Hey, did you hear? Anna Nicole Smith died and there's a fight over her corpse. Also, there's genocide in Darfur, quite possibly because of something Howard K. Stern said.Over the last two weeks, I've been subjected to a rash of televised news about fluffy non-stories that I didn't care about. I bemoaned the state of American News Television and nodded knowingly when SNL (such a satire, that SNL) ran a skit that said the same thing.
Except here's the thing: I did sorta care about Anna Nicole Smith. And yes, I cared more about her than the genocide in Darfur. Does that make me a classless, shortsighted, anti-intellectual? Yep. It also makes me an American.
I'm gonna say it right now -- you're not allowed to complain about what's on television any more. I don't mean that you can't criticize it (god knows it deserves criticism -- I'm looking at you, last few episodes of Lost), I just mean that you, as an American, are no longer allowed to complain about the types of things that TV gives to you.
Mindless sitcoms? Useless news? Reality Show after Reality Show? Bill O'Reilly? All of them are evil and (probably) cause blindness and dementia, but all of them exist because people watch them. And when I say "people" I don't mean some amorphous and nameless blob -- I mean you. Reading this right now. That's right, take your finger out of your nose, I can see you.
Well, no, I can't see you (I don't work for the Department of Homeland Security). The point I'm trying to make is that when we talk about all the terrible stuff on television, we talk about "what the masses want" as if we're all Harold Bloom, splitting our time between PBS and writing literary analysis. Well, I've got bad news for you, unless you're actually, right now, living in an ivory tower and wearing a monocle, you are part of the masses. That's what the "masses" mean. It means you. And like all masses, you should down your opium and be done with it.
A quick lesson (obvious, but it stands repeating): Television is a reactive medium. Its whole goal is to GIVE US WHAT WE WANT. That's why they take ratings all the time. If something is bad and gets a lot of ratings, it gets renewed and cloned. If something is good but unwatched (hey remember how everybody loved Arrested Development except that nobody actually watched it?) it gets canceled. If, on the off chance something truly good actually gets eyeballs on it, the networks would respond. Believe me, if Masterpiece Theater all of a sudden got forty million viewers, you'd see the networks start churning out "class" just as quickly as they're currently churning out "crass."
Despite what you think about conspiracies (liberal or otherwise), television is the most neutral medium in the world. Like your bookie or your church, all it really cares about is making money. How it does that is by providing you with free entertainment that you watch and it, in turn, can charge advertisers for providing your attention to them. The more you watch, the more they can charge. It's a fairly simple equation. Jordan McDere aside, the actual CONTENT of those programs matter very little to programming executives. If you watch it, they'll put it on.
And ever since the news departments had to start making money like every other department at the network, the same goes for them. Maybe you could make the argument that Edward R. Murrow was fighting the good fight and giving America its castor oil whether she wanted it or not, but today every newsperson is, on some level, Ryan Seacrest on E! News Daily. They're just as desperate for ratings as any other show; the news, then becomes a sample of what America wants to hear about.
That's why I get so annoyed when I hear people bemoaning the state of television. They talk as if network executives are all sitting in a room somewhere twirling black mustaches and cooking up stories that no one wants to hear about despite America's THIRST for hard hitting news.
Executive: I want Anna Nicole Smith to be the lead today.
Hard Hitting Journalist: But what about the genocide in the Sudan? The third-world conditions of Walter Reed Hospital? The...
E: Whoa, whoa... let me ask you something. Do any of those things have boobs? I mean really really big boobs?
HHJ: Well, no... I suppose some of the nurses at Walter Reed...
E: Then I don't want to hear about it.
HHJ: But the American people are clamoring, CLAMORING for news about this. They can talk about nothing else. At every water cooler in the country, they're not talking about dead celebrities or sporting events, they're talking about African civil war! We need to have our show reflect that interest!
E: Do you think I care about ratings? Are you that naive? I don't care about ratings! I care about pushing my own agenda of meaningless news about big breasted celebrities! Anna Nicole! Brittany! Lindsay! Though her boobs are smaller than they used to be. I'm hoping for some re-boobage maybe after she puts some weight on in rehab!
HHJ: But why? Why would you keep the American people from hearing about what they WANT TO HEAR ABOUT?
E: Because I'm evil.
HHJ: Really? That's it?
E: Yep, I'm also uncomplicated. C'mon, let's go play squash and then after that make some sandwiches and then eat them in front of the homeless.
Yeah, that's not happening. In your heart of hearts, you don't believe it either. The big stories are ignored for the meaningless because people like you and me want it to be that way. For better or worse, TV news is a creation of our wants.
Now, you can debate whether this should be the case. You can say that perhaps TV owes its viewers an unbiased and fiscally-free news department that makes tough decisions about what we need to know about and presents those decisions without thinking about ratings.
TV COULD do that, but it won't. You know why? Because the second that unbiased and socially responsible show came on, you'd turn to My Super Sweet Sixteen.
And even if there is a plan for such a show, until then we have to live in the world that we created. Thus, Anna Nicole and not Darfur.
That's America folks. Maybe we really are Rome at the end of its empire, all bread and circuses, but I'm not going to complain. I'm just as bad as all of you. When someone on a news program starts talking about "carbon footprints" or Japanese whaling or the economics of China, I begin to glaze over and immediately flip to a show where someone gets voted off for something. Why? Because I'm an American, that's why. Being obsessed with the stupid is the luxury of the rich and powerful.
So this is for you, you Jerry Springer watchers! You American Idol voters! You Anna Nicole and Brangelina experts! You keep on keeping on. If the country (or even the world) should crumble around us, at the very least, you can claim convincingly that you had no idea that it was happening.
And I'll be right there on the couch with you.
Gone Too Soon: Invasion
Scrubs season nine -- An early look
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-09-2007 @ 11:33AM
Dennis said...
Gelukkig ben ik niet Amerikaans :)
But yeah, i think it is true, same goes all over the world. But I don't think government funded channels have news that is all about ratings. At least not here in the Netherlands.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 11:47AM
TomB said...
Sad but true, Joe.
I won't watch ANS coverage - but it doesn't matter because I'm not a Nielson household.
TV is a business and businesses exist to make money. Ratings mean money - it's as simple as that.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:01PM
J Sim said...
Talk about a worthless commentary. Television doesn't give me what I want or many others on this board what they want.
Instead it gives a certain smaller group what they want. By this I mean advertisers, shareholders and certain demographic groups.
Network TV caters to advertisers and their demands are to gather the biggest share of viewers 18 to 34 years old. Basically, if they can get 40% of the 80 million people in this age group to watch their programming they've succeeded. So network TV caters to ~30M out of the country's 300M people.
On top of that, is there a group out there (besides network shareholders)that wants a year of programming to consist of 20 new episodes intermixed with 32 reruns or alternative programs?
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:03PM
Bill said...
Interesting that you praise TV while crapping all over it. And just after the Sarah Silverman article where she generates a lot of publicity by offending people, you're all over the map, with digs at churches, O'Reilly, Lost, jouranlists, and monacle-wearers. I hope it works out well.
http://popculturejunk.blogspot.com/
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:11PM
erroneous_nick said...
Agreed, Bill. It's a pattern with the bloggers at TV Squad and a pattern that's tiresome.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:14PM
Blackgem said...
*cough* BBC *cough*
Ok, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and some of it's programming is just a dumbed down as the rest of it. But being publically funded, it has actually got an explicit duty to deliver "unbiased and fiscally-free news".
I think you may be presenting an over-simplistic view of the impact of TV and the relationship between ratings and public demand. A lot of hard-hitting or high-brow programmes don't get made because of the belief that they won't do well. If they do, they can get killed through poor advertising or time-slots (oh Firefly, how we lament you) or appear on premium cable channels so don't get the same level of exposure (see... well most HBO dramas reallly).
News coverage may also suffer from cause-effect problems. Ie, because TV news may have a reputation of dumbing down or poor coverage, those who really are interested in hard-hitting items will ignore it and find other news outlets...
*gets down off soap box* of course I'm not American either...
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:17PM
CaliberSRT4 said...
TV pretty much crap anyways...what is on tv is what our society in America is about basically. I have given up on tv except for a few shows like House and whatever is on the weekend (simply cause I have night classes mon. - thursday 7-10) But with that aside everyone doesn't have a Neilson box, so not everyone may care about ANS or the war in Iraq or Darfur.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:19PM
Steve said...
Honestly, Bill... shut up. Did you actually read the article, or did you just scan it for keywords?
There was a story about two years back (maybe it appeared on this very site) about some CBS affiliate that decided that they were going to do the type of news show they could be proud of. No "news you can use," no human interest pieces, just hard-hitting stories, with time given for real analysis.
It lasted about 3 months, if I recall.
The number one newspaper is USA Today, the number 1 film is currently Wild Hogs, the number one album is from a Nickelback-style American Idol castoff. Jay's right -- we can criticize and critique, but this crap is only being made because enough people swallow it to make it profitable. Every time some idealistic network guy puts something worthwhile on tv, it gets rave critical reviews, we applaud it on these forums... then we watch "American Idol" instead.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:32PM
John Howard said...
If you can't find something you like on TV these days, then you just don't like TV period. Sure, there is a lot of crap, but there is plenty of other stuff as well. I think people just like to complain.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:38PM
Dwayne Conyers said...
I do switch between the US news channels (Fox, MSNBC and CNN) and BBC World News... and no surprise that the BBC does have more of a balanced view of the world than our channels.
Fancy that...
--
dwacon
http://dwacon.blogspot.com
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 12:48PM
Bill said...
Steve: I read the article. I thought it made some good points, and I agree with a lot of them. I complain about shows I love being cancelled, but as hard as it is to believe, more people. I should learn to accept that, and just be happy that I got three seasons of a show that only a small audience cared about.
My comment was in jest (I hope the inclusion of the monacle-wearers in the list of groups to be offended conveyed that point). I mostly made the joke because I'm not so great at making serious points without getting long-winded, which I'm sure will come off in how long this comment is.
But the joke was based around the fact that Jay seemed to be making a conscious effort to be controversial. "Like your bookie or your church, all it really cares about is making money," linking O'Reilly's name to the wikipedia article about the devil, the word "american" linking to a picture of a fat, angry woman in a flag shirt... among the good points are a number of asides that seem like bait for people to get upset about.
And I think it's a very valid way to hook people into the article, generate discussion, etc. Obviously, since I've ignored your request to shut up, I'm one of the ones hooked by it, so it worked on at least me.
Anyway, I hope that cleared things up.
http://popculturejunk.blogspot.com/
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 1:10PM
wes said...
I watch only what I like when I like. I do not have a cable carrier or a satellite dish.
Can I complain?
I got rid of my cable before Anna Nicole, rest in peace, passed from this life.. Which was probably the best thing I could have done. The only mention of it I had in my life was my blogs and The a la carte Daily Show and Colbert Shows I purchase. I don't care about Anna Nicole. I do care about Darfur, I do care about MY Carbon footprint. I care b/c I'm a HUMAN BEING before I'm an American, who's riches and power degrade every day.
I'm afraid it's gonna take something like a nuclear catastrophe or world war to get us back to thinking like we belong to a species capable of more than Jerry Springer and American Idol -- (which I watch, for the singing).
Anyways this mentality is what lead us to the last 6 years of a Presidency w/the same mentality. It's got to stop. I hope to God it's cyclical and we'll get past this and your, in my opinion, frightening mentality.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 1:10PM
erroneous_nick said...
I really had no problem with his joke about the church's main goal being to make money. There's a lot of truth in it for most churches I've attended. The hook that got me, always gets me, is the political jab which is always aimed at conservatives.
Yeah, I'm a one-note bitcher, but TV Squad's only got a single note when it comes to politics so I balance their note with mine.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 1:21PM
Chris W said...
"I'm afraid it's gonna take something like a nuclear catastrophe or world war to get us back to thinking like we belong to a species capable of more than Jerry Springer and American Idol -- (which I watch, for the singing)."
I watch Springer for the singing too.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 1:38PM
RBear said...
I agree with you completely. And this is a fact that I hate about myself. As much as I worry about Global Warming, I thinking -"How long does a paternity test take? Danilynn needs a dad!" I know too many facts about famous people and still can't tell the difference between the sunis or sheites. It is no wonder tv morphs to us.
I agree that if we changed what was important to us, tv would follow suit. I applaud the actors that try to get our focus on important problems in other counties. Perhaps if we are watching them, we will continue to watch them as they expose the troubles in the world. Sadly, Angelina has alerted me to more problems than the news! I also applaud you - gutsy article for a site devoted to tv!
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 2:22PM
Borat said...
No Jay, the purpose of news networks is not to give what the people WANT, it's what they NEED to hear.
Seriously, all this celebrity worship and adulation has GOT TO STOP. I hate all these Lindsay Lohans and Britney Spears but as much as I try to avoid them I know what they did for the last few weeks or so. Why? Because it's on every frickin' news channel. I get most of my news from the internet. There are people dying in Iraq everyday, yet all people care about is a talentless whore who couldn't even take care of her 2 children.
Oh and you should make the distinction between "Mindless sitcom" and "Useless News". Sitcoms are supposed to provide entertainment, the "news networks" are not.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 3:11PM
RSL said...
Jay, I stopped reading your essay right about the time you resorted to the lazy populist critiques of Lost. If you'd effin' bothered to watch the show lately, you'd know that they've been delivering some of their very best episodes. Whatever it is you're trying to say might have been well thought out but when you use such cliched jabs, I'm afraid your baby is gonna get tossed out with the all too recycled bathwater.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 3:46PM
malren said...
"9. If you can't find something you like on TV these days, then you just don't like TV period."
John Howard is 100% correct. I actually don't have time to watch everything that is good on TV right now. I work from home and barely put in a 6 hour day...I STILL don't have time.
All you have to do is look around. Between cable, satellite and let's face it, illegal downloading - you have access to every TV show currently airing. There is a lot of great quality out there, you just have to be willing to 1. look for it and 2. stop watching crap just because it's on.
Reply
3-09-2007 @ 7:01PM
Bob Jones said...
No, government funded channels are worse, they distort truth and output vitriolic rhetoric like everybody else, but then demand your money for the privellige of listening to something which accounts to nothing more than a dictators Fox News.
Reply