      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Is Television Going Down the Tubes? main page    Transcript for: Is Television Going Down the Tubes?television ANNOUNCER: Think Tank is made possible by AMGEN, recipient ofthe Presidential National Medal of Technology. AMGEN, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology. Improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation,the Lilly Endowment, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, theUnited States-Japan Foundation, and the Donner Canadian Foundation. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. Everyone seems tobe complaining these days about television. Too much sex, too muchviolence, too much commercialism, fewer quality programs. Presentcompany excluded, is television really that bad? Has i t gotten worse or are the programs on TV the ones the public wantsto watch. And if the public likes them, isn't that the whole idea? Joining us to sort through the conflict and consensus are theco-authors of the new book Down The Tube: An Inside Account of theFailure of American Television. They are William Baker, presidentand CEO of the PBS station in New York WNET, and George Dessart,professor of television and radio at Brooklyn College of the CityUniversity of New York. Also joining us is Irwin Stelzer, directorof regulatory studies at the American Enterprise Institute. A longtime advisor to the News Corporation, and co-author of Markets andthe Media. A discussion on television, on television, is TV goingdown the tubes, this week on Think Tank. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Television bashing is popular sport, manyblame TV for such social ills as crime, teenage drug use, andpremarital sex. Critics point to the daytime talk shows thatencourage antic brawls, like Jerry Springer, to prime time sitcomsfull of sexual innuendo and outuendo. At the least, television haschanged dramatically from its early years. In their new book, Down The Tube: An Inside Account ofthe Failure of American Television, two of our guests argue that overcommercialism and a lack of government regulation have caused adecline in the quality of programs. They say most shows now panderto our most base interests. And that the primary purpose of the hugecorporations that control what we watch is simply to make a buck. Others say the programs on television are the ones people want towatch, and that Americans should be able to choose whatever theylike. One thing is certain, television has become a permanentand important part of our lives. The percentage of Americanhouseholds that own a color television set is nearly 100 percent, andwe watch television for an average of seven hours each day. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Let me begin on thisside of the room, if I might, and ask the co-authors of this book,Down The Tube, what is wrong with television, starting with you, BillBaker? MR. BAKER: I would say the problem with television is that fora thing as powerful as it is to aim only for the bottom line is toaim too low, and that's what's happening in our society today. MR. WATTENBERG: George. MR. DESSART: I would say that we really have failed to realizethe potential of this medium, and that's cheating a whole generationof Americans. MR. WATTENBERG: What's wrong with that? MR. STELZER: Well, I think using the term 'bottom line' as apejorative is wrong. To get to the bottom line, you have to satisfypeople by showing programs they want to see. So, it's a form ofdemocracy, if you will, to maximize your bottom line. MR. WATTENBERG: What's wrong with that? MR. DESSART: That presupposes an infinite menu, and thatpresupposes an infinite menu from which people can choose. But ourthesis is that there is a limited menu, and when that menu issaturated with programs that are essentially debasing the medium, ifnot indeed the audience, then something is wrong. MR. BAKER: And there's something else about television that'sdifferent than other kind of consumer products. And that is,television affects the mind. It is part of a broader culturalentity. And that, in a sense, what the argument that says, we'regiving the audience what they want, and some of my commercial friendssay, we'll we're giving them what they deserve, is really perhapsmore of a product of conditioning, like adding Valium to the drinkingwater, or something. You kind of get used to it. MR. WATTENBERG: Go ahead, Irwin. MR. STELZER: Well, first of all, every time somebody has aproduct, and they say that, mine is different, it's somehowimportant. I tend to hold onto my wallet, because that's usually apredicate for some relief from market forces, for some relief fromsatisfying consumer demand. As for your point about this beinglimited, we're about to enter a stage -- an age of 200 channeltelevision. We now have 80 in most areas, 65 in some. There'splenty of room on these channels for niche television of all sortssatisfying anybody who wants it. MR. WATTENBERG: What you two co-authors are saying, in effect,and there's much to admire in this book, I must say, but is that youknow better, that you, collectively, you, the government, ought toset down rules as to what the people ought to watch. And I will tellyou, Irwin says he holds onto his wallet when people start asking forexemptions. I hold onto my wallet when the government wants to tellme what I ought to listen to. MR. DESSART: That's not really what we're calling for. Whatwe bring to public attention is the fact that nobody ever really satdown and said, what is it, what can this medium do? What do we wantof this medium? How do we want that to happen? MR. WATTENBERG: There have been so many -- nobody's ever satdown? MR. BAKER: Not really. MR. DESSART: Not really. MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, you could fill this studio withreports. I mean, you mention them. The Carnegie Report, and theHoover Report, and the second Carnegie Report. MR. DESSART: Of course, which were specifically addressing thequestions of public television. MR. WATTENBERG: Right. MR. DESSART: But we have been talking about commercialtelevision. MR. WATTENBERG: I see, okay. MR. DESSART: And let me go back to that. Nobody ever reallysaid, should we have a commercial system at all? Should we -- and ifwe do, under what circumstances? If we do not, under whatcircumstances? We've never had that kind of dialogue that hasoccurred in a number of countries. MR. STELZER: But that's a peculiar mind-set, and let meexplain why. Number one, no one ever sat down and said, what kind ofoil industry shall we have, or what kind of steel industry shall wehave, or what kind of automobile industry shall we have. We decideda long time ago to have industries that respond to what consumerswant. As for the -- MR. BAKER: Irwin, those industries -- MR. STELZER: Let me finish. There's three aspects of it. Thesecond is that your book, which I think is wonderful on the history,seems to me to fail to rise above the notion of spectrum scarcity. We are now in an age where we're not talking about scarcity anymore. We're talking about such a huge demand, and I can tell you thisbecause I'm involved with News Corp. and other people, that such ahuge demand for product, for things to put on television, that thebalance of power has shifted to program providers. And, third, themodel of other countries, which if you study what's going on inGermany, or you study the trials and tribulations of BBC, those arevery bad models. MR. BAKER: Irwin, I'd like to put a pin in a couple of thingsyou said. First of all, the concept of program scarcity. I'm in thetelevision business, I've been in the television business for 40years, 35 of those -- or 30 of those being commercial television. And I can tell you, talk to any producer in America, any independentproducer in America, and nobody will say there is program scarcity. As a matter of fact, it's the other way around. There's distributionscarcity. And even with cable, many of the cable systems and theNews Corporation had that problem in New York, couldn't getdistribution in New York and had to do a lot of things that theyhoped would solve that. MR. WATTENBERG: Then why are people going around -- MR. BAKER: Ben, and also I want to put a pin in something thatyou said, and that is, we think we know what's right, and we think weshould decide what's on television. We feel exactly the opposite. We feel exactly the opposite. But we think the American people havereally not had a chance to discuss what to do. And the right-of-waysthat cable run down, and the airways that the American publicbroadcast these stations broadcast over our assets, ultimate theAmerican people. MR. WATTENBERG: The American people individually own the mostdemocratic device in the history of the world, which is thetelevision clicker. As Irwin points out, you have 60 channels thereif you're a cable subscriber, not as many if you're not a cablesubscriber, and you can say, here's what I want, here's what I don'twant. MR. BAKER: I own another democratic device in my house, andit's called a mailbox, but I can tell the U.S. Postal Service I don'twant pornographic mail delivered to me. Why can't I say the same -- MR. WATTENBERG: You can. Well, you do. MR. STELZER: You can. You can blackout any channel you don'tlike. MR. WATTENBERG: And you have laws passed by the Congress ofthe United States, enforced by the FCC, saying you can't say theseseven words, you can't put on this kind of program, you can't put onthat kind of program. MR. BAKER: The laws as enforced by the FCC in and industrythat is -- television industry that is better than 50 years old,there have only been two television stations in the entire history ofthe American television industry that have ever lost its license. So, I'd hardly view strict enforcement as any -- MR. DESSART: It shows how afraid people are to lose theirlicense. And it shows how historically, they actually paid attentionto that license, because they knew that the possibility of challengewas there. The possibility of challenge has been removed, and theFCC has lost a great deal of its powers, and what we are seeinginstead is, we're seeing -- we're hearing those seven words daily inone form or another, if that be the criterion. We're also seeing adebasing of American culture in certain respects. And I don't -- MR. WATTENBERG: But why do you say, if you are prepared tomake these value judgments about debasing and poor quality, andyou're saying that something other than the market ought to decidethat, or ought to help decide that, you are ultimately talking aboutgovernment or government-appointed boards, trusteeships, whatever youwant to call it. MR. DESSART: Not necessarily. MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, that is the theme that runs throughoutthis book. MR. DESSART: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. We have lostthe self-regulation that was a hallmark of American broadcasting. And American broadcasters understood that there was a differencebetween broadcasting and the automobile, or the petroleum that wemake us of. And, there was a very effective self-regulatory process. That has disappeared. MR. STELZER: The notion of television people sitting down anddeciding what is fit for people to see, people who can decide forthemselves, by going, as Ben said, click, I don't want to see youanymore, is very -- makes me very nervous. MR. DESSART: Let me give you an example. Let me give you anexample that's very current, and that I think really speaks to whatI'm talking about and what Bill is talking about, several weeks agowe had that horrible event on the Los Angeles Freeway where the manstopped his car, stopped traffic, set fire to first his car, then hisdog, then himself, then got a shotgun and blew his brains out. Andat least two stations in the name of competition interruptedchildren's programs, one a cartoon show, another a live children'sprogram, in order to show this, one of them in complete -- in a verytight shot when the man blew his brains out. Now, self-regulation,self-discipline, some sense of what the covenant between thebroadcaster and the audience should be, could have prevented that. MR. STELZER: If you want -- you're saying it's competitionthat drove them to this. MR. DESSART: Exactly. MR. STELZER: How would you have had that work? Would you havehad all the television people in Los Angeles call each other up andsay, look, let's not show this? MR. DESSART: No. No, what would have happened in the kind ofworld that I think any one of the four of us would like to have, whatwould have happened is that a value judgment would be made by thenews director, or whoever is running that station, we have a childaudience, and this situation could go in any direction. It's alreadyout of control. We're not going to interrupt the program for that. MR. WATTENBERG: The predicate of your book, and it's right upfront, you say, people always tell you, how come television is sobad, why is it getting worse? All over the world, in every countryof the world, people watch American television. Not only do theywatch American television, they watch American television to theexclusion of their own local television. So, somebody likes it. Now, the predicate further is that this is sort of tawdry kind ofstuff, and flamboyant and sexy and violent, and so on and so forth. I would just like to relate one conversation that I had with SidneyPollack, who is a distinguished American film director, and I said,you know, what are American movies about? And he said something veryinteresting. He said, they're all about the same thing, the heroshapes destiny. Pretty -- MR. BAKER: That's nice. MR. WATTENBERG: Real nice. MR. BAKER: Nicely said. MR. WATTENBERG: Nicely said, and true, I think. And I havelots of problems with American movies and American television on boththe entertainment side and the news side. But American television istelling stories. They're showing individualism of heroes shapingdestiny. Some of these are grubby, ugly stories, some of them areterrific, movies and television. The people are making thatdecision. You keep saying you don't want government to do it. Butyour book comes out for government-appointed boards to regulate this. MR. BAKER: Well, I mean, there is a public foment. There's adiscussion right now. The American public is speaking out, andthey're saying, something is wrong. And our attempt here in thisDown The Tube book is to say, here's how we got to where we -- how wegot there, and we got there through a series of non-regulations, badregulations, or unintended consequences of regulations. And, we areat a threshold, we are at a point where it is generally agreed, eventhough television is incredibly popular in this country, and Americantelevision is popular all over the world, Baywatch is one of the mostpopular shows in world television. There's no getting around that. There's no getting around that. But everyone still feels, eveneveryone who's watching Baywatch, think maybe there's some unfilledpromise here. And we suggest a couple of things. One is that the Americanpublic should start talking about it, as we are here. The other isthat there are many options, and one of the options could be tax lawchanges that say, for example, because of the pressure on the bottomline, there are very few public service announcements on television. It used to be mandated by law that you had to do a certain number ofpublic service announcements. Why not give a tax credit for that toget some of that back on the air. I mean, there are many things thatcould be done. MR. STELZER: Look at the contradiction at the heart of that. When I read the book, which I think is a wonderful book, when you gotto the point of annual appropriations for public television, youwalked away from that for a variety of reasons. In other words, thatarea of accountability didn't appeal to you either. The marketdidn't -- annual accountability to the taxpayers who would be payingfor this didn't appeal to you either. Now, that's because there's acontradiction at the heart of this that's very clear with BBC. Ifpeople are paying taxes, everyone, to support public television -- MR. BAKER: As they do in England. MR. STELZER: -- as they do in England, and they come aroundand arrest you if you don't pay your license fee. They arrested 600people last year for not paying a license fee. I don't know if we'dlike trucks driving around America with these things pulling peopleout of their houses. But the contradiction is, that as it has lostmarket share, BBC, because of incredibly boring programming, but asit's lost market share, so that it's now down to about a third of themarket, everyone is saying, wait aminute, why should all of us payfor what a third of the people are watching. We don't want to dothat. So, it loses its ability to demand public funding unless itgets popular. So, what is it doing? Game shows, it's trying to winback rating points because it must do that to maintain its fundingrights. MR. BAKER: And, of course, that's a fear of what could happenin American public television as well. MR. STELZER: You want to be immune even from that. MR. BAKER: I mean, that's one of the things that greatlyconcerns us that as American public television becomes more andreliant on the corporate funders and others, it become -- MR. STELZER: But you see, you want no accountability either tothe market or to the taxpayer. That was fine when it was privatefunds, the Ford Foundation, or Eli Lilly, or the generous people whosupport public television. But you want -- you don't want to beresponsible to the people who watch television, because accounting oftheir eyeballs is what drives things. You don't want to beresponsible to the taxpayer, because that would require annualappropriation. You do want to be responsible to, as I understand it,various governing boards who will decide what's good for everybody. I don't think that's such a hot idea. MR. BAKER: No. We're not prepared to tell what the modelshould be. As a matter of fact, what we're suggesting is the exactopposite, that the American public should discuss what the modelshould be. MR. WATTENBERG: Look, I have children who are aged 40, 38, 36and 14. Okay, so I -- MR. DESSART: Congratulations. MR. WATTENBERG: Thank you. I have been through this twice. The amount of crap on television now, these gentlemen are quiteright, is up to about here. I mean, now, as a free marketer, but whois interested in the well-being of American children, how do you getrid of that? What do you do about it? MR. STELZER: Well, first of all, why would you want to get ridof it? Turn it off. MR. WATTENBERG: Irwin, give me a break, a 14-year-old girl,you're telling her to turn off the television set. MR. STELZER: Are you telling me you can't control your14-year-old girl? MR. WATTENBERG: You've got it. When you have five televisionsets in the house, and a 14-year-old girl, you've got it, right. MR. STELZER: So you would craft public policy around theinability of you to control what your daughter watches on television. I think that's a bad idea. MR. WATTENBERG: Why can't we zone it, not censor it, why can'twe zone it in such a way that if you turn on your television set inthe living room at 7:30 or 8:00 or 8:30, you don't get programs wherepeople are getting drilled through the eyes, and where everything isjiggling? What is so terrible about that? MR. STELZER: Because there's two kinds of television. Theyhave those rules in Britain, by the way, where at certain timeperiods you can't show certain -- MR. WATTENBERG: You thought I wasn't going to go after it,didn't you. MR. STELZER: -- violent programs, and Australia. But there'sa big difference, the cable channels that you're talking about --broadcast doesn't present much of a violent problem during familyhours. I mean, if you think about what's on those, it's cabletelevision which you are paying for and inviting into your home,don't take it if you don't want it. MR. WATTENBERG: Broadcast television is doing a pretty goodjob of getting down there, maybe because of the competition. MR. STELZER: No, not during family time. If you look, you'llsee what's on there. I mean, I yesterday went through your favoritepublication, TV Guide, just to see what was on during family hours ondifferent things, and the big problem, if you don'tlike violence --now, there are different views on this, as you know. The liberalslike sex and don't like violence, and conservatives like violence anddon't like sex. MR. WATTENBERG: What time of night was -- the Seinfeld programon masturbation aired at what time of night? MR. STELZER: I don't remember. MR. BAKER: Eight o'clock at night. MR. WATTENBERG: Eight o'clock or 8:30. MR. STELZER: But you see, again, Ben, that is a judgment byyou as to what is culturally acceptable. If you find itunacceptable, turn it off. MR. DESSART: For my sins, I was head of program practices atCBS for several years, and it's not quite as easy as it would seem. There was no warning at that time, nor could there be. Seinfeld wasgenerally a program that was culturally accepted, certainly by abroad swath of the American public, and deservedly so for the mostpart. MR. WATTENBERG: Yes, it's a good program. I like it. MR. DESSART: But, was that something that should have been on,that might have been discussed. The mechanisms for that no longerexist. MR. STELZER: But look what's happened, you and your book Ithink say some nice things about the Simpsons, for instance. I thinkyou said it was an innovative program, I'm not sure, but as I recall. MR. DESSART: Yes, we do say that. MR. STELZER: I have colleagues at the AEI who think theSimpsons should not be allowed on the air because it breedsdisrespect for family authority. How would you cope with the factthat Ben doesn't like one episode of Seinfeld, I have colleagues whodon't like the Simpsons, how would you handle all of that? MR. BAKER: We'd let them run. We'd let those kinds of shows-- we're not talking about micromanaging public taste in anyspectrum. We don't want that to happen. We're First Amendmentbelievers. MR. STELZER: I'm with you. MR. DESSART: What we are talking about is that it is possibleto gauge where the American public is at a particular time. I wouldsay that in the interests of sensationalism, television has beenracing far faster than the American public. And, as a result, thereis a great dissatisfaction out there. And as a result, there is alot of imitative work that debases it still further. MR. WATTENBERG: Well, let me just go around the room veryquickly, because we are out of time, and ask you each briefly to tellme if you were an American citizen, and a television set owner, giventhe problems you see in this industry, what would you advise them todo? MR. BAKER: I would advise them to be very careful about whatthey see, and to view television as not just a source of accurateinformation, but as a tool that is a part of commerce, and to judgethat accordingly. MR. DESSART: I would ask that they pick up on the discussionthat we've had, and other discussions of this nature, and that theybegin to discuss with their friends, their neighbors, theircolleagues, what they wish from television, what they get fromtelevision, and what they think television is doing. And it may bethat the answer will be that they are very much in favor of it. Idon't think so. I think that they will find that there is much to bedone, and they can do it. MR. WATTENBERG: Irwin? MR. STELZER: I would applaud the increase in the ability toexercise choice that results from the proliferation of channels, frommore sophisticated blocking devices, from the use of the remote,intelligent use of the remote, from the subscription paid televisionso that you can buy a la carte television, everything that increasesthe range of a person's ability to receive programs he wants, and notreceive programs he doesn't want. MR. WATTENBERG: My advice is simple, use the clicker. Thank you, Bill Baker, Irwin Stelzer, and George Dessart. And thank you. For Think Tank, I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend on your views to make ourshow better. Please send your questions and comments to New RiverMedia, 1150 Seventeenth Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20036,or email us at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank,visit PBS Online at www.pbs.org. And please let us know where youwatch Think Tank. This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, in associationwith New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content. Think Tank is made possible by AMGEN, recipient of thePresidential National Medal of Technology. AMGEN, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology. Improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation,the Lilly Endowment, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, theUnited States-Japan Foundation, and the Donner Canadian Foundation. (End of program.) Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |