousness (by 1991, 52 percent of adults below the age of 30 abstained from alcohol at least once in order to serve as a ‘designated driver’ {Rosenzweig, Jane. “Can TV Improve Us?”}). Television’s shortcoming is well illustrated by Alfred Schneider, former Vice-President of ABC’s Policy and Standards Division who admitted to television’s drawbacks, saying “it should not be considered as a major vehicle for social relief or altering behavior”(Rosenzweig, Jane. “Can TV Improve Us?”). There is an urgent need today for television show producers to change their modus operandi and tone down the content of sex, violence, and pathology in their productions. Pressure could be placed on advertisers to withdraw from using the networks that fail to broadcast more responsible programs, or only put their adverts on when family entertainment shows are broadcast. Program producers need to realize that their shows can have unhealthy social and criminal consequences. Advocacy groups should also take on an increasing role by highlighting the drawbacks of television and finding ways to make it more society-friendly, restoring it to its former role of providing entertainment and information of value. Winsten’s “designated driver” campaign is a shining example for advocacy groups to make a telling impact on public awareness. Read More