Handling that Idiot Box
Anuradha Koirala won the CNN Hero of the Year 2010 Award, for the
excellent work she has been doing since 1990 to support victims of the
prostitution networks operating in Nepal and India.
Her own story and the plight of the hapless Nepali women, was in an
instant exposed to over five million viewers and created huge doses of
emotional appeal among many around the world.
She will for sure get more and more support for her work and that is
a positive contribution of what, some call in slang the 'idiot box' has
made in addressing a cause that needs attention.
Trapped and freed
The rescuing of the trapped miners in Chile made live network TV
coverage for days and created loads of emotion.
Glued to their screens, viewers from the world over felt one with the
families of the miners and from their own living rooms felt good that it
all ended well. Not so, for the Chinese or New Zealand miners, who
perished and only got passing coverage in the news bulletins.
The plight of their families went unnoticed in the make believe world
of television of 'where they all lived happily ever after'.
Today, it is a world of mega reality shows, soap operas, confession
sessions and big-time winners or losers, with very little to reflect the
'normal' lives most of us seek to lead.
It is interesting how all that is shown in that defined space of the
'Idiot Box' (now extended to the computer and mobile device screens) is
all about what happens far away or next door, hardly touching on those
who are viewing them in the comfort of their own domains.
Just recall the occasions, when your relative or friend living in
Europe, US, Middle-East or Japan called you on the phone, to check on a
terrorist attack reported to have happened close to you during those
gory days of our own conflict, of which you were yet unaware.
Come tagged
The world saw on news on the eve of this New Year how Sydney,
Australia celebrated the dawn of the New Year with fire-works and
revelry, when in the very same country in Queensland a hour or so
earlier, New Year dawned, with many struggling to keep their heads above
the water with floods that had created unprecedented damage to their
lives. They had not seen anything like it in a century, in Australia.
Disasters are reported with varying doses of positive and negative
commentary on them depending on where they occur and what emotional
response can be created in the minds of the audience.
Often they come tagged with well-documented consumer research backing
them that had tracked reactions of viewers and/ or loaded with biases
that substantiate desired positions of owners of media or interest
groups they represent or support.
Cold winters in Europe, closed airports in eastern USA, water
shortages in Ireland did not bother merry makers anywhere in the big
cities in the world. That is no surprise for any other similar disaster
or human suffering may have the same reaction from majority of viewers,
unless it provided an emotional feel good of being able to donate or
assist. For most, it will be "if it is not I or my family there is not
much I can do" or "thank God it did not happen to us".
We must recall how most of our own city folk here in Sri Lanka went
on their New Year eve revelry in 2004, just days after much of the rest
of the country was devastated and hundreds of thousands of lives were
lost with the Boxing Day tsunami in the region.
Greed not need
Recall the times a program or a telethon on greening of the world, on
climate change and global warming, had been followed by strings of
advertisements of the most luxurious goods that, from a pure human needs
perspective, could be classified as useless or unwarranted.
Television like all other forms of consumerism thrives on research
findings.
It takes the form of determining preferences of viewers based mostly
on emotional fulfilment and purchasing patterns. Findings are used to
determine program content development, presentation and placement of
advertizing. While television brings us news of what happens around the
world as well as various other content it in effect, programs our minds
to positively receive that content as well.
Mahatma Ghandi's philosophy and appeal to human kind to place 'need
before greed', has never served as the basis for program content
development platforms of television anywhere in the world, except in the
area of public television.
Towing lines
In the Sri Lankan context, since the beginning of the past decade, a
significant change in programing content has taken place. Channels based
on political or business affiliations have effectively polarized content
and /or expressed opinions to serve predetermined positions and needs.
There is a distinct polarisation between the state-run and privately-run
media as well. Interestingly, claims of being independent is made by
most media organizations today, when in the first place, the basis for
the existence of such media is to be independent and be free of bias.
I have a few friends who refuse to own a TV set or watch television.
Some do not watch TV as a matter of principle and focus more on reading
and association for learning. Their claim is that it allows their
intellectual capacities to develop in a rational and independent manner
without being exposed to compulsion from mostly 'faceless' people
responsible for content development for television. They remind me that
we have reached a stage when we 'read' our daily newspapers or have it
read for us by commentators on TV and on radio.
Restraint and care
Yet others do it for the sake of their children for they want them to
grasp life themselves, without being aided and abetted by that of the
idiot box. While agreeing with most of what they have to say, I am happy
that I am in a stage of my life, where I can rationally sieve the
content I receive on the media and throw away what I consider as thrash.
I also must confess that I love watching live cricket on the 'idiot
box'. With children in their early formative days, I would agree that a
strict regime of exposure may be the way to go.
In our midst, content developers or advertisers do not seem to
practise adequate restraint on the exposure they make to children.
There are advertizements placed at prime family viewing time where
children are used to endorse products or demand 'goodies' from their
parents.
They are lured by both program and advertizing content towards
generating interest in products and services unsuitable for children in
their formative years.
I recall how in the 1980's in Sri Lanka, there was strict adherence
to norms and standards of conduct set by the State for the media, on the
area of exposure for children.
A child psychologist friend recommends that the best solution for
adults will be to first understand the true nature of the functioning of
the various forms of media and share thoughts honestly, rationally and
progressively with growing up children as they gain exposure to that
medium of communication. As for the very young in their early
play-education phase, the recommendation is to keep them away from
television as much as possible or exercise much restraint in exposure.
With all children, the recommendation is to facilitate as much play,
interaction with other children, regular study sessions and personal
intimate interaction with them, with less talk and more listening to
what they have to say.
[email protected]
|