Re: The Great Television Debate

[Ralph Dumain <rdumain@xxxxxxx>]

I'm inclined to agree that one cannot attribute causal powers to TV or
viewing it alone.  If so we would all be helpless gullible prisoners of the
culture industry and I don't believe that everyone reacts to what they see
the same way.  Also, given the need of the industry itself to come up with
new product, esp. when there are diminishing returns on endless imitations
of any innovation, it is also possible for writers, directors, and actors,
to sneak in some good stuff.  The bottom line is that the advertiseers are
content with their sales figures.  Nor do I think there is always a
conspiracy involved in the stuff that is .... questionable.

What we are missing is an analysis of narrative conventions that rule the
genres we see on TV.  Whn I first began watcing TRAPPER JOHN and the
others, I was really appalled.  It took years for me to realize that even
the ideology that all conflicts are resolvable and we are in the end all
one big happy family (the concesus theory of American hsitory) is not the
only reason we see what we see.  Tension, conflict, resolution of conflict,
happy ending, etc., are all narrative conventions which hold people's
attention.  Chracrers we can love or hate, even we if hate the ones we are
suposed to live, and vice versa, all these things hold our attention.

So I would agree that we need a more refined analysis of the content and
structure of ths material we see, or otherwise we cannot understand the
most elementary responses, let alone the higher-level ones.

In appealing to the lowest common denominator, it should be evident that
what is most convenient for the culture industry are the conventions that
are most familar to the audience and require the least effort to be
perceived and hence attended to.  Quite likely social brainwashing is more
of an unintended effect than a cause of product.  Or at least nowadays, for
there was a time when network censorship was very strict and control of
content was even more important than the bottom line.  This was certainly
the case through the end of the 1960s, at least.

Inceidentally, on the quesiotn of stupidity, I probably gave a wrong
impression.  I'm not at all assuming that the more educated people are
necessarily the more astute, esp. where the left is concerned.  The most
idiotic spectators I know are highly educated cultural lefties, who simply
have transferred their enthusiasms from the high culture of old to the new
media cuilture of today.  The hipbousie as the most consumer conscisou
section of the population is alsio the most suspectible to lowbrow
entertainment--violent action films, TV shows, sports, etc.  The cultural
studies types.  These people are much worse that the uneducated.  I used to
be able to trash Spike Lee's films to my uneducateed working class black
compadres, but to open up a mouth against Spike Lee in the face of the
hipbousie--it was sacrilege to them!  So there is a question of individual
reception, and not just the reception of whole demographic blocs.

My mother will not watch network TV and only watches public TV, not becuase
she is hoity toity but becuase she thinks today's programs full of
violence, action, hi-tech special effects, etc., are dehumanizing, and
don't deal with real human beings; the talk shows are stupid and degrading,
etc.  And besides, she reads a book a day, so there are other ways of using
one's leisure time.  Obviously a good role model.  When I fessed up a few
months ago about some of the shit I watch she said: "I'm so disillusioned,
Ralph.  I thought you were an intellectual."

At 11:50 AM 6/8/99 -0700, Matthew Levy wrote:
>Simon, Ralph, Rustum,