COMMENTARY : MAINTAINING THE FANTASY POLITICS OF TV

When I first came to town, “Bewitched” was the hot show and Samantha was the prototype of the perfect TV heroine. Beautiful, wise, generous, married, she used her magical powers only under duress.

The last thing she wanted to do was upstage her husband. When she had a baby she did it the “human” way, but she was never identified as being pregnant. I wrote a number of those shows,and the word pregnant was not just a no-no for witches. It was off limits for all mothers.

What we TV writers couldn’t say then was voluminous. As recently as eight years ago, a network made me substitute the word pure for virginal. The word orgasm was cut altogether, and I received a sharp reprimand. Anything that went on below the waist was explained by the generic wink .

Of course, marital infidelity was punished by at least syphilis (except on daytime soaps, where it was rewarded), and premarital sex almost always resulted in “pregnancy.” But since you couldn’t use the word, you’d settle for destroying the life of the unwed mother.

Early TV also had its own brand of apartheid. Except for Uncle Toms, janitors and chauffeurs, there simply were no blacks. I remember working for a show called “Made in America,” which featured self-made American millionaires who told their Horatio Alger stories. The idea was to inspire the audience.

I booked Eddie Anderson (Jack Benny’s Rochester) for the show. The network was horrified and ordered us to cancel Anderson at once. They insisted the audience would never accept a “Negro person” representing an all-American success story.

Then Sheldon Leonard put “I Spy” on the air. Bill Cosby played a government agent with a white partner, Robert Culp. And it all changed. It’s hard now to believe what a breakthrough that was, but it’s another indication of how hypocritical we were in the “good old days.”

Today, of course, black is not just OK; thanks again to Cosby, it’s great. Asian is good, too; Italian and Irish are terrific; WASP goes without saying, and they’re still trying to make a Hispanic show work.

But where in this glorious ethnic TV mix are the Jews? When that question comes up, people answer with: What about “The Goldbergs,” “Bridget Loves Bernie” and “Rhoda”? Those shows, safely tucked away in the past, were hits. Still, their success doesn’t seem to alter the fact that a family with a Jewish last name is conspicuously missing from the current line-up.

Ten years ago a director friend explained the unspoken law of our business as “write Jewish, cast Gentile.” This did not mean that Jewish actors didn’t work. They did, and they do. Then they played Indians; now they play Italians. But when will we see a private eye named Ginsburg? A girl on her own in the big city named Cohen? And where, but on television, have there ever been so few Jewish doctors?

The subtle message TV seems to be giving out is it’s acceptable to be a WASP or black if you’re upper middle-class. But it’s not acceptable to be Jewish.

And lately it’s not acceptable to be poor either.

Which brings us to the thorniest subject of all: Politics.

What goes on TV reflects the attitude of any current administration, and until recently there was administration sympathy for the poor. So “All in the Family,” “Sanford and Son,” “Laverne & Shirley” . . . were big shows. Rich was out. “Bring us blue collar,” the networks cried.

Now we have Reagan, and it’s “in” to be rich or upper middle-class, but it’s “out” to be poor. The fact that there are more poor people than ever in our country appears irrelevant. They are simply not tolerated by the Reagan Administration. (Remember our President’s claim that people are sleeping in the streets because they like the fresh air?)

What we do see more of on TV (aside from rich folks) is the elected official. The last couple of years have given us a mayor, a governor, and even a female President. It’s refreshing to have these politicians on TV and it would be even more refreshing if they talked about politics. But mostly they don’t . . . not really.

Let’s say “His Honor the Mayor” has the problems of a real mayor. There are thousands of homeless wandering his streets. That’s the first half of the truth. Try to go on from there and say that massive federal cuts have closed the housing that sheltered these people. That’s the second half of the truth . . . the first thing to be cut from the script.

And how do you create a President whose priority is to put more money into the quality of living than into instruments for killing? How do you do that without seeming to insult the real President? The answer is: You don’t, not if you want to get on the air. The unspoken first commandment of the Prime-Time TV Bible is: “Thou shalt not criticize the current Administration.”

There are certain political problems we television writers can present, however. Everybody agrees that nuclear war is bad. And we can say the build-up of nuclear weapons makes us less safe (“The Day After”), as long as we also say it makes us more safe (the discussion following “The Day After”). Sound confusing? It’s meant to. ABC was forced to take enough of the message back to scramble it and leave the audience unsure.

We can say on television that our hard line with the Russians will lead to a paranoiac outburst that will end the world (World War III) as long as we also say it’s the Soviets who started it.

And speaking of the Soviets starting it, after much debate ABC has decided to make “Amerika,” a 12-hour miniseries where the Soviets not only start World War III, they actually take over one of our cities. That should really beat the war drums!

For a while ABC was not going to make the series. Then they reversed themselves. Some say they did this simply for the ratings. But that seems too crass even for this business. Some claim the Soviets said “Don’t you dare” and ABC couldn’t resist that challenge. But that doesn’t seem possible. Not from the network that produced the most powerful anti-war program ever aired. I prefer the theory that ABC is being forced by the Reagan Administration to do penance for that pro-peace statement. It’s not enough that they have never rerun this high-rated show--ABC is still being pressured to “take it back.”

And so the 12 hours that could do for the final war of the world what “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” did for the Civil War is actually being made. The Russians aren’t the only ones who are terrified.

What about those Russians?

Remember how we used to propagandize against the Japanese by depicting them with buck teeth and thick glasses? The Soviets were our allies in those days and we portrayed them as loveable, cuddly bears. (Who can forget the delightful “Ninotchka”?) Now we depict the Soviets as scowlers with big jowls and fat women. Perhaps, unconsciously, we’re cooperating with an Administration that has characterized them as the “Evil Empire.” More and more we portray the average Russian as a buffoon, someone beneath us, not to be laughed with affectionately, but laughed at with contempt.

There are few objections when we present these cartoon images. But try to strip away the propaganda. Try to present the naked view that the leaders of both superpowers are in lock-step, obsessed with a runaway arms race, more involved with their personal competition than they are with the good of any people anywhere. If you find some miraculous way to get that on the air, someone will find a way to take it back.

TV, with its scrambled message, cooperates in that arms race. We portray Soviets who defect as heroes, but we also use them to fan the flames of paranoia about the Soviets who are still there. We’re free to get the fire of distrust and fear going, but we’re kept from putting it out.

Who is doing this? It’s certainly not the writers who want to scramble the message. No part of the creative community, once they’ve gone out on a limb, wants to “take it back.” It’s easy to blame the traditional heavy, the networks. But too many of their executives are seen in too many places, individually supporting good causes that are not generally regarded as “safe.”

So who’s calling the shots?

There are still the sponsors; they’ve always been there. Now they’re accompanied by the new guys on the block, the members of the Fortune 500 who own our TV and film industry, and by their Reagan Administration friends who help them with their fondest dream . . . deregulation. That’s the “them.”

But how about us? How about our creative community, who, impelled by fear of never working again, have incorporated that lethal blue pencil into our consciousness, obliterating our principles, creating the most cunning silencer of them all: self-censorship.

We’re often told by network people that nobody “up there” gives them orders. Maybe not. Maybe nobody has to. We, and this is the “we” that includes our network colleagues, are so programmed by now, “we” automatically do what “they” want us to do.

If TV is ever to move off the half-truth mark, self-censorship is the first habit “we” must kick. That challenge becomes even greater as the political climate grows more jingoistic.

People say it has always been thus. If the Neanderthals didn’t like the picture you painted on the wall of the cave, they hit you on the head with a club. Still, there was always someone else around to pick up the brush.

Well, here we are in the nuclear era, working in a business--television--that gives 75% of the people all their ideas about the world and everyone in it. If we whip them up enough into hating the Russians, or any other politically expedient enemy, we may end up back in that cave.

So what can we do about it?

We have the responsibility to face the fact that everything is political. Everything , including our refusal to be political. And when we are asked to “take it back” we have the responsibility to say no.

It’s a hard choice because there is no cover. There is no club to join, no group to fold us safely into its ranks. We’re at a point in history where armies no longer mean anything. We’re back to the individual. The hand that hits the button can blow up the world.

But the hand that turns on the word processor can save it.