From Socialist Voice, January 2010

“There’s nothing on television”

Any discussion of television viewing or culture is fraught with problems arising from the question “What is culture?” or, in relation to television, from the assertion “It’s what people want.”
     Such discussions were more prevalent in the 1960s and 70s, when ideological matters came to the fore in a general movement when people believed that a better world was possible. From the 1980s, and right up to the present time, these discussions have been replaced by a cynical belief that television is purely commercial and that making money out of entertainment is what it is all about.
     The earlier ideas that television could be a positive and informative medium are now relegated to being described as “worthy” by commentators and the cynical smart set who write in the mainstream papers.
     The other aspect of television that has been present from the beginning is its use to promote the ideology of the elite class that dictates government policy. The news is edited to reinforce the control of this elite, and current affairs programmes are allowed to deal with issues only from the point of view of the same class.Nowhere was this more evident than in the rerun referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Immediately following its defeat in the first referendum, the Government and political parties packed all programmes on all television stations with plants, who asserted that this or that problem was a result of our rejecting the Lisbon Treaty. This could be no accident, as the programmes concerned ranged from music programmes to analysis of business and community issues. It was a relentless plugging of how ungrateful we were and how awful things were going to be.
     The use of current affairs programmes to draw attention to issues that people feel aggrieved about is moderated by the personal views of the presenter and the general policy of the producers. It is a medium people can use to let off steam and for filtering what issues the television channels want us to know about. It has reduced participation in society to an occasional few seconds’ airing by disgruntled people.
     In the case of serious issues of the day, be they political or economic, it has been handed over to a selected audience and hand-picked panellists. The outgoing President of the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Johnson, has a point when he says that the country has become “a playground for lobbyists, touts, public relations persons and spin doctors.”
     Entertainment programmes on the whole are based on encouraging us to buy or to want something. The number of house-decorating, house-hunting and holiday-seeking programmes is mind-boggling.
     Other programmes are showing us that we should all be entrepreneurs. How disgusting to see people prostrating themselves in front of obnoxious business-owners! And we are to believe that these are the ideals that people should aspire to. As unemployment increases, we are to believe that everyone should become an entrepreneur. It is patently obvious that very few people can succeed, as the concentration of capital shows; but we are told that if we don’t succeed it’s our own fault.
     It never seems to occur to people that the whole thing is a huge con for removing the responsibility for a failed economic system away from business and governments. This is not just a national failing: it has been dictated by EU policy in promoting self-employment to break up organised labour and to disguise soaring unemployment.
     What appears on television entertainment programmes is what is promoted by commercial recording companies, publishers, and advertisers, pushing this or that. But as income from advertising moves away from television to the internet and the web, television is now in dire straits, as can be seen from the number of repeats and the reliance on recycling past programmes.
     It is widely acknowledged that, despite a hundred channels or more to choose from, the common refrain is “There’s nothing on television.”
     How did we get to such a situation, where so expensive a medium has nothing worth watching? Could it be that people want something more than what those in control of television see as what we want or what they see as “cool”?
     The battle for ratings to satisfy advertisers means that one television company is chasing another in producing bad copies of bad British and American programmes that peddle the same narrow life-styles and shallow values.
     As long as television is controlled as it is now, very little can be done to change things. This is a question about the very nature of television and who it serves. Vibrant and diverse programmes would allow real people to be shown who have lives and activities that other people would love to see. It would be a means of interacting with society, and would give local employment and independence.
     What about the many trade union and community events going on around the country? Why is it that talks or concerts that involve working people are not worthy of getting an airing, other than a fleeeting mention on the news if one is lucky? There are summer schools that have really interesting topics and diverse opinions that would add to the richness of debate in the country.
     Rural shows such as Moynalty Threshing and Classic Car Show, and the various steam train festivals, could be covered in full-length programmes. Richard Corrigan’s programmes about allotments are another example of what people can do. Musical and dramatic societies are performing all over the country, and many are of a very high standard. We should not let the obsessive element of competing dominate programmes.
     Arguments about productions not being of a high enough standard won’t stand up with today’s technology. Producers could help by teaching people skills, and theatre professionals could be employed to raise standards. And when there was a professional repertory acting company in RTE, which gave permanent employment, it was abolished.
     TG4 is the only channel that attempts to bring diverse programming and international films and documentaries to us, and it shows initiative with fresh and progressive ideas. Its programmers deserve much more recognition and praise, and we should make our appreciation known.
     Radio programmes are of a much higher standard than television, and it is a pity that more of the diversity does not spill over into television.
     We could do with more programmes like Vincent Browne’s programme on TV3, where sometimes diverse views are allowed an airing. This is what makes good television, and we need more of it.
     Which bring us back to culture, especially as it applies to television. Producing good television is not easy, and it takes a good combination of skills and likeable people, but that is no excuse for not developing the necessary skills or for endlessly reproducing inane and shallow look-alike programmes.
     The alienation of people from cultural involvement in television is a result of a world dominated by commercial interests and the need to keep people from expressing views that do not correspond to neo-liberal ideology. Do organisations do enough to demand a share of this resource? We need to think of ways to make inroads into this hegemony, to claim it for ourselves and create a genuine public forum.
[DUB]

Home page  >  Publications  >  Socialist Voice  >  January 2010  >  “There’s nothing on television”
Baile  >  Foilseacháin  >  Socialist Voice  >  Eanáir 2010  >  “There’s nothing on television”