Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Great TV Debate

By Monica Mehta, AlterNet. Posted June 10, 2005.


Does television have a place in the progressive agenda? Why should we pay attention to it, and what does it do for us?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong For Atheists To Convert Believers?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Don't Fear the Deficit Bogeyman
John Miller

DrugReporter:
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Jim Hightower

Environment:
White House Garden Won't Make Up for Obama's Nomination of Pesticide Lobbyist for US Chief Agriculture Negotiator
Jill Richardson

Food:
Don't Be Scared of Food: Are We Being Needlessly Hysterical About Food Safety?
David E. Gumpert

Health and Wellness:
47,000 Women Could Die As a Result of the New Mammogram Guidelines
George Lakoff

Immigration:
Republican Playbook on Immigration Debate Long on Emotions, Short on Facts
Mary Giovagnoli

Media and Technology:
The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik

Politics:
White House's Ties to Health Care Industry Deeper Than Visitor Records Show
Daniela Perdomo

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Can't We Look Away From Sarah Palin?
Vanessa Richmond

Rights and Liberties:
Whatever Happened to the CIA Black Sites?
David Corn

Sex and Relationships:
Hot Mormon Muffins and Models for Jesus: What's With All the Sexy Christians?
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Is Obama Following in the Footsteps of Bill Clinton?
Jeff Cohen

More stories by Monica Mehta

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece on the TV networks' new fall season offerings, and made the controversial decision to recommend a few to our thoughtful, politically conscious audience. Among my picks were two political shows -- one featuring a female president -- and two legal shows focusing on innocent defendants. I added Martha Stewart's new helm at "The Apprentice," because she's become the latest icon of corporate corruption and news junkies like me might be interested in seeing an episode. I started the sub-heading with the disclaimer, "For those of us who haven't thrown our TV sets out the window."

What followed was a flurry of comments from readers who, it seems, have thrown their TVs out the window -- or have permanently fixed the knob to PBS.

One reader said s/he "object[ed] to an article praising corporate T.V. These shows are more of the same corporate B.S. and [an] article shilling for them was beneath a wonderful publication such as AlterNet."

Another suggested "stay dumb, lobotomized and buy this swill that passes for innertainment."

Many of the comments shunned broadcast TV altogether. But I'd wager that most of our TV-watching readers do, in fact, turn their dials to ABC, NBC, CBS, and even Fox once in awhile, and I suggested shows with themes of interest -- most of which espoused some progressive values (a woman in the White House, innocent prisoners caught in the system). I don't think that people who want to indulge in a little guilty pleasure after a long day of work are evil, moronic, or lobotomized. And I, along with the other editors, don't think a website like AlterNet should be above addressing that fact every so often -- albeit in a responsible way, such as recommending shows with relevant themes.

After I read some of the comments, another thought occurred to me: This might be a small part of the reason why some of us were so stunned when Bush won. We're simply out of touch.

As progressives who want to create change, we don't have the luxury of ignoring TV, or mainstream pop culture. Those who want to stay in their enclave of highbrow culture should by all means do so. But those who are interested in seeing change must have their finger on the pulse of America, and these days -- unfortunately or not -- network TV provides a few beats of that pulse. It's similar thinking that went into the advice a journalism professor had for her shocked students after the November election: that they do a stint at a newspaper in a red state.

We have to know what the other side is thinking; we can't be so stuck in our bubble that we don't know what's going on outside it, and then complain when we realize that everybody else doesn't think like us.

I'm not suggesting that by watching the shows I wrote about, readers will be suddenly attuned to America and able to right the country's wrongs. Nor am I suggesting that by watching lots of TV, we'll win the next election and all the other battles we're currently waging. Television may well be the opiate of the masses, and I understand people's refusal to watch it. My nephews, ages 10 and 7, have never had a TV in their house, and, barring any bias, I do believe evenings spent reading instead of watching Pokemon had a large part in making them the thoughtful children that they are (the older one is, in fact, a kid pundit for Jon Stewart's "Daily Show").

But for change-seekers, by discounting a medium that 98 percent of American households watch, we're not going to know whom we're fighting to represent. "Everybody Loves Raymond" was a top-watched show for nine years, mostly because viewers loved seeing their own tribulations played out: making a marriage work; raising kids; dealing with meddling in-laws; battling life's mundane practicalities. And we might be missing out on subtle progressive trends that may reflect society at large, even as Republicans wage an all-out war against alternative lifestyles. More than 22 million Americans tuned in this season to make "Desperate Housewives" the third most-watched show on TV. "Housewives" portrays all sorts of anti-"Focus on the Family" themes, like the cohabitation of unmarried couples, single moms who have a sex life, and gay children. (But when the gay son came out, the Republican mom had a fitting breakdown.) Plots involving gay characters are in a number of top shows, including "Will & Grace" and "ER." Most recently, a assistant district attorney was fired unfairly, because she was a lesbian, on a network TV staple: "Law & Order."

I reiterate that the majority of network TV shows aren't worth the electricity they expend. But there is something to be learned by studying what it is everyone's watching, from the frustrations of the average American to the changing moral standards of the day.

Be assured that we will continue to cover a lot of worthwhile, independent culture -- and shows on PBS. But if we ignore mainstream culture, we would be doing a disservice to our readers. We do live in this country, and we do want change; in the meantime, we must know whom we're trying to reach, and whom they're listening to.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Monica Mehta is an associate editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement