Thoughts on the vast wasteland

I enjoy reading The Christian Science Monitor. It's the only news and public affairs publication I feel it worth my money to subscribe to (aside from my local paper). I like the CSM because it offers quality, in-depth journalism on a wide variety of political and social issues. Not dumbed down info-tainment on celebrity trials and presidential fellatio.

Another reason I like the CSM is because its op-ed pages often runs commentaries by people I strongly disagree with. I find this extremely interesting. A lot of people subscribe to the 'echo chamber' philosophy. They only converse with or read commentaries by people they agree with. Only by exposing yourself to differing opinions can your own opinions evolve; not doing so causes them to stagnate. In that regard, it's useful to know what the other side thinks. And maybe you just might change your mind. Though you shouldn't do it on every issue, only fanatics never, ever change their mind.

Anyway, I was interested to read this commentary by Brett Bozell of the Parents Television Council. The PTC is one of the country's most vocal busy-body groups. Its objective is to make sure the television industry trembles every time someone dares think outside the box. Its objective is to make sure Middle America (whatever that means) never sees anything that offends its sensibilities, such as gays or liberals.

I actually agree with some of Bozell's judgements on Hollywood. There's too much violence on TV. I don't totally object to all bad language or sexual content provided it has artistic merit or is somehow necessary to the story; I don't care for those things when they are gratuitous. This is why I can enjoy Robin Williams and George Carlin but can't listen to Howard Stern.

I think a certain segment of culture is overrepresented on the TV airwaves. Specifically young, white, non-rural, good looking. This is probably because young, white, urbanites are a disproportionate part of the TV industry; they do what they know.

This is a bipartisan issue, claims Bozell.

Fox News also asked, "Do you think Hollywood is in touch with the life of the average American, or is Hollywood out of touch with most Americans?" Nineteen percent said Hollywood's in touch; 72 percent, out of touch. Showing that this issue crosses party lines, 61 percent of Democrats agreed Hollywood does not reflect the values of most Americans.

He writes quite a bit about how most Americans polled believe Hollywood is having a negative affect on national morality (whatever that means). I don't think television helps in this regard, but I don't think it hurts as much as Bozell and others claim. If you are raised properly by your family, the entertainment industry isn't going to affect your morality that much. Personally, I listen to a lot of music that has "colorful" language. It doesn't cause me to go and curse like a sailor around kids. Suggesting that people have more casual sex merely because they see it on TV is as absurd as saying if you give a teen a condom, he'll automatically have sex.

Bozell concludes that Hollywood is massively out of touch with "ordinary" Americans, merely because the latter say so to pollsters.

He cites a poll that asked "In your view, does the entertainment industry need to make a serious effort to significantly reduce the amount of sex and violence in its movies, television shows and music, or don't you think they need to do this?" Again, 75 percent said Tinseltown, Motown, and any other entertainment towns need to tone it down. Only 24 percent said they're in favor of the current system of profit-seeking provocation favoring whatever circus will goose the ratings numbers.

I agree that most of television is garbage. I loathe fake reality shows. I stopped watching network news years ago. Even the History Channel is overrated, unless you're a World War II junkie. While the TV industry is out of touch with MY values, I can't conclude that it's out of touch with the values of most Americans. Why?

The TV industry is extremely sensitive to public opinion and tastes. Perhaps overly so. If a show doesn't get hit ratings in four weeks or less, it risks being cancelled. That's capitalism at its most Darwinistic. Simply put, if there were a great clamoring for "moral" television, someone in Hollywood would produce it and make a ton of money. If there were widespread public revulsion at reality shows and other crap like that, no one would watch those shows and they'd die a natural death.

While Bozell and I agree that there is little of value on TV, we have different conclusions about how that should be dealt with.

Bozell, like a good busy-body, favors big government involvement.

A poll asked "Recently, the Federal Communications Commission ... began fining radio station owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for broadcasts they considered indecent. This led to the cancellation of some shows. Do you approve or disapprove of the FCC's actions?" Once again, there's a chasm in public opinion: 58 percent support major fines, and only 33 percent do not. Once again, this is a bipartisan concern: 51 percent of Democrats favored major fines.

He approvingly cites a TIME poll that found more than half of America's TV watchers - 53 percent - think the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows.

My solution is very simple. I don't subscribe to cable anymore. Neither the quality of offerings on TV nor the amount of time I watch TV justify an obscene $50 a month. Back when I did have TV, there was another solution: I simply didn't watch the stuff I thought was garbage. It was a fairly straight-forward decision, yet one vested in my personal autonomy. I also rarely listen to regular radio anymore. There are too many commercials, too much vapid yacking and too little music. I subscribe to satellite radio.

Personal responsibility. What a concept!