For the week of 1.15.06 

 "I do not accept the idea that the present over-all programming is aimed accurately at the public taste…A rating, at best, is an indication of how many people saw what you gave them. It never reveals what the acceptance would have been if what you gave them had been better -- if all the forces of art and creativity and daring and imagination had been unleashed. I believe in the people's good sense and good taste, and I am not convinced that the people's taste is as low as some of you assume." – then-FCC chairman Newton Minow, addressing the National Association of Broadcasters, April 9, 1961

In the decades since Newton Minow spoke those words, technology has grown and diversified tremendously, often for the better.  Television programming has also "diversified"…almost entirely for the worse.  It is unquestionable that scientific and technological progress has been made – the rise of the home computer, the Internet, and satellite and wireless equipment being only a few examples.  But can the coarsening of our common culture through sources like Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, Sex and the City and South Park truly be called "progress"?

Technophiles, many consumers, and even some in the entertainment media rightly hail the increased diversity of media sources created by new technology. But where, in all this celebration of "diversity," are truly family-friendly programs?  Does the media's sense of "diversity" extend to providing programming that does not glorify violence, sex, and profanity?  Or does it simply continue to offer the same tired old gore, smut, and foul language as before?  Will the future see new programming created, or merely old programming clichés repackaged?  

Some see the wider range of technological methods of accessing media programming as being a tremendous boon, and even as reinventing the entertainment industry by liberating consumers from the old commercial-driven network television model. 

"For years, the entertainment industry tried to fool us -- and itself -- into thinking that it only prospered by giving consumers what they wanted…We are now discovering what a big lie that was. The real strategy of the entertainment industry has been to force customers to pay inflated prices to watch the movies and television most profitable for the industry to produce, at times that allowed the industry to rake in the most money, and distributed through channels designed to keep out upstart competition. But technology now threatens to put the consumer back in charge." -- media critic Steven Pearlstein (Washington Post, November 9, 2005)

That the entertainment industry is being forced by technology to be more receptive to consumer desires is a good thing in itself. Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether these changes will encourage those controlling the media to diversify their programming to reflect more than Hollywood's narrow view. In other words, while the FORMS in which we receive media will definitely change, it is questionable whether the CONTENT will. Will this forced change to accommodating consumer desires for media "when they want it" also lead to programming consumers will actually want?  Or will media bosses and the so-called "creative community" simply continue to deluge media consumers with ever more violence, sex and profanity? 

Some are optimistic:  

"Much less of what we think of as television will be paid for by advertisers, and more by viewers. The big networks will continue to lose market share, not just to niche cable channels, but to interactive gamers and anyone with a good idea, a studio and access to the Internet." --  media critic Steven Pearlstein (Washington Post, November 9, 2005)

While it is to be hoped that Pearlstein is right – that "anyone with a good idea" will be allowed access to media distribution – it is even more likely that those with BAD ideas will prosper. Will such increased accessibility lead to more programs like Seventh Heaven and Reba… or still more (and raunchier) shows emulating The Family Guy and Nip/Tuck? 

And the prospect of such programs not even being advertiser-supported, but requiring direct consumer payment on a "pay-per-view" basis, is even more dismal.

A Forrester Research study counting nearly 69,000 people in the U.S. and Canada separated consumers into various categories, including technology "optimists" and "pessimists" The study defined a tech optimist as believing technology will make life more enjoyable, while pessimists were defined as those indifferent or even hostile to technology. Online media is attractive to technology optimists, says the report, noting that they are three times more likely to use streaming media, peer-to-peer file sharing and read blogs as are their pessimistic counterparts. Optimists play video games, read magazines and listen to the radio more than do pessimists. But notably, pessimists watched more television, and outnumbered optimists 51%-49%. (Reuters, August 3, 2005)

Unless television programming changes not merely its methods of distribution but its programming content, it is likely that ever more viewers will do what oblivious programmers have been telling them for years.  With a wider array of media options, viewers hungry for clean, family-friendly programming increasingly will "just change the channel."

Or stop watching altogether. 

Culture Watch - Entertainment Industry News

The Parents Television Council - www.parentstv.org