TV Good, TV Bad: Now We Can Choose

by Jim Mikles
Fall 1997

We blame television for everything from the failure of our children to learn mathematics to the general moral decay of modern civilization. We credit TV with bringing the world into peoples' homes and turning the earth into a true "global community" (not to mention a planet with cleaner laundry and fresher breath).

While there is little debate that television is generally recognized as the most powerful and influential mass communication medium ever invented (perhaps with the notable exception of Guttenberg's printing press), the argument still rages about whether TV is an inherently "good" or "bad" thing.

Who hasn't, after all, wasted time watching some piece of undeserving TV flotsam simply because "there was nothing else on?" Who also hasn't viewed a major sporting event, or a political debate, or a favorite movie, or something on TV, and come away feeling enriched from the experience?

This conflicted nature is the result of programming directors, advertising moguls and other assorted content magicians trying to predict what will win viewers from a certain audience, in a certain place at a certain time. Driven by Nielsen ratings and advertising rates, the Madison Avenue mentality that dominates TV culture decrees that whatever sells is "good," even if the actual television content is "bad."

In this environment, of course TV is going to have some obvious faults. It highlights the consumer's lack of control over content, for one thing, which has always been the medium's greatest weakness.

Studies performed over the last 50 years or so clearly show that if you feed enough people--especially children--a steady diet of dumbed-down, half-baked sex, violence and otherwise mindless drivel, they will watch it for lack of a better, healthier choice and start to relate what they see to their own lives. This eventually perpetrates itself through some kind of negative social reaction like sexual promiscuity or desensitivity to violence or eating heavily processed junk foods.

Though advertising has dominated television culture and been its driving force, selling things isn't all that TV is capable of. With the appropriate technology, and in the right hands--your hands--TV can be a refreshing tonic of enlightenment, education, entertainment and enrichment. You'll see.

There are several common beliefs regarding the negative effects of TV on our lives that could be changed with the integration of new technology that allows viewers to control their television content in ways never before available.

Does TV Steal Our Time?

Although the verdict is still out on television's inherent proclivity toward good or evil, its nearly complete penetration into our society is undeniable. For better or worse, television is something we all have in common, and barring unforeseen global disaster, it will be with us well into the future.

Consider these statistics from the Media Education and Dove foundations:

About 95 percent of all U.S. households have at least one TV set.
Almost 80 percent of all U.S. households have at least two TV sets.
Nearly 50 percent of all U.S. households have a TV set in a child's room.
The average U.S. household views the television 6-7 hours per day.
By the time most children start the first grade, they will have spent more time in front of the television than they will spend inside a college classroom.

These numbers illustrate the penetration and potential power of TV, but its value to us as individuals and as a society remains suspect in the minds of many. Part of this suspicion stems from the available programming choices, but on a more basic level, if there is something we deem valuable and we want to watch it, we traditionally have had little or no control over when it is available to us. We have essentially become slaves to our television, letting it dictate when or whether we will see the programming we desire.

Millions of viewers addicted to the popular show The X-Files, for example, were shocked and dismayed when the Fox network moved the program from Friday to Sunday nights last season. If your entire weekly schedule had been arranged around having the Friday night time slot available, that had to be changed. But as good and loyal viewers, change it we did, and in one fell swoop the lives of millions were altered at the whim of some faceless programming committee.

If, on the other hand, we enjoyed the power to dictate when that programming was available to us, wouldn't that be refreshing? It's already possible to program a VCR to record what we want, but the technology has been notoriously unwieldy. With the advent of new, point-and-click select and record VCR devices, this is likely to change. If we shift our TV viewing model from television "as available," to television "as requested," we have regained control over our time.

Does TV Cause Short Attention Spans?

Hype and glitz are standard TV fare, often replacing substance with nifty effects that quickly grab our attention but offer us little in the way of enriching content. The logic here says that because of a viewer's tendency to continually browse the channels looking for something worthwhile to watch, unless broadcasters employ some gimmick to get him to stop at their channel, he'll pass right over it. Like the barkers at the county fair, television entices us with promises of bizarre and spectacular sights. And like gawking spectators, we walk down the aisles, paying our nickels to only the loudest and most persistent sales pitch.

The increase in channel capacity has already begun to reverse this trend. With the multiplication of channels through cable and satellite technology, we've seen the birth of networks aimed at narrower interests and focused more on substance than on glitz. As capacity continues to increase and television and the Internet become more integrated, we can expect to see even more content that exercises, rather than shortens, our attention spans.

Does TV Reduce our Intelligence?

Studies performed on people passively watching television indicate that our brain activity may be lower in front of the TV than it is when we are asleep. (Thus the term, "vegging out.") Like any muscle, the brain must be exercised to remain strong and healthy. If we are spending as much time on our couches and in front of our TVs as studies indicate, we are risking flabby brains along with flabby bodies. Improved subject matter--educational, informational, entertaining, interactive--creates mentally stimulating television.

As we take control of the TV and use it as a device that actually causes us to think, and learn and grow, this greatly enhances its value in our lives.

Does TV Aim At The Lowest Common Denominator?

Even in this new digital, interactive age, one thing about broadcast, cable and satellite TV that is unlikely to change is its reliance on advertising to sustain it. Historically, this created the need to draw the largest numbers of viewers by offering content that appealed to the lowest common denominator. But the need to do this is changing.

The traditional broadcast model aims at making money by attracting audiences in the multiple millions. Cable networks have shown, however, there is still money to be made by attracting viewer numbers closer to one-million because advertisers will pay handsomely to target a very specific audience. Expect this trend toward catering to small, highly-interested audiences to continue as channels multiply further and the millions of Internet offerings become available on the living room TV.

Does TV Undermine Democracy?

Television promotes homogeny and largely defines the boundaries of our political and social debate. In this context, at least during the last 30 years or so, those individuals without a voice or opinion receiving air time on television have been stifled in their ability to promote their views in the so-called "free marketplace of ideas." This has resulted in the "mainstreaming" of American politics, and has moved all popular social and political discourse to a narrowly defined region in the middle of the road. Whether or not this phenomenon actually undermines democracy is a contentious subject, but new TV technology will greatly expand what content is available to us through our television sets.

Consider interactive television. If we know anything about the Internet (which includes the World Wide Web), we know it is largely unregulated (at least up to now), and it allows anyone equal access and ability to post his or her views and opinions. The Internet has become the last, true free marketplace for all ideas, and unless that changes through regulation, as the TV and the Internet become more compatible, then the TV will become the conduit for a greater expression of social and political discourse.

Mirror or Manipulator

The one-way nature of the television has always been its greatest weakness, but a question that has never been fully answered is whether TV acts as a mirror, reflecting our weaknesses as a society and culture, or as a manipulative tool, used by various forces to control how and what we think and do. The answer is probably some combination of each, as TV has been used for both good and ill purposes and caused both good and ill effects.

With affordable, easy-to-use technology becoming available that will allow us to control our TVs in a way never before possible, however, we at last have the chance to answer this question once and for all.

For better or worse, the decisions we make will give form to a new generation of TV content.

--Jim Mikles is associate editor of Smart TV.

What do you think of the future of TV? Post your opinion on the Smart TV Forum at www.smarttvmag.com.

Glossary

As the television and technology environment evolves, here are a few terms to keep in mind when assessing the impacts and implications of this bravely wired new world.

Analog TV The current method of transmitting and receiving TV signals that allows communication in one direction only: from provider to user.

Aspect ratio The ratio of the width of a viewing screen to its height.

Digital TV (DTV) The coming method of transmitting and receiving video. The American format probably will allow for high-resolution TV images, the creation of many new broadcast channels and compatibility with computer monitors.

Interactive television Television that allows two-way communication between the provider and the user. This makes possible such services as pay-per-view, and Web access through the TV set and could develop into video-on-demand and interactive programs in the future.

Net-top box A device that attaches to a TV set to allow the user to access the Internet.

Multichannel decentralization The shift in the broadcasting industry from dominance by a few broadcast networks to competition among a large number of independent networks. This could be engendered by the opening of many new channels by DTV and satellite and cable compression technologies.

Set-top box A device that attaches to a TV set to allow the user to interact with providers of video, audio and other information. Set-top boxes currently tune in cable or satellite programs. Soon, they will come equipped with interactive on-screen programming guides, Web browsers and, in a few years, credit card scanners and the capacity for video-on-demand.

Terrestrial-antenna television broadcasting Traditional broadcast TV method: transmits a TV signal from an earth-bound antenna to the home.

Vertical integration A euphemism for one company's control of all facets of a particular market. In particular, there has been noteworthy integration of ownership between content-providing companies (e.g. Microsoft) and conduit-providing companies (e.g. Comcast).

Video-on-demand A method for storing and accessing TV programs, movies and other content so they may be viewed at any time the user desires.

-- Don Keller