Planet Hollywood : The Hits and Misses of Television’s Environmental Activism

Murphy Brown has learned how to recycle. The Simpsons feud about nuclear power and deforestation. But is television really helping Americans understand the problems--many would say crisis--facing the environment?

Yes and no.

“It’s almost impossible to watch prime-time television and not see something about the environment,” said Andy Spahn, president of the Environmental Media Assn., an industry organization that lobbies and advises film and television producers about including environmental messages in their programs. “We are responding everyday to requests for meetings and brainstorming sessions.”

And, indeed, say environmentalists and producers alike, the sheer number of references to the environment in entertainment programming has dramatically increased over the past several years. A character who drinks a can of soda is likely to toss the empty into a recycling bin; shows such as “Harry and the Hendersons,” “MacGyver,” “Northern Exposure,” “Knots Landing” and “Murder, She Wrote” have devoted entire episodes to stories about the environment. Cable networks Turner Broadcasting System and Discovery have programmed hundreds of hours about environmental concerns.

But both industry insiders and environmental activists say that, overall, TV’s treatment of ecological issues could be much better. For a variety of reasons, these critics say, television’s approach tends to be too simplistic, its attention span too short and its forays into environmentalism too infrequent.

TV environmentalism, or “green TV” as it was called, engendered quite a bit of publicity two years ago, when the nation celebrated the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Network specials touted ecological causes and shows from sitcoms and dramas to documentaries explored the fate of the planet.

Since then, environmental programming on TBS, Discovery and, to a lesser extent, PBS has continued to balloon. Mainstream programming, on the other hand, continues to pay attention to the environment, but not with the same fanfare and, according to environmentalists and industry insiders, in smaller doses.

For the most part, say Spahn and others, discussions of environmental concerns in mainstream programming are worked into scripts as asides: the character who matter-of-factly turns off the faucet to save water while brushing his teeth or the sitcom star who worries about the ozone layer.

That kind of reference is significant, because it subtly reinforces the idea that conservation and concern for the environment can be made part of people’s day-to-day lives, said Elissa Wolfson, managing editor of E Magazine, an environmental publication based in Connecticut.

“Recycling has become a major part of people’s lives, and that’s largely due to the positive influence of the media,” Wolfson said. “When people see characters doing it on TV, they’re more likely to do it in their own kitchens.”

Recycling shows up regularly on “Murphy Brown,” “The Simpsons,” “MacGyver” and other programs, and is beginning to be found in the real lives of the actors and producers, who in some cases have begun to recycle foam cups and paper goods on sets. But there’s a limit to how much information can be contained in a brief sequence. And environmentalists say the issues are too complicated to be handled simply as throwaway lines in sitcoms.

“I think it’s a good thing that Hollywood and others are addressing environmental problems, but if it’s not done in a substantive way, the public is going to tire of it,” said Bill Breen, managing editor of Garbage Magazine in Gloucester, Mass.

The environment is “as complicated as brain surgery,” said Garrett de Bell, environmental consultant to Universal Studios. And, say the activists, simply showing people recycling on television isn’t going to be enough.

Some producers have tried to tackle issues on a much deeper level.

“MacGyver,” which ends its seven-year run on ABC this spring, has treated issues such as the possible extinction of the black rhinoceros, clear-cutting of forests and the dangers of pesticides for farm workers in the format of a 60-minute drama.

But, according to executive producer Steve Downing, the shows were not easy to make--and it was also difficult to get them past network censors.

“The one I did called ‘Bitter Harvest,’ on pesticides, was a nightmare,” Downing said. “I was up three days straight rewriting the script” at the request of the network. ABC, Downing said, would not approve the program before showing the script to experts on both sides of the pesticide controversy, and insisted on toning down some of the anti-pesticide language in the script.

The program was difficult to shoot, too. Downing reckoned that had “MacGyver” not been filmed in Vancouver, Canada, the show never would have been made, because growers in California would not have allowed the cast and crew into their fields.

After the program aired, Downing said, “MacGyver” became the target of a letter-writing campaign by vineyard grape growers, whose living had been portrayed in the episode, and by the agri-chemical industry.

Fox’s animated comedy “The Simpsons” has treated a number of environmental issues, from nuclear power to deforestation. Last year, a series of episodes involved a deformed fish that developed three eyes because of radiation from the town’s nuclear power plant.

Executive producer Sam Simon said that writers on “The Simpsons” are encouraged to put together episodes that reflect issues and ideas that are of concern to them. But he said that the initial decision to set the series at a nuclear power plant--Homer Simpson, the father in the animated family, works at the town’s nuclear plant--was made for comedic, not environmental reasons.

“It was just for a joke,” Simon said. “It was soley for the idea that this boob Homer Simpson might press some button by accident that might blow up the world.”

Writers on “The Simpsons” did little research on nuclear power before preparing episodes on the issue, Simon said, although they did make a trip to the nuclear power plant in San Onofre at the invitation of an industry organization. And, according to consultant de Bell, that’s not unusual.

“Everybody thinks they know about the environment,” said de Bell, who spends much of his time trying to persuade writers and producers to research environmental topics--and helping them do so--before using them.

For example, de Bell said, he still sees well-meaning scripts in which characters try to preserve the ozone layer by avoiding aerosol hair sprays, even though the dangerous chemicals in the sprays, chlorofluorocarbons, have been outlawed for years.

At the same time, de Bell said, there are plenty of current issues--meaty, dramatic stories--that are barely being touched.

“There’s all kinds of room for treatment,” de Bell said, who added that he worked with the producers of a number of programs. Among them: “Swamp Thing,” “Charles in Charge” and “Munsters Today.” One show where his influence can be felt fairly regularly is “Harry and the Hendersons,” which has an upcoming episode that features the family becoming politically active in order to help save the ozone layer.

But Kathryn Montgomery, a media critic and former USC professor who has studied how television treats social issues, said that the problem is systemic to the way mainstream television operates.

“The people who work on environmental issues on television package it in such a way that it becomes formulaic after a while. . .” Montgomery said. My concern is that it might start to look as if we’ve taken care of all the problems.”

Turner Broadcasting, which operates cable’s TBS Superstation and Cable News Network and is owned by maverick television mogul Ted Turner, says it is devoted to tackling the environment in all of its complexity.

The network, which already produces “Network Earth” and the syndicated children’s environmental show “Captain Planet,” is embarking on an ambitious five-month “Save the Earth” programming schedule beginning next week.

The effort begins Feb. 23, with an evening of environmental programs including “One Child--One Voice,” a look at environmental problems through the eyes of children.

“Anyone who knows the issues of the environment will take it as a responsibility,” said TBS Barbara Pyle, vice president for environmental programming. “The people of this company have learned, and we care. It’s our responsibility to let (the public) know, so they can make informed decisions.” Four new Audubon Society Specials will air this spring, first on TBS and then on public television. PBS also plans to air a two-hour special, “Can Tropical Rain Forests be Saved?” on March 31.

The Discovery Channel has also committed itself to giving more than surface treatment to the environment. The channel, which operates 18 hours per day, devotes a third of its air time to programs about nature, said Greg Moyer, vice president for programming. Environmental specials coming this spring, he said, include “In the Company of Whales” and the BBC-produced series “The State of the Natural World.”

“TV can never do enough,” said Pyle of TBS. “We’re totally dependent on the Earth for our life. And we’re using it up very fast. Our future is at stake.”