Turn Off the Set? Not if Media Can Help It

It’s easy to admire those with the guts to tackle a lopsided challenge and oversized foe, to courageously play David to someone’s Goliath.

Still, organizers of TV-Turnoff Week appear to have loaded their sling with marshmallows by scheduling their TV-free campaign to begin Monday, taking on not only the combined might of the television networks as they start the most important sweeps period of the year--when best programming feet are put forward--but, in the case of “Survivor: The Australian Outback,” an adoring army of media foot soldiers as well.

TV-Turnoff Week crusaders have announced that U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher will join them at next week’s news conference kicking off the annual drive to go tubeless, but they might as well have enlisted St. Jude, patron saint of hopeless causes, for all the good it will do.

Because far from looking like the sort of angry mob about to hoist pitchforks and bring the TV monster to heel--and despite anticipation that the Internet and computers would lure people away from their sets--most evidence indicates American butts remain firmly planted on American couches, with eyes fixed on those seductive little boxes.

Indeed, television-watching in prime time has climbed to an all-time high, not necessarily in the percentage of homes but in terms of sheer tonnage, based on Nielsen Media Research data for the 2000-01 season.

On an average night, a record 102.5 million people--or almost 40% of U.S. residents age 2 and older (infants don’t have much discretionary income and thus don’t exist from a TV perspective)--are watching television at any given moment during prime time. That represents a 3% increase compared with the prior year, outpacing population growth and for the first time reaching the 100 million plateau.

At the same time, as a parade of depressing studies has pointed out, we are a fat, sedentary nation--in no small part due to our TV fetish--and getting fatter. We battle the bulge by sitting on the sofa devouring low-calorie treats, staring at actors and actresses playing model-thin cops, lawyers and doctors, periodically interrupted by even thinner, better-toned bodies in Nike and Victoria’s Secret commercials.

Achieving the goals set forth by TV-Turnoff Week, then, is a tall order in the best of times. The nonprofit group does know how to put an impressive-sounding spin on numbers, estimating based on the volume of material distributed that “Six million children and adults . . . around the world [are] expected to participate.” Given that past TV-free campaigns and proposed boycotts have never exhibited an appreciable decline in measurable viewership, the claim brings to mind the Freddy Fillmore character from “I Love Lucy,” who might dryly reply, “Really.”

Yet beyond just the networks--whose job, after all, is to make sure every week is Keep-TV-Turned-On Week--it seems lately that some newspapers and magazines have blithely joined in the promotional orgy, especially when it involves a perceived phenomenon such as “Survivor.”

Just consider USA Today, which has run a weekly box, to go with a steady stream of stories, analyzing what will happen next on the CBS series; or Entertainment Weekly, which keeps plastering “Survivor” on its cover, recently providing what the magazine accurately described as an “obsessive guide” to the program, whose penultimate episode is scheduled for April 26--the first night of the four-week May ratings survey--with a two-hour finale and reunion show the following week.

Now remember, “Survivor” is not the Super Bowl, the NCAA tournament, a major political convention or any other live event. It’s a made-for-TV game, carefully edited to tell a story, which in fact finished playing itself out several months ago.

Yet publications such as those cited, and others, breathlessly chronicle weekly developments as if they were unfolding in real time--as if you saw Jerri or Nick “voted out of the tribe” that night, when the competition itself is actually long since over.

Although it’s fine to cater to public yens, there’s a difference between doing that and pandering--between documenting a legitimate cultural marvel and shilling for it in trying to piggyback on its broad shoulders.

Moreover, many outlets caught up in “Survivor” fever share parentage with CBS under the big Viacom umbrella and thus harbor a peripheral interest in the program’s success--from Paramount’s “Entertainment Tonight” to CBS’ “The Early Show,” which has abandoned any pretense of credibility in its unabashed strategy of cashing in on the show, the tiny fish feeding off the shark.

In terms of CBS’ journalistic misdemeanors, in fact, one could argue where Dan Rather chooses to make speeches in the evening almost pales next to how Bryant Gumbel--the onetime hard case who penned a famous memo delineating, among other things, his distaste for weatherman Willard Scott’s “bad taste” antics on “Today”--has been spending his mornings.

If attempts to draft on the “Survivor” gravy train are understandable, what’s more perplexing is why publications keep groveling at the feet of producer Mark Burnett, who has repeatedly stated he will lie and disseminate false information to protect the secrecy of his show’s outcome. Like we said, it’s just a silly game show, not the Pentagon Papers, but should news organizations line up to interview someone who boasts in advance that he’s not going to tell the truth?

Given the brutally competitive TV environment, you can’t really fault CBS for this promotional binge. Networks spend much of their time begging newspapers and magazines to cover their series, so it’s difficult to resist when the tables are suddenly turned.

It’s a bit unsettling, however, to see media outlets make the leap from reporting on a program to rooting and playing along, indulging in the sort of wanton coverage that inevitably helps foster the notion this is truly must-see TV--a cultural event that demands attention, in much the same way the country grinds to a halt each Super Bowl Sunday.

Journalism fortunately lacks its own version of a tribal council, or a few torches would flicker out faster than you can type Jeff Probst. As for the well-intentioned folks behind TV-Turnoff Week, perhaps we’ll hoist a glass tonight saluting their lost cause--just the right complement to a low-fat frozen dinner while watching “The West Wing” and “Law & Order.”

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Wednesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.