Thanks for posting.
There are three basic and not-mutually exclusive ways in which recreational TV programming (as opposed to news TV, if there is still a difference, which is a separate discussion) and society can interact. 1) TV can shape society (society can reflect TV). 2) Society can shape TV (TV can reflect society). 3) TV and society can co-exist without either significantly shaping or reflecting the other.
(I also distinguish between the programming or content, and the simple
FACT of TV. I believe there is definitely an impact from the hours spent sitting basically motionless in front of a medium absorbing without needing to think about or interact with what you are doing, as opposed to engaging in activities in which you need to interact with people or use your body. But that has to do with the very existence of the medium, not with what is put on the medium. Frankly, I think there is a fairly minimal relationship between the programming and the number of people watching -- many people will watch TV almost no matter what is on. They prefer show A to show B, but if show A isn't on they will go to show B rather than turn it off. The Times article and the issues it raises seem to deal with content, not mere existence.)
With regard to content issues, then, for all the claims by certain people that TV causes anti-social or violent behavior, the studies I have seen generally don't bear this out. For the most part, I think TV follows rather than leads. That's why certain shows work for a while, then stop working.
I loved All in the Family at the time it was on. It was talking about the issues I was then living with, it was making points that we had only begun to say publicly. It reflected very accurately where I was and where I was going. But it didn't change my thinking at all; it simply reflected it in a positive way. Perhaps it made it a bit more comfortable to say certain things -- one could sometimes quote AITF to help soften a point -- but it didn't change anybody's thinking much.
About five years ago I went down nostalgia lane and bought a set of tapes from AITF. I found them boring, insipid, and frankly rather stupid, and wondered why I had loved the show so much.
Similarly, M*A*S*H reflected several popular trends -- disrespect of the military, laughing at the strict military types (I remember how funny we found the ROTC boys back then -- until the worm changed and we began to have respect for them again), the frat boy approach to sex. They fit the mood of the country. But today, they are hardly funny.
So IMO, the best TV reflects where society is in the process of going. It is almost possible (though going a bit to far) to say that good sitcoms are looks two to three years into a future that is in the process of unfolding.
In that regard, the change in sitcoms DOES reflect the changes in society. Parents who used to be respected and admired are now considered passe and out-of-it. (Trust me, I have three teenage children, I KNOW.) The singles scene was once viewed as exciting and glamorous (Charlies Angles to Baywatch), but as singles have aged a grittier reality has set in (Frazier and Seinfeld). The medical profession was once respected and admired (Marcus Welby, MD), but lost its luster (St. Elsewhere). TV didn't cause that change; it reflected it. Lawyers use to be seen as crusaders for justice (Perry Mason); now greed and glitter predominate (LA Law). Police work used to be family friendly (The hilarious show in the station house which I forget the name of, but the detective room with the holding tank right there, CHIPS), but lost its distance and luster and was seen as a gritty and dirty business (Hill Street Blues, COPS). I could go on, or you can make up your own lists.
If sitcoms are becoming fractured and divergent, so is society. Where once a town had one or two churches and one school, now it has a broad number of sects and alternative schools and home schooling. Where once there were two political parties, now we have multiple parties, some of them even getting reasonable numbers of votes (isn't there a Green party elected official in California? Jesse Ventura, Ross Perot, etc.). The dream of the melting pot where all the separate elements lost their separate identities and formed a new, cohesive entity is giving way to the reality of a not very good stew with all the pieces floating around in the same kettle but staying distinct and identifiable and not producing a very tasty meal when eaten together.
And TV reflects this change. |
