Borgman, Dean. (2006)  “Television Entertainment in 2006,”   CYS.
(Download this article as a PDF)

 

OVERVIEW

 

Think back to the beginnings of family television in the 1950s and 60s — whether you were alive and watching or not. Today’s offerings provide an interesting contrast.  Then, three networks, a clear family hour, and, even in later hours, language censored of all swears and married couples in separate beds following almost Victorian standards. Though families were too homogeneous (white, middle-class, etc.), positive family and community values were extolled and modeled.

 

And there was one television set around which the whole family sat. Now family members in different rooms watch a variety of shows. Cable and satellite TV have proliferated, “pushed the envelope” on decencies and sensitivities, and changed the culture.

 

“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” on FOX provides an example. Matthew Gilbert’s review of this TV comedy (“’Sunny’ delights in bad behavior,” The Boston Globe, 28 June 2006, pp. E1, 10) makes a point about television’s new culture:

 

These days, nearly every sitcom—network or cable—thrives on the very topics once deemed too touchy to touch. In fact, political correctness may have made sexism, terrorism, retardation, religion, and poverty seem that much funnier, since it upped their risqué factor. As with Mary Tyler Moore at the funeral of Chuckles the Clown, the more you’re not supposed to laugh, the more you want to.

Even so, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” which returns for its second season tonight at 10, is really politically incorrect. It lives to transgress. It does a nutty dance all over the danger zones, such as in tonight’s opener, in which the characters fake handicaps to milk sympathy and get sex.

 

We see that kind of situation on “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and we saw it on “Seinfeld,” when George pretended to be disabled to get perks. But on ‘Sunny,’ the morally impaired characters deliver the disability jokes with particularly gleeful abandon. These are the same guys who, last season, served booze to kids for money and worked an abortion rally for dates.

 

If you’re prudish or just polite, in other words, you’ll be turned off by all the happy offensiveness.

 

What else is going on with TV? Survival and extreme fear shows are still there, with other reality shows, but they seem to be running out of steam. Drama, involving murder or terrorism, seems to reign in prime time. But talent shows are the big thing. (Matthew Gilbert, again, “Power to the People: Electing to give viewers the right to vote, new talent shows are the popular choice,” The Boston Globe, 28 June 2006, E1,10).

 

The stupidest line in last week’s premier of ‘America’s Got Talent’ came at the end of the two-hour slog. Judge Piers Morgan exclaimed, “Rapping Granny, you are what this show is all about.”

 

Wrong, Mr. Token Snippy Brit Who Wants to Grow Up To Be Simon Cowell. ‘America’s Got Talent’ is not about a bobbing senior in an apron hoping to win a million dollar prize. The already popular TV talent contest, poised to be a summer ratings hit for NBC, is more about the Clapping Viewer than the Rapping Granny.

 

Yep, it’s all about us.  The show, which airs tonight at 9, is all about the audience’s cheers and jeers, and not a professional digit-snapper named Bobby Badfingers or a 60-something male stripper with a bronzer addiction… It’s all about giving viewers a voice in the entertainment world. We get to choose which novelty act—the 8-year-old stand-up comic? the 76-year-old lady belting out “God Bless America”?—will become this summer’s big star. We get a sense of power.

 

That’s it, isn’t it? There’s a trend to turn television entertainment back to the populace, and it’s very much about exposure, status, power and prize money. It’s also about the new fad. When even sex and violence wear thin, when we get tired of watching folks embarrass themselves on talk shows, when voyeurism into the secret corners of reality houses or private dates run dry, we turn to something new—for the next moment in ever-changing TV styles and history. Someday we may even get tired of pushing the envelope toward the insensitive and obscene.

 

Undoubtedly, TV styles both reflect and influence the constant changes of our culture. They are for good and for bad. And we are either discerning or undiscerning consumers of that culture.

 

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

 

1.     In your opinion, does this article point to some prominent aspects entertainment TV these days? What does it miss? To what in this discussion would you take exception?

2.     What shows not mentioned might provide even better examples of the trends noted here?

3.     What do you find good in the development of television and what do you regret?

4.     Do you agree that the boundaries of decency and civility have been stretched beyond good taste? If not, how would you describe healthy limits? If so, what do you think we can do about television that is not good for the health of our society?

5.     Do you see any dumbing down of television’s popular culture? Where do you see the balance between elitism and dropping to the lowest common denominator of talent and taste?

6.     In your opinion, can television have an adverse effect on children and rising generations?

7.     How would you see a family or youth group discussing the style and influence of popular entertainment?

IMPLICATIONS

 

1.     Countless studies have described how television has profound effects on children—and to some degree on all of us.

2.     Many organizations are prepared to help us understand how we can protect our children from the adverse effects of toxic entertainment as well as curbing some of its extremes (see Resources).

3.     One thing for certain, we must be discerning consumers of culture and teach our children to be so as well.

Dean Borgman   cCYS