A Critique of Television
On Social Capital
Social capital, as defined by Robert D. Putnam (Harvard University), is the features of social life that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. It consists of networks, norms and trust. Spending social capital is to engage in civics and politics. It seems obvious that watching television, a highly passive, numbing pastime, would reduce a person’s social capital. In a 1995 article, Putnam argued the link is very clear, “Each hour spent viewing television is associated with less social trust and less group membership, while each hour reading newspapers is associated with more” [1]. This conclusion is oddly corroborated by another study [2] which suggests that watching the news on TV can actually improve one’s social capital, but watching anything else is as Putnam describes.
Some argue that television induces passivity, it leaves people more sceptical about the benevolance of others, overestimating risk and crime rates. Putnam says that television has privatised our lives, suggesting that before our lives were a public resource, a national resource, but now they are a private body.
Putnam argues there are five reasons to avoid television. First, the mere act of watching television induces passivity. This makes civic participation less appealing because that would demand being active and engaging. Second, watching television reduces a person’s ability to concentrate for extended periods of time. A longer attention-span is necessary to read books and work out your own thoughts through writing. Third, the content of television programmes is dictated by those who fund them. The rules of what can and cannot be said are dictated by those with money which do not always agree with those without it. Fourth, television gives a warped view of reality and leaves people unable to estimate risk and deal with the chaos of life. Fifth, television has encouraged us to privatise our lives.
I would like to comment on four of these reasons and then offer a facile argument for watching television.
Induces Passivity
You are the observer. Or worse you are the passive consumer. Things happen to you. You are entertained. Why? Why would people pay money and arrange for these programmes to be made and broadcast to you? They are doing it to entertain you, you, you are the special one who has the right, just by being alive, to be entertained. You do not need others. It is a despicable state.
Reduces Attention-spans
The duration of programmes is defined as thirty minutes or one hour. Rarely do programmes last longer. On commercial stations, the programmes are broken up with commercials every fifteen minutes, which means you only have to concentrate on the programme for fifteen minutes at a time. Even then, watching television is not a great demand on one’s attention. You have to think briefly before moving to another topic. Also the images are very stimulating; colourful and moving which is much more enticing that reading black and white text on a page.
Discourages Critical Thinking
Besides the duration of the programme, there is the content which ultimately aims to entertain; capturing and holding the audience’s attention. Just as the Pied Piper plays the tune, those who fund television programmes dictate what can and cannot be published.
Take for example Bill Hicks’ October 1993 appearance on Late Night with David Letterman. According to Hicks, his recorded routine was withdrawn from the show because of a joke about the Pro-Life campaign. One of the adverts aired during the show was a Pro-Life advert. This example illustrates that the content of television programmes is subject to rules dictated by those with money. In other words, what can and cannot be said is set by those with money. This is undemocratic because the voice of the poor can only be broadcast if our ideas and values agree with those of the rich.
If you cannot hear what society is saying, then how can you engage with it? The content of television programmes is dictated by those who fund them. The rules of what can and cannot be said are dictated by those with money which do not always align with the needs of those without it. Those unable to fund television programmes make up the majority of society. The message being broadcast through the medium of mainstream television is not the voice of society.
However, given that television is embedded in our culture, if television is viewed critically then it is possible to infer what society is like by watching television.
Privatises Our Lives
But then why would someone write a book that you find entertaining? Having your time and your attention is power. They are powerful if they have your attention and are dispensing their ideas to you. What kind of capital would you call that? It isn’t money. I do not spend money to watch television. I spend attention. I spend my mind.
Perhaps writers writing is a form of sacrifice. They share their body and life with others. And reading these works is another form of devotion, learning and understanding.
Argument for Watching Television
When two strangers meet they can bond over the shared experience of watching television. This aids social engagement. Not watching television makes one different and aloof, which is a true shame.
Alastair Clarke
31 December 2017
References
[1] Putnam, R. D., 1995, The Strange Disappearance of Civic America, PS, American Political Science Association. Available here . Accessed: 18 May 2019.
[2] Hooghe, M., 2002, Watching Television and Civic Engagement: Disentangling the Effects of Time, Programs and Stations, The International Journal of Press/Politics , 7: 84.