COLUMN: A Steady Diet Of?

From Marc Teillon's "The Public Pillory," Fall '94 But Gallup concludes that this is not enough. "A substantial number of Americans seem to be doing their part -- restricting the viewing of their children. They now ask the producers and others to do their part, and do more than simply making disclaimers at the beginning of shows, which they [65%] feel to be ineffective." This brings an interesting question to the table. Should the television industry produce "socially responsible" programming? If so, should ABC stop allowing Rosanne Barr to say "bitch" and "slut" every five minutes? Should FOX network actually create a character, besides the wholesome Donna, who doesn't hop in bed with every man she meets? Should the producers of NYPD Blue use a little more discretion in the amount of gun-fights they use in each show? As far as running a business goes, the answer is no. According to economist Milton Freidman, the executives of a corporation act as agents for the owners or stockholders. As agents, they have a responsibility to their employers. This means maximizing the value of their holdings, at least as far as television goes. They do this by satisfying the wants and needs of the audience in hopes of achieving the highest ratings possible. The higher the number of viewers, the greater the price they can charge an advertiser for a thirty-second time slot. If a drama glorifying marriage and the family is in greater demand and will produce more revenue than thirtysomething, which compares these institutions to indentured servitude, the network would be maximizing profits for the owners by showing the more popular fare. It just so happened that showing the former could be construed as more responsible than the latter. This does not mean the agent himself is free from responsibility "to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, etc." If he has a problem peddling porn to the mindless droves of the remote-control era, then he should quit his job and seek more "conscionable" employment elsewhere. But if he gives the prime-time viewers Leave It To Beaver when they really want Married With Children, he will be decreasing the owners' value by not allowing the optimal situation to occur. Viewers will change channels and find the appropriate level of depravity they desire elsewhere. Thus, he is not acting in his employers' interests by deciding that their profit is less important than showing a half-hour show that nobody wants to watch. Since television watching is a product of consumption, if the Family Channel/Gallup results are valid, one would expect them to have serious market implications. Shouldn't programs like I'll Fly Away have the highest ratings instead of being relegated to PBS? Shouldn't MTV, the red-light district of cable television, be driven from the market due to non-profitability? When car-size preferences in this country changed from gas-guzzling behemoths to the more compact and economically-efficient automobiles, didn't the Japanese car-makers thrive while the American manufacturers nearly died? If Americans are so fed up with the television industry these days, they sure have a funny way of showing their disapproval. The average adult watches 4 hours of television each evening and by the time a child reaches the age of 16, he will have spent more time glued to the television screen than in the classroom. Most homes these days own not only one or two televisions, but three or four. Gallup wants to lay the "blame" on the networks, but the fault lies not on the heads of the producers and script-writers, but with the public for paying for this techno-trash with time and money. Most of the country was captivated by the O.J. saga and the Bobitt-butchering, and when the next superstar scandal comes along, the majority will continue to be thrilled in their living-rooms by these national travesties. There's only one solution to stop the current trend in American television and it is not to produce more polls to show our disdain or even to lobby our government officials to force standards upon the networks. Those who feel there is too much violence and sex should simply turn their televisions off. If enough people stop watching, then the networks will be forced to change their products to stay in business. If not, then the networks should continue to give the consumer what he wants and the unsatified customers should seek refuge elsewhere. Reading a book wouldn't be a bad place to start.