TV: Cause or Cure for Social Ills? : News Programs Distort What’s Important

Substituting the euphemism “responsible filmmaking” for “censorship,” we have recently seen Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, and now President Clinton placing the blame for the violence and racial unrest in our streets upon the entertainment industry. At a “star-studded” affair hosted by Creative Artists Agency, arguably the most powerful force in “The Business” today, the President challenged the industry to examine how film and TV violence can negatively affect impoverished young people whose lives are without strong family and community support (“Filmland Ponders a Message,” Calendar, Dec. 6).

Is there violence in films and television? Certainly. Do we need to constantly examine our motives for creative mayhem on the screen in the hope of eliminating mindless, gratuitous violence? Absolutely. But who is to determine what is gratuitous and what is socially relevant? And more importantly, are we simply being asked to kill the messenger instead of confronting the realities of social disintegration? Violence in drama has existedsince ancient times. Its purpose was to allow the members of theaudience to vicariously confront the darker corners of their souls and purge themselves through what Aristotle called catharsis . Has man changed so much in the 20th Century that Aristotle no longer applies? Or are there other, subtler forms of self-abuse at work?

Allow me to suggest that at least a partial answer lies in a seemingly unrelated story that appeared in Morning Report on Dec. 3. “First, and most important, if you call it news, make sure it is.” With these ringing words, news anchor John Beard quit after 13 years with KNBC-TV, flagship station for the network that is currently fighting to remain fourth in the Big Three.

The question “What is news?” has become increasingly more difficult to answer. Yet our ongoing failure to be able to distinguish between news and entertainment lies at the root of much of what is tearing our society apart. While Beard was pointing to NBC’s inane treatment of Michael Jackson’s personal troubles as “headline news,” the truth is that for nearly two decades we have allowed network television to confuse news with entertainment. Ratings points mean more than in-depth coverage.

In order to keep viewers from turning the dial, TV newscasts resort to titillation and seduction, intentionally blurring the line between fantasy and reality. Then it’s a short step to the so-called “reality programming”--from “Geraldo,” to “9-1-1,” to “A Current Affair” et al. Given this climate for false journalism, how can we fairly expect anyone--much less a child--to discriminate between “Law & Order” and “Top Cops?”

In a society that increasingly fails to educate its young, where illiteracy is of epidemic proportions, television becomes for many their primary source of news. Simultaneously, it offers young people trapped in the frequently frustrating, impersonal and insensitive world a shining opportunity. All they need is a sound bite. For an instant on the 5, the 6 and the 11:00 p.m. news, the invisible gangbanger can become somebody. Access is as close as his corner gun shop.

And if he really does it right, he can parlay that moment of rage into a video circus with a full-blown trial (complete with instant replay ad nauseam) and, who knows, perhaps even his own movie of the week.

A free press--including TV news--will always be the cornerstone of a free society. But television is also a voyeuristic medium. It panders to our worst instincts. And while I respect President Clinton’s desire to curb the violence that confronts us daily, I suggest that it is not the dramatic violence which threatens to destroy us from within, but the greed that drives the commercial networks to sell news instead of report it.