Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Television has encouraged a dumbing down of societal discourse. Neil Postman's arguments seem both dated and prenicient. When written in the 1980s, television was primarily consumed via limited broadcast stations. Cable was growing, but still limited. Computers were something of a novelty. People sat down in front of a family TV to get information. If they were bored, they stopped watching.

Today it has become worse. Moving pictures are available on phones, computers and the TV set. There are a near-infinite number of different videos that can be streamed with the click of a button. Nearly everything is "stand alone". You can watch a single youtube video then see more from the same creator. There are many series and movies available. The attention spans have shrunk further as there are many other options if something is not entertaining.

With COVID, education and religion have been migrated to screens with poor results. Church did not have the same "sacredness" when it was just coming from a screen at home. People would do things that they would not otherwise do at church. Similarly school was a different experience. Even trying to replicate the same school experience over Zoom produced poor results. Why watch a boring teacher, when there are many well-produced programs out there? Migration to screens seems to degrade the original.

TV is here to stay. We are now picking leaders based on how they appear on screens rather than on substantive issues. "Influencers" have large media followings. With the large number of video productions there are some that are daring. However, the overall quality has veered towards those with lower attention spans and less spot. It does not bode well for society. Postman observed the problems and half heartedly proposes solutions. Things do not bode well for society.

Ship It

Ship It starts out as R-rated gay fan fiction, then switches into a teenage coming of age book. It feels like something that was written from personal experience. It centers around a girl who is obsessed with a cult television series. She writes fan fiction where the two leads end up hooking up. The book also follows one of the lead actors in the series. This show was his first big break, and he is hoping to get on another video game adaption. There is tension with the characters discovering their sexuality and the relationship between artists and their fans.
One message the book asks is for media to have more characters that "look like me". Alas, this is a double edged sword. If the entire US population is targeted, then the characters should all be white to appeal to the majority. If the world is targeted, perhaps one white and one Chinese. Only with large ensembles would other racial groups start to appear. However, even these get tricky. How would somebody identify themselves to "see themselves" in the show? If the identify as human, then great, anybody can represent them. If they identify as 5% Cherokee, 20% Kenyan, 40% Portuguese and 35% Northern European, then it will be much harder to achieve the exact representation. And that only touches external race. What about religion or home country? Sexuality also opens up a whole new can of worms. The focus on this book is "queer" vs. "straight". But what about attraction to other physical characteristics? As audiences attempt to divide themselves into greater numbers of subgroups, it becomes more and more impossible to find the perfect subgroup that matches them.
That also brings up the "demonizing" of other subgroups. In the book, the "queer" subgroup is attempting to show their mark on the show. However, to do that, the group of masculine gamers is demonized. They are portrayed as homophobic thugs who don't want to have anything to do with the actor after he shows a sympathy to queer passion. Once a formerly oppressed subgroup gets their is a natural tendency to take it out on the others. Our societal harmony depends on not doing that and respecting the views of others even if they don't agree with ours. The does a good job in showing the fluidity of "queerness". A straight character can engage in a same-sex kiss, while one can be queer and engage in a positive heterosexual relationship. However, the focus is on giving in to passions. This sets up conflict with the "me too" movement and a legal code. There still needs to be restraint in place, even if chemistry appears to be present.

Star Trek: The City on the Edge of Forever

Harlan Ellison wrote a lot of the forward material in the "City on the Edge of Forever". In it, he comes across as a total jerk who is obsessed with the minutia of his work, and rails on others for making trivial mistakes. He is intent on setting the record 100% straight, and in the process seems to burn a lot of bridges. The actual teleplay only takes up a small fraction of the recording. It is well done with a full cast. After listening to the audiobook, I watched the original episode. I have never been much of a Star Trek fan, but it was pretty good. It is tough to see why Ellison was so upset. The filmed episode is missing the "musical drugs" and the space pirates that were in the original script. Both versions follow the same general plot. They find a "time planet" They are able to jump into time. Somebody goes back in time and "changes the flow". Spock and Kirk go back to try to fix history. However, to do it, Edith Keeler must die her natural death, rather than be saved. (If she continued to live, she would lead a "peace" effort that would delay the US entry in to World War II, and thus Germany would develop atomic weapons and dominate the world.) In the original version, it was a rotten drug-dealing crew member that went back. In the filmed version, it was Dr. McCoy who went crazy with a huge overdose of an accidental healing drug. In the original, the "bad guy" ended up getting the supreme punishment of being stuck in a time loop in an exploding star. It also had the "good guys" trying to prevent the "bad guy" from saving the life of a woman. The filmed version has Spock and Kirk discover the situation on their own. In the original version, they had the "time lords" tell them what needed to be done. The story is an interesting "time travel" story. Both the original and filmed version have their merits. Ellison's pride probably made it difficult for him to see past that.

Sledge Hammer!

Sledge Hammer was a mid-80s television show that had low ratings and was constantly moved around the schedule. At the end of the first season, a nuclear bomb destroyed everybody. Yet, the series was somehow renewed for one more season.

It was ridiculously funny when it came out. While there are a few "current events" jokes in the series, most of the humor is just as funny today. Inspector Sledge Hammer is a violence loving cop who manages to catch the bad guys in spite of himself. The humor is primarily a mixture of "Pink Panther" style slapstick cock and deadpan ironic dialog.

A quick scan of Wikipedia shows the primary actors and creator were best known for their work on this series. (In spite of work on many other movies and TV shows, and even a marriage to Michael Chrichton.) The actors don't look like the 'perfect' TV actors. The sets and action are all "good enough", but not perfect. Its not B-move bad, but more of a comic book level of imperfection that adds to its charm.

The show centers around a cop with extreme violent tendencies. However, it manages to do this with very little violence. In spite of a fascination with a gun, we never see Sledge kill anybody. The restrainment allows it to be truly funny. It often parodies other movies or characters (one episode manages to parody both The Godfather and Witness.) The humor appeals to both kids and adults alike.

No TV

A San Francisco Chronicle blog has a post about a family without a TV. They seem somewhat similar to us. Yes, we still watch some DVDs and occasionally stream videos. However, not having a large device pushing content does make a big difference. You don't pass a big screen in the living room and suddenly have the urge to push the remote through 100 channels of shows you don't want to watch. Tivo might let you record programs - but even there, you plan a bunch of things to watch and end up being drawn in to them when you are by a TV.
Yes, we do find ourselves drawn to the laptop, mindlessly checking email, news or sports scores. In some ways this can be worse, since it is individual rather than group. However, the individual nature also makes it short lived. Others beg attention, and then you are off.