The first request! Thank you, Eric.
Television plays a central role in all of our lives. The living room furniture is arranged around it. Our schedules are arranged around it. With this heavy a presence, it begins to shape our perceptions of the world and, in some cases, dictate our values.
Robert Putnam’s (2000) research shows an astonishing correlation between television viewing and what he calls civic engagement, which is things such as volunteering, going to church, writing letters to Congress, belonging to clubs, and making speeches. His argument is not that television itself is detrimental, but that it depends on ones intentions when watching TV, and how often they do it.
He has divided television watchers into two groups: selective viewers, who turn on the television to watch a specific show, then turn it off when they are done, and habitual viewers, who turn on the television when they enter the room and leave it on, not really having any specific program in mind to watch. Consistently, the civic involvement of the selective viewers was higher than that of the habitual viewers. For instance, if we use amount of time spent watching TV to decide whether one is a selective or habitual viewer, then those who watch more than 3 hours per day would be considered habitual viewers, and those who watch less than that would be selective. Only 25% of college-educated, working-age adult habitual viewers attended a public meeting, compared with 40% of their more selective counterparts. Twice as many selective viewers were officers or committee members of local organizations than habitual viewers.
Another striking study Putnam mentions is the Notel/Unitel/Multitel natural experiment in Canada. The “Notel” town had no television reception throughout the study, the “Unitel” town had one channel, and the “Multitel” town was able to get all four channels available throughout the study. All three were real towns, similarly “typical” in most ways, except for different levels of television reception. At the start of the study, Notel residents went to a larger variety of club and other meetings than the residents of Unitel and Multitel, who were pretty much equal in meeting attendance. Once Notel got television, there was a marked decline in the number of outside-the-home activities the residents participated in, while Multitel and Unitel showed no change. What’s further is that the effects of television were apparent in all residents—those who were peripherally involved in their community as well as active leaders. This, according to Putnam, not only proves a correlation between an increase in television viewing and a decrease in civic engagement, but that television is the cause of this phenomenon.
Another casualty of increased television watching, according to Parenti (1997), is a healthy family life, particularly for children. The reason for that, he says, is how readily available it is. It becomes a member of the family. He draws a comparison between television and another popular media, the movies. The idea of a 12-year-old spending six or seven hours a day at the movies is almost preposterous. For one, it requires arranging transportation to and from the theatre, as well as admission fees, which would be prohibitively expensive with that kind of movie habit. For another, the “grown-ups” would never hear of it. But children that age, and younger, are spending that kind of time with the television. The television has become a substitute for family interaction, and the families who engage in this behavior don’t even notice the problem. The sidebar to the Parenti article, “In England Too, the TV Pied Piper”, the juxtaposition of childhood pre-television and childhood post-television is sobering. There was once a “children’s culture” of made-up games, singsong rhymes, and afternoons at the park until supper. Now the children are parked in front of the television, not playing games with others.
In his article, Parenti also has a problem with how television blurs the line between reality—the world we live in—and “reality”—the world we see on TV. The problem he sees in this is that people seem blind to the way this affects how we live. And the media makers can use this to in a sense control our views of the world around us. As a result of television shows—“just entertainment”—the collective social view is evolving the believe that you are the only one that matters, money is the key to all happiness, societal problems are a result of unsavory individuals who can be identified and dealt with rather than something wrong with the society itself, and the list goes on. These are some very heady issues one might expect to find covered by Ted Koppel or Peter Jennings, not Detective Sipowicz, Agents Mulder and Scully, and Marge Simpson. The problem with this, argues Parenti, is that according to a study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, most adults and children treat television shows as valid guides for dealing with real life social, political, and cultural issues. Due to this, the political preaching of primetime is more effective than anything President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, or the surgeon general could say because the majority doesn’t even realize they are being preached to.
George Gerbner’s (1969) argument on this point begins with the idea that television viewing doesn’t have “effects” so much as it being a cultivation of attitudes and ideals. Television viewing now starts at infancy, so there is no “before” and “after” to be studied. Along those lines, the messages on television are hard to escape. Gerbner’s argument focuses on violence in television and, like Putnam, divides viewers into two groups—light viewers, similar to Putnam’s selective viewers, and heavy, similar to the habitual viewers. Light viewers are more in control of their own perceptions of the world, he argues; because they turn on the television for what they want to see, then turn it off. Along those lines, it has been found that the most highly rated programs are usually non-violent. Heavy viewers, however, are bombarded with images of violence and crime. This cultivates a “mean world syndrome” which leads them to believe that they are in more danger of being a victim than they really are. Studies have shown that heavy viewers are more likely to overestimate their chances of being a victim of violent crime, to believe that their neighborhoods are unsafe, to assume that the crime rate is rising, and they are more likely to install new locks or alarm systems, more likely to buy guns or watchdogs to protect them. Building on Parenti’s point that television subtly teaches us “lessons”, heavy viewers of television are also more likely to support legislation that supports capital punishment, the construction of more prisons, or enforces harsher sentences for criminals, regardless of offence.
Gerbner extends his argument against violent television by showcasing “happy violence”. He acknowledges that there are legitimate expressions of violence, such as in the context of representing culture. Some examples of this are the violence of Shakespeare’s plays, or stories in the Bible. What Gerbner is rallying against is the violence for the sake of violence, which is most often coupled with violence with no consequence. This violence is evident in Jean Claude Van Damme blowing up buildings to get “the bad guy” without mention of the loss of innocent, civilian life. In some cartoons, when a person is hit by a car and flattened, cue the laugh track cause he’s going to get right back up again. This leads to a desensitization to real violence, something that is becoming a cultural norm as evidenced by the continued blind support by certain factions of our nation, despite the massive casualties. Those soldiers aren’t “real people” to everyone.
Additionally, Jackson Katz (1999) makes the argument that masculinity is synonymous with violence, and that “whiteness” is the norm, hence violence by white males is largely ignored in mainstream debate about violence in the media. This has given it free reign to be portrayed as heroic rather than criminal. “Real men”, young boys are told, are strong and aggressive and aren’t afraid to push people around to get what they want. Real men don’t cry or discuss or ask nicely, they just take. Further, male aggression is typically thought of as “genetically programmed”, which helps to justify its iconic inclusion in media.
Another strike against television is how it portrays different demographics, both the majority and the minorities. The most comprehensive breakdown, and subsequent argument for this, is the Children Now Prime Time Diversity Report (2000).
Television is the modern-day cultural storyteller and purveyor of oral history. Therefore, no matter what anyone may say, it does have a responsibility to offer an accurate portrayal of diversity in this world. But, according to Children Now, things on television are very much the same as they’ve always been, which is to say not true to life. Children Now found that a child engaging in their normal television habits would see a world where white children have more stable families and more involved than Latino children, where family is central to African-Americans, where Latinos serve as secondary characters in submissive roles, where homosexuals and disabled people are more prevalent, but are mostly white males, and where whites and Asians are more likely to be professionals, while African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to be service workers, unskilled laborers, or criminals, and Native Americans are mostly there to be “spiritual advisers”. The studies did find that there is an increasing diversity on television, but it is mainly found in dramas after 10 p.m., which is not when children are likely to be watching.
Comparing this article and its findings on the portrayal of African-Americans to Herb Boyd’s (1997) on the same topic as was current to the 1995-1996 television season is heartening. At the time of Boyd’s article, African-Americans were central almost exclusively in comedies. This, according to TV critic Donald Bogle as quoted in the article, means that we are no further evolved than the days of Beluah the maid.
A more frightening prospect is the portrayal of Arab-Americans, as presented by Little (1998). It compares the current impressions of Arab-Americans in the media to near-ancient stereotypes showing them as “wealthy, hedonistic princes; warlike, anti-American fanatics; or barbaric and repressive polygamists engaged in White slavery.” Further, Arabs and Muslims have become synonymous, as well as being synonymous with “crazed terrorists”. While the portrayal of African-Americans has improved, the portrayal of Arab-Americans has remained the same, certainly in the wake of September 11. The media always needs an “other” and for now, Arabs are it. And the worst part is, to speak out against it is the unpopular opinion right now.
Another false portrayal on television, highlighted by Richard Butsch (2002), is white males. Not the affluent, professional white male media darlings that make up the majority of television programming and the minority of real families, but the underrepresented blue collar working class white male. And in this case, the underrepresented becomes the misrepresented. These men are unilaterally seen as stupid, irresponsible, immature morons who can never keep up with their sensible, mature wives. They are not characters to be taken seriously, like their professional, wealthy counterparts higher up on the television food chain, but rather a group to be ridiculed. The problem in this lies with the producers, Butsch says. The majority of them grew up in middle-class homes and therefore have little to no experience with working-class life. So they perpetuate the stereotypes because it’s quicker and easier and it gets the show in by the deadline with a sizeable ratings payback. This argument can be applied to all the other stereotypes addressed by Children Now and the other articles.
These articles make the case that media is not “just entertainment”. There are clear facts presented that aren’t easily argued away. The fact that television is so accessible makes it easy to check on what the authors are saying. Also, what is possibly the most persuasive is that neither says that television is an absolute evil. Both are taking the standpoint that regulated—either self- or parent—television is still okay. There is a lot of good that can come from this medium, such as educational programming, information, and even the occasional entertainment. What they are arguing against is how pervasive television is in our culture, and how it continuously ignores the responsibility it has and denies the power it wields. As Samuel Goldwyn said, if one wanted to send a message, they should use Western Union because Hollywood is strictly an entertainment business.