The Problems with Television

By Bisher Tarabishy

"The medium is the message. Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without a knowledge of the way media work as environments" - Marshall McLuhan

During the past 50 years, a silent revolution in the way Americans receive their news has taken place. This revolution is so pervasive that it encompasses all social classes and races. It is the television revolution. In a period of 10 or so years, television spread so quickly that it became available to virtually all Americans regardless of their income. It has become the primary source from which Americans receive their news and also the primary means by which Americans entertain themselves. It has become so integral that the average American adult watches, on average, 5 hours of TV per day (Mander 76). Yet, few have stopped and asked how has this transition from a newspaper-radio based culture to a television based culture affected the way we perceive our world; how has it affected the way we think and discourse with others?

Unfortunately, television has trivialized our discourse and simplified our perception of our world. Style has superceded logic; selfish emotions have replaced understanding and empathy. Television manages to turn all its content, no matter how serious the producers intended it to be, into some form of entertainment. The world that is portrayed on television is almost completely devoid of details or substance. Television shows do not even scratch the surface of issues. Typical television news programs describe such complex issues such as economic downturns, political unrest, and balanced budget proposals, in just a few words.

The Medium Dictates its Content

Can this be blamed on the content of what is shown on television? Can television be improved only if its contents were improved? Most people would think so. They would argue that television is being used in the wrong way, that if we were to change its’ use and content then television can be become a positive influence on society. This, however, is very far from the truth.

The actual form of communication, the medium, one chooses in transferring ideas affects the way ideas are perceived at the other end. All media have certain biases. Neil Postman gives an effective example of this in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death:

… consider the primitive technology of smoke signals. While I do not know exactly what content was once carried in the smoke signals of American Indians, I can safely guess that it did not include philosophical argument. Puffs of smoke are insufficiently complex to express ideas on the nature of existence…. Its form excludes the content. (6-7)

Thus, smoke signals have a bias toward simple messages and away from complex arguments and theories. The form of the smoke signal medium dictated its content: simple shapes of smoke which can be seen from long distances and, thus, simple messages which can be communicated quickly over long distances.

The medium of television, likewise, dictates that all its content be some form of entertainment. True, one could argue that television could be used to broadcast a 3-hour lecture concerning the thermodynamics of water or some other obscure subject, but how often has one seen scholarly lectures broadcasted over network television. If we were to look at the use of television, in general, we would conclude that its primary aim is to entertain, that television favors entertainment over all other content.

An Analysis of the Television Medium

Why is it that television favors entertainment over other content? Television uses the picture as its primary means to communicate information. Unfortunately, the picture is an inherently non-rational medium which appeals directly to the senses. The photograph according to Postman:

… lacks a syntax, which deprives it of a capacity to argue with the world. As an "objective" slice of space-time, the photograph testifies that someone was there or something happened. Its testimony is powerful but it offers no opinions…. Photography is preeminently a world of fact, not of dispute about facts or of conclusions to be drawn from them…. It offers no assertions to refute, so it is not refutable. (72-73)

Pictures are nonverbal and therefore non-rational. Neither can they be strung together in an argument nor can they be refuted. They do not make outright clear statements nor can they deal with the abstract. A person can take a picture of the sea but cannot define the sea with a picture; that picture is only a fragment of a larger part.

Furthermore, pictures seem to have a bias toward style or pleasant appearances. When a person watches television and notices that the speaker is not exactly pleasing to look at, that person will either change the channel or form a bias against what that person is saying — even if the speaker was to argue cogently for some issue. That is probably why you will never find an unsightly protagonist or hero, their appearances would seriously affect their credibility as heroes.

Television, because of its bias toward style and away from rational argument, manages to turn its "discussions" and "debates" into an amusing exchange of clever comments. When Jerry Mander was cataloging the biases of television, he included the following:

Superficiality is easier than depth.

Short subjects with beginnings and ends are simpler to transmit than extended and multifaceted information. The conclusion is simpler than the process.

Linear information works better on television than information that comes as a matrix or has dimensions…. (325-326)

As Mander noted, television favors simplistic content, as not to confuse or lose the attention of its viewers. Most television "discussions" or "debates" do not go into any detail or describe the actual complexity of what is being discussed. They become, rather, a group of well groomed people battling to make the cleverest comment, completely avoiding details and facts. Only on television does outward appearance affect the credibility of one’s argument.

Ronald Reagan is a prime example of what I am talking about. A former actor, Reagan was expert at the use of style to sway the argument in his favor. He is the first true TV president who recognized the biases of the medium and used them to his advantage. During the 1982 presidential debates, for instance, Reagan was able to win the debate easily. His victory, however, did not come from the fact that he argued more persuasively, (He was unable to successfully reply to many of Walter Mondale’s arguments and, at many moments during the debate, appeared dumbfounded.) but rather, because he made the right comments, in the right tone, at the right time, and used facial expressions to his advantage. Thus, the presidential debate became some kind of entertainment.

As we have observed, it seems that most of what is shown on network television is, in some way or another, a form of entertainment. Television, because of it’s bias away from logic and depth and toward style, dictates that its contents be entertaining. Most of what is considered serious television is, in fact, neither serious nor insightful nor in any way profound. Rather, "serious" television is a form of entertainment, not an attempt at impartial discussion of events and their repercussions.

The problems with using television to communicate politics and current events become obvious after one considers the medium’s biases. Not only will viewers be ill-informed, and therefore incapable of developing accurate opinions, but they will also become susceptible to the glib and grandiloquence of political leaders who attempt to sway public opinion in favor of their interests. Television creates a population who can easily be persuaded in support of issues which benefit a certain segment of the population more than any other. The Gulf War is a perfect example during which public opinion was overwhelmingly for the war against Iraq when, in reality, war only benefited the interests of the oil companies.

In the final analysis, television seems only to have simplified our perception of the world. I do not call for the elimination of television, but I do wish that Americans would seek an alternative source for news. Newspapers, for example, contain so much more substance than does the average half-hour television show. In fact, if the words that the newscaster says in a typical nightly news program were to be written down, they would not even occupy the front page of a newspaper. Alternative sources of news would help keep the viewer informed and less prone to the irrational and selfish calls of many politicians. Furthermore, the viewer may be come better informed thus allowing him to develop more accurate perspectives on current events. The elimination of what is known as "serious" television and its replacement with more substantial media would be of benefit to all of us.