Television could have been so much more.

[Ron Green]

The "vast wasteland" decried by Newton Minow so many years ago is a pinnacle of discourse and wit compared to the hundreds of channels of dreck flowing through modern cable and satellite media and imitated by the once-staid broadcast networks. Almost no thoughtful person watches this stuff except as a "guilty pleasure," or to be fascinated by the wretchedness of it and then turn away from it with a shudder.

The technology itself is a wonderful system of pictures and sound brought right into the home, made even more delightful with high definition and digital imaging. It could deliver the best of everything in the world that can be captured by lenses and microphones, and made startlingly beautiful through the craft of the best video engineers who have ever lived. It could inform, elevate, and challenge us to be more fully human; it could be a true "classroom and theater of the world" to raise the level of awareness of peoples around the planet.

How did it get this bad? How did we go from Murrow to Katie Couric? And from Playhouse 90 to American Idol? The TV producers know quality from crap, and so do the advertisers. Even during the "golden age" of television, commercial sponsors called the shots, just as they do today.

Perhaps the FCC failed in their responsibility for stewardship of the broadcast spectrum (and later the cable and satellite feeds), or maybe it's just the nature of the medium itself: the "MTV syndrome," if you will. Disjointed images, out of context, appeal more strongly to a needy and addicted soul, bringing viewership and market share beyond the wildest dreams of the bosses and Chesterfield and Geritol.

What do you think? Could we have had a BBC-style system, and would it have made much of a difference in the long run?

[Terra Terra]

1. It's not as bad as it seems

It just depends on which channels you watch. Many cable channels have very informative programming, including the History Channel, National Geographic, and the Discovery channel to name just a few. Of course, there is plenty of tripe available as well if you're in the mood for that kind of programming.

[Caoimhe]

3. Welcome to DU, terra terra! n/t

[Terra Terra]

4. Thanks, glad to be here

[MadHound]

10. Even the so called educational channels are getting to be crap

First off, they're becoming quite repetitive, Hitler, The Science of the Bible, Cannibals, etc. Second, they've deviated from their original intent. Discovery was originally the science channel, now it's showing drek like American Chopper, please:eyes: Third, I know a lot of what they broadcast isn't even factually correct. I tune in the History Channel, and on many programs I just have to laugh, for they are getting it all wrong, or they are telling an incomplete version of the facts. At first it was frustrating, now it's just laughable. Soon it will be sad because people will actually believe in these mistaken programs as the truth. And finally, more and more of these "educational channels" have become nothing more than another set of propaganda outlets. The Discovery Times channel is really bad about this, with puff pieces on how well everything is in Iraq, or coverage of the trial of Saddam, etc. And more and more of these channels are becoming the same way.

It has gotten to the point where I'm ready to chuck the satellite service altogether. If it keeps worsening, I will. I rarely watch anymore, and when I do, I'm yelling at the TV for what the program is getting wrong.

[Ron Green]

13. I've noticed the same thing about the "educational" channels.

There's virtually no real scholarship behind the history programs; sensationalism is always the rule. And PBS runs a full slate of commercials every hour, poorly disguised as "underwriting" messages. They're not shouting "No money down!" just yet, but I expect it's not far away.

[novalib]

2. Not Sure

I'm not sure I want too much of a BBC-type system.

The quality programming of the BBC would have been nice.

But, remember, the Republicans were in charge of the Federal Government during the early 50's.

I don't think I would have wanted to put THEM in charge.

And now, I definitely do NOT want the current regime deciding the programming on TV (any more than they arleady do, of course.)

[shenmue]

5. It's that way because that's what a lot of people want.

Use the 'off' button.

[Ron Green]

12. Your response brings up a good point: do people really know

what's good for them? Will leaving them alone to make all their own "choices" eventually build personal responsibility and therefore a better world? Or will putting trust in an expert system bring about an overall consciousness-raising, as is the idea with public education?

Libertarians tend to say, "let people make their own channel selections." Socialists tend to say, "make policy to make the channels better." After looking at 60 years of market-driven TV, I tend to side with the socialists.

[Democrats_win]

6. TV exists for the Advertisers. Shows must create buzz, not good TV

American "Idiot" creates a great buzz and advertisers love the people who'll seek junk rather than quality.

[novalib]

7. Sadly,

Sadly, what you say is true -- even for PBS.

I hate it that they run month-long pleas for memberships.

And THEN put mini-commercials in front of a lot of their programs.

[LSK]

8. that was the message of Good Night and Good Luck

Good movie.

[skids]

9. Totally agree -- especially in the area of education.

What an utter tragedy that this medium was rarely used for general education purposes and instead became a haven for sensationalism.

Now there have been some great works of both fiction and nonfiction on TV, but for the most part, especially lately, it's been nothing but a race to the bottom, appealing to the most base and serving as an artificial substitute for social relationships with real people.

Even if you look at those channels that purport to be educational -- Discovery Channel, Science Channel, etc. it still falls way short. What you'd expect from them would be material that elucidates science and technology. What you get is countless "hunting for bigfoot" episodes with a host that thinks it's funny to eat fossilized turd.

Even when there is some good science it's invariably archeology, even on the science channel. When's the last time you saw a show on there about math or physics. The closest they usually get are natural disaster scenarios. And when they do do a show about math or physics, it isn't about math or physics -- it's about the history of math or physics -- which is a framing mechanism used to glue together such materials by many, but in this case the frame is all that's there, and it doesn't actually help people expand their understanding of what math or physics is one inkling, it just tells you "Einstein was such a character" or somesuch.

Think about it. You *could* do an entire show on something as simple as the fibonacci sequence, showing the various ways of conceptualizing it and it's appearance in sundry scenarios and how people use it today. Of course even though, once people adjusted to a show that actually makes them think and entertains with visual and organizational beauty, they'd enjoy it just as much as a show about "really gross jobs people do" and walk away a good bit smarter. But then they wouldn't be able to fill that hole where their ex-wife used to be by vicariously rooting for the septic tank guy.

Or one *could* make a show that catalogues esoteric ways in which energy can be transformed, or nanotechnology advancements and what the materials of the next decade will look like and what will make them special, or the "green chemistry" movement with it's implications, progress and obstacles. Shows which challenge a person to understand. Shows which might lose you halfway through or take a multiple watchings to fully grasp.

...but all of the above are the very antipathy of what TV has been driven to become by market forces. Competing for viewers shows must be swallowed easily and be addictive to boot.

[NotGivingUp]

11. You are so right!

I would love it if there were some educational programs. Programs covering a lot of the things that people would like to know how to do such as art, music, computers, etc. People would be able to learn so much...I guess that's why they're not on. REAL travel programs would be great, rather than the one that every time you turn the channel on they're playing poker.