TV’s Role in Our Society Does Go Beyond That of Bad Guy

Brian Lowry made some excellent shots in his Dec. 15 column, “A New Era for Social Advocacy?” Unfortunately, his shots missed the mark--primarily because he was playing the wrong game.

While our industry has been sacked far too many times in recent years by politicians and social advocacy groups for being the root of all evil in society, there are many in the entertainment community who are socially conscious in their creative, production and marketing processes. Our organization, the Entertainment Industries Council Inc., has been keenly aware of this fact for years and has, perhaps too quietly, used it to the benefit of our young audiences.

Lowry cites examples of public service announcements as ways that television can be used tosomehow miraculously inoculate young people from the negative influences of the rest of what they see in the media. These PSAs are no inoculation--they are a mere Band-Aid. The environment for social change toward the wearing of seat belts, for example, wasn’t solely the result of a few randomly placed spots. It required a cultural change to support it in the form of increased use of seat belts by fictional characters on television and in the movies. We should know; we made it happen.

The article states, “After all, if young women adopt ‘Friends’ star Jennifer Aniston’s hairdo or ‘Ally McBeal’s’ short skirts, wouldn’t they listen to them pontificate about parenting or tolerance?” Actually, I doubt it. What they will respond to is their characters engaged in situations related to these topics that make a point in the context of their “fictional reality.” As UC Santa Barbara’s Dale Kunkel states, “You’re not going to accomplish much if the 30-second message is outweighed by the 30-minute program.” But when the 30-minute program subtly delivers the message through the experiences of the characters, the point hits home.

EIC’s 15 years of experience in working with the creative community to “sneak in” these kinds of messages prove such a strategy can work. It takes moving beyond the mindset of free or paid PSAs.

The perfect example, of course, is our work with the National Institute on Drug Abuse in providing accurate, scientifically based information on drug, alcohol and tobacco use and addiction to creators who might be considering stories with characters who use these addictive substances. We provide information that is synthesized for creators by a team of scientists and entertainment professionals in equal partnership. Our series of books, “Spotlight on Depiction of Health and Social Issues,” is a resource that enhances creative opportunities through exploration of new ways to accurately think about these issues.

*

TV Academy president Meryl Marshall was correct in suggesting that traditionally the industry has not done enough to promote its good works. For this reason, EIC and NIDA are planning the third annual PRISM Awards to recognize entertainment industry efforts to accurately address drug, alcohol and tobacco use and addiction. In its second year, submissions to PRISMs increased by 90% and attendance at the event doubled.

In answer to Lowry’s question about whether Hollywood is willing to take action and whether anyone will really be willing to give television any of the credit, I must paraphrase one of our own native philosophers, Phil Alden Robinson. In the case of the PRISM Awards and “Spotlight on Depiction’s” work toward cultural change, if you build it, nurture it and expose it, they will come.

Maybe if the print and electronic news media dealt more with the positive ways the medium is trying to make a difference without yielding its entertainment value--maybe if they stopped helping to hang the dart board around our collective necks--they could start covering the right game and notice that there’s more than a few in the creative community who are hitting ‘em out of the park.