Basic HTML Version
the home, readily accessible and re–
quiring no great talent to employ,
·appeals to our laziness. Most televi–
sion programming neither laxes our
brains nor inspires our spirits. And
this is why, in our sloth, we find
it
easier to tlip on lelevision than en–
gage in any number of other, more
beneficia! activities.
Indeed, psychologist Thomas
Hanna has made the same point. He
wonders whether our tendency lo
watch too much television says
something less than complimentary
about us spiritually: "Marshall
McLuhan has written much about
how the medium of television modi–
fies human perceplion in a radical
way. That may be true, bul it is not
the point of greatest importance.
"What is of poignant importance
is the extraordinary fact that so
many millions of human beings
spend a major part of their existence
habitually watching a television
screen. That there are so many mil–
lions of Americans who are
so unresourceful, uncreat ive, un–
spontaneous and unalive and that
they cannot help being drawn to a
television set during their free time,
that is the wonder.
lt
is as if they
had nothing else to do. It is as if
their world of possibilities was so
tight and restricted that there really
wasn't anything they could do. That
so many millions of originally vital
and self-sufficient Americans have
somehow grown so spiritually bored
and so physically diminished that
they should spend their days dulled
and hypnotized by a play of im–
ages-that is the central cultural is–
sue raised by commercial
television."
But there are other reasons why
we should be leery of the medium.
Not only does most television pro–
gramming have a negative effect on
the quality of our individual lives,
but also on our whole society.
Consider the "mad prophet"
Howard Beale's indictment of tele–
vision in the movie
Network:
"There
is an entire generation right now
who never knew anything lhat
didn't come out of this tube! This
tube is the ultimate revelation! This
tube can make or break presidents,
popes, and prime minis ters !"
The point is that television dis–
torts society's grasp of reality.
It
cre-
26
ates its own artificial reality: Events
which don't rate time on the 6
o'clock news don't make as great an
impact on the public consciousness.
It
is almost as if something really
doesn't exist, or isn't really an issue
unless it is legitimized by being tele–
vised.
The television reality, for the
most part, is a sterile one. The uní–
verse of lhe si't-coms is a universe in
which God doesn't exist- except as
a swear word. Perhaps the acknowl–
edgment of His presence would
make audiences feel uncomfortable.
Television has had other dubious
effects on our society. ll has made us
all a little bit more illiterate: Wit–
ness the furor over declining college
The danger of television
is that we can literally
waste our lives by
spending too much time
in front of it. In contrast,
the apostle Paul said,
"Redeem the time,
because the days are evil."
board scores. It has made our cul–
ture bland and insipid. Partly be–
cause of television, regional accents
aren' t as distinctive as they once
were.
It
certainly has contributed to
our universally shortened attent ion
spans.
It
has adversely affected the
health and physical fitness of our
entire nation, most alarmingly
among tradilionally vibranl and
energetic youth. And lhere seems lo
be a large body of evidence lhat it
has played a role in causing violent
crime, particularly amongjuveniles.
But the truly frightening potential
of television líes in the possibility
that it could be used lo create a
totalitarian " 1984" society.
It
is dis–
turbing, even now, to realize that a
comparatively small group of net–
work executives and their immedi–
ate staffs control, via their intluence
on major network programming,
much of what goes into many
people's consciousness.
Equally disturbing is lhe fact that
very recently a mind-control tech–
nique was used by a television sta–
tion (wilh FCC permission) in an
attempt to communicale with a sus–
pecled mass murderer. During two
newscasts, two or lhree frames offilm
conlaining the message "conlacl the
chief" were interspersed among
frames about lhe killings. This was a
subliminal message which appeared
on the screen for only a fraction of a
second-too brietly for lhe eye to
consciously see, but long enough to
implanta subconscious suggestion in
the viewer's mind.
In this instance, subliminal sug–
gestion was used for good. But it
could also be used for unspeakable
evil. Will the day ever come when
governments use this power to dom–
ínate the minds of their popu–
lations?
Television's potential in helping
develop a 1984 sociely is enormous.
Those who control programming
can use their power to create lhe
"publjc consciousness." Even loday,
programming is conlrolled to the
extent that only orthodox, staid,
conventional visions of reality are
allowed lo go out over the airwaves.
Lel us hope that the move for more
channels and grealer diversity of
programming will stand as a check
against such potential abuses.
Again, the point is, while lelevi–
sion may be a fine technological in–
novation,
it
still seems to be doing
us , on balance, more harm than
good.
Of course, there are many good
programs. Yes, travelogues offer us
the chance to experience various
locales and cultures at little cost,
and documentaries give us the
chance to "meet" people whom we
will probably never see
in
person.
But most of us, most of the time,
watch .. .
Laverne and Shirley!
And
that is the reason why television
ought not to be celebrated, but re–
ceived skeptically; why television
affords us an opportunity to exercise
selectivity and moderation; why
television, as severa! authors have
pointed out, is a potent drug which
should be so respected as to be
taken in very minute quantities.
O
The
PLAIN TRUTH October-November 1978