Marlys Harris

The Consumer Reporter

Let’s Face It: TV Is Upchuck — and Not Worth Consuming

By Marlys Harris | Aug 7, 2009 |

People think that anybody who is a consumer reporter, like yours truly, should confine her outrage to price disparities among jumbo and colossal olives or the difficulties of getting the cable guy to come on time. But I truly believe that consumer protection extends to any good or service the public receives — health care, police work, trash pick-up, and government, to name a few. Either directly or through taxes (or government giveaways) we the public are paying for all of them. Ergo, we should be getting some value for our dough.

Which brings me to TV. Nearly 50 years ago, Newton Minnow, President John F. Kennedy’s newly appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, declared “TV is a vast wasteland.”

You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons.

Well, all I’ve got to say is: Minnow didn’t know how good he had it. The mindless, moronic and repetitive TV fare we are consuming today makes mayhem, violence, sadism and murder look good by contrast.

Before I go further, let me say that I am not a TV hater. Just the opposite. Addict more accurately describes my sad condition. Seriously, I’ll watch practically anything on a screen, including “Book Talk” on C-SPAN. Even if I don’t like most of the choices at a particular hour, I’ll click to the LOP — the least objectionable program — and flip back and forth during commercials between the two top LOPs.

But both networks and cable channels have adopted programming with such Hobbesian choices that I find myself turning the TV off. What’s wrong? One problem: stations now run one program in a huge forever block. Take America’s Got Talent, an updated version of the Ted Mack Amateur Hour which I think ran on radio and TV before even my birth. Circus acts are not exactly my cup of tea, especially accompanied by an audience screaming more frenziedly than Darfur refugees receiving shipments of Kentucky fried chicken. An hour once a week, fine. But does NBC have to give it three hours a night on Wednesday and another hour on Thursday? Seriously, America doesn’t have that much talent. Same goes for “So You Think You Can Dance? on Fox.

Forever blocking extends well beyond the major channels. A&E, whose slogan used to be “time well spent” –hah! — now gives audiences three straight hours of Dog the Bounty Hunter. Does the public want that much of its tattooed, pierced, wife-beater-wearing stars’ encounters with pathetic, drug addicted losers? On other nights, A&E features three-hour blocks of CSI reruns, two-hour blocks of The First 48, a show that has real cops catching real murderers who are so pathetic that you almost sympathize with them, and two-hour blocks of Intervention, a program about users of heroin, meth, alcohol, cocaine, crack or all of the above being prodded into treatment. If instead you crave something more light-hearted, you can tune into three hour blocks of Reba re-runs on Lifetime or five- and six-hour blocks on Bravo of the Housewives of (name a city).

The soul-crushing inanity of TV is my second complaint. I became acquainted with the aforementioned housewives (of New York) when I was sick in bed for a week and too feeble to press buttons on the remote. Just what were these dames doing that was so-o-o-o-o fascinating? The parties? They were dull. Their families? Seriously, they made my family look exciting and dramatic by contrast. Their cultivation and refinement? That was hard to conclude after I saw clips of a New Jersey “housewife” tip over a dinner table in a snit. Give me Tony Soprano any time. Then there’s the phony drama of a show like Say Yes to the Dress in which brides visit a New York salon to pick out a $5,000 wedding dress and then cry poignantly when they find their dream. If the bride’s mother or father died of cancer last month, the suspense is excruciating.

And what about those reality series that want to make you gag? In Obsessed, on A&E, we get to witness people with obsessive-compulsive disorders cope with their demons. Among them: the need to spend hours in the shower cleaning one’s rectum with implements that look like they came from a metal-fabrication plant. Then there’s I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant from TLC. Since producers have even less idea that their stars are pregnant, much of the program is re-enactments. You’ve got to hand it to actors — they’ll take any part to survive — like playing a woman who, surprised by the onset of labor pains, gave birth to twins in her toilet (complete with close-ups).

Media companies are complaining that they can’t afford to do better because advertising revenues are falling. Maybe a part of the problem is that advertisers don’t want to pay top dollar to have their products sponsor shows that feature people having babies in toilets or throwing tantrums a la Bridezilla. And if advertisers are starting to run for the hills, maybe we should too.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    Milton F.

    08/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Let's Face It: TV Is Upchuck - and Not Worth Consuming

    Sorry but this reads vaguely like a grumpy old person.

    What Milton F (me, not the economist) understands from having worked in the industry are a few things:
    1- There are great shows for everyone out there. But the networks won't run them because they can be controversial, like Rescue Me, Mad Men or the Sopranos. Or they can be about icky people, like The Shield, or the Sopranos or Hung. And by icky, I mean icky to those folks who spoil fun for everyone else.
    2- More choice (Milton F. the Economist's mistress) in channels means more shows to produce. Which means more money. And diluted revenue since there are not really more viewers. Since there are not large new sources of original program writers who can write shows in American English, you have a dillution of the talent pool. While once a show like Seinfeld could have a lockdown write staff of 20 writers, including Larry David, Carol Laiffer, Ed Crasnick, etc, etc, it is much harder to assemble that.
    3- Cultural Fragmentation. It really started moving quickly sometime around the George HW Bush administration where monolithic culture started dieing. It accelerated through the Clinton and Bush administrations, so there are NO shared cultural touchstones anymore. Carson is the last shared talk show host, Seinfeld the last great shared comedy, and ER maybe the last great shared drama. U2 is the last great shared band, and they got started before Reagan was president. More radio and more TV allows programmers to program for niche viewers, which accelerates the niche fragmentation of culture. Which erodes the ability of a major network to run a show that a REALLY large number of people will share.

    Ultimately, lastly, we live in an age where a great show runner is not the be all and end all of creating a great TV show. You have teams of writers on everything, and you have lawyers involved in everything as well.

    On the upside, given the advance of consumer HD cameras, the hacker mentality of Gen Y'ers, and the stiff tournament to get up the Hollywood funding mountain, I think we are 5-10 years away from someone home producing the next great episodic TV show and sending it out to people's convergence HD Converged internet appliance/TVs. It will not be universally watched (I suspect most grumpy old people will not even deign to watch a home produced show), and it will not be a universal cultural touch point the way that shows were in the Big 3 or Big 4 era. But it will be really good for the 5 million people who tune in.

  •  
    2

    MarlysHarris

    08/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Let's Face It: TV Is Upchuck - and Not Worth Consuming

    Well, Milton, I confess: I am old and crotchety. I guess shows like
    "Dog," "Reba," et al. are more for you hip young folks. But, yeah, I do
    like something that has a plot or at least more entertainment value
    than, say, ghoulishly watching a 750 pound woman cope with getting to
    the fridge.

    If the owners of the stations can't afford to produce good programs,
    then maybe there shouldn't have been such a huge proliferation of
    channels--which is the FCC's fault. Maybe they should be been rolled
    out gradually with the requirement that X percent of programming
    would be original and perhaps even scripted. It kinda reminds me of
    mutual funds. In the 1990s and early oughts, the industry was rolling
    out new funds at the drop of a hat, usually to address the recent hot
    investment trend--just after the trend peaked. Conservative
    economists would say, "Well, that gives people choice." But what it
    really did was fill the world with more garbage investments, of which
    there are already plenty, and lose people money. So it is with too
    many channels. Given the way things are going, we probably will soon
    see a new series called "Constipation" featuring reality stars sitting on
    toilets and groaning. I bet you young folks can barely wait!

  •  
    3

    Milton F.

    08/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Let's Face It: TV Is Upchuck - and Not Worth Consuming

    On the one hand, I watch more than my share of niche programming. Top Chef Masters (far superior, imo to Top Chef), Rock of Love, Blank of Love Charm School, Professional Bull Riding, Bite Me with Dr. Mike, all current or former staples that would NEVER have cracked the lineup in a 3-4 network, highly regulated world.

    On the other hand, I miss the watercooler aspect of TV that was provided by shows from the 3-4 Network Era, like Seinfeld. You could go to work and know, yes, know, that several of the people you worked with watched Seinfeld last night, and you wanted to talk about it.

    This Milton F has a degree in film and television, and the fragmentation that dereg has caused has made it an exciting time to study TV (not that I do this professionally... this economist has other things to look at). But, the shared meaning is eroding very very fast. The Internet has changed our society's need to share TV with people we actually know, as you can go on the Dog the Bounty Hunter fan site and talk with other Dog fans (scary). I think it makes the modern TV environment more fringe friendly (probably a bad thing). It makes society more like that disturbing vision of people hooked up, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, staring at TV, alone in a room, with eye drops flowing, and not having contact with real people.

    Crazy idea: How many people in online message boards could actually pass a Turing test, based on their postings? I wonder.

  •  
    4

    cdmsr

    08/20/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Let's Face It: TV Is Upchuck - and Not Worth Consuming

    I don't want to intrude on the debate but I have to agree with Ms. Harris. I tend to turn to my cable's music channels more often these days (mostly non-video, but including VH1 Classic sporadically, as reflects its varying quality of repetitive content) when History Channel/International, the BBC, Science and the newly-lame-named SyFy have no new, worthy offerings and there are no USA Channel first showings of Monk, Psych, Burn Notice, or Law&Order: Criminal Intent.

    There, in one fairly short run-on sentence, I have exhausted all of the "free" TV "entertainment" offerings that I don't consider on a par with dog vomit. (I hesitated to use that canine reference out of fear that it will turn up as a reality show.)

    The proliferation of outlets has been used as an excuse to produce garbage and throw it against the wall of consumers to see what sticks. Even those of us who try to duck and dodge wind up with the stench in our nostrils.

    Oh, one last thing. Two words of advice for those seeking truly smart, funny TV: Adult Swim.

  •  
    5

    cdmsr

    08/20/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Let's Face It: TV Is Upchuck - and Not Worth Consuming

    I forgot to mention Fox TV's usually excellent Sunday night Animation Domination block. But be careful you don't switch over too early and be exposed to "'Til Death." The Reaper can't come fast enough for that atrocity.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here

Marlys Harris

Marlys Harris has been covering personal finance at least since the time of the Pharaohs, first in 12 years at Money and then as finance editor at Consumer Reports. She has written and edited stories on just about everything having to do with money, from workers comp to marrying for money.

Marlys Harris

Click Here
track your portfolio