We know the power and influence of television, that it can create celebrities, initiate and drive fashions; it can establish what is important in the news and set the agenda of debate. Having a presence in most people’s homes it has a direct channel into our lives. Unsurprisingly, this has been recognised and television is now used more than ever as a force for generating change.
Questions must be asked.
Is it a legitimate role for television and the media to shape society’s values and behaviours? Or should they be more reflective, so that they portray those values and behaviours as they currently exist?
If they are a tool to be used to fashion and model society then the concern would be around who is using the tool and who is actually in charge. What is their agenda? To what extent are they being manipulative? What or who gives them the right to determine what is acceptable? How are they accountable? Is this a form of shrouded censorship? Does this undermine our right to free speech?
On the other hand, are such controls working for the greater good? Are they acceptable because they are in the best interests of society? Are they driving progress and a more tolerant, enhanced view of life?
Every December we will see commercial adverts of people having the perfect Christmas. A picture is painted as to the Christmas we should all aspire to. It’s nice to see, nice to want, nice to have. We are being sold a certain lifestyle or look that we should be striving for. This is what needs to happen for that perfect, that happy Christmas.
The same happens throughout broadcasting. Either an image is portrayed, or something is communicated that sets the narrative. Society is being managed.
Two classic examples of such managerial manipulation are:
Firstly, the representation of minorities. This means that racial, religious, sexual and gender representations must be seen and heard. If there is a group picture, then all aspects of society must be represented. That representation must be in balance with the make-up of society. This is particularly apparent in soap operas or advertisements or news discussions.
And yet parts of our society are constituted very differently. Compare inner cities to country villages or Southern towns to Northern towns. The type of people, their attitudes, their views, their values can be very different. One perspective doesn’t fit all.
Given that the media is dominated by the metropolis with its breadth of community, might there be a concern that society is being forcibly shaped in a way that is not fully reflective of the wider nation? Broadcasters are a minority elite, yet they have substantial power and influence. They might be perfectly constituted in terms of their immediate societal representations but that does not give them any right to foist these standards on the wider community.
A second example of broadcasting manipulation is the need to provide equality for different groups. An example of this that has occurred in Britain is regarding women’s football. It never used to get a mention on the news because it was a low participation, minority sport. It still is. However, somebody, somewhere has decided that it should be given more of a voice. And so, you now have regular coverage of women’s games, you now have the media trying to make celebrities out of female footballers, you now get female footballers analysing men’s football.
Who decided that this should be so? What are they trying to achieve? Whose agenda are they working towards? Is it right that broadcasters should lead society in this way, or should they be more reflective of society as it is currently represented?
The danger is that the media can become overwhelmed by a need for political correctness. It doesn’t want to offend anybody or any group in society. A cabal of do-gooders.
If I wanted to produce a show that was targeted at lad culture would I find a broadcaster who was willing to air it? I think not. There would be too many sensitivities. And yet in any traditional bar there are groups of guys who enjoy a bit of banter which touches on sexism, racism and homophobia. Should such an audience be catered for? Why is it not acceptable for these people to get media representation?
What is wrong with such a show so long as it’s aired late at night and has the necessary warnings about its content.
We are too scared that we might offend. Our language, our humour, our behaviour must be sanitised.
This manipulative management argument is very different from the one of protectionism. The media must undoubtedly offer protections for society. For example, having watershed times to ensure unsuitable programmes are not seen by children or having programme content warnings. Managing what is shown as a form of censorship can have much more worrying connotations.
Newspapers are less squeamish about their content. Different papers will appeal to different groups of people. They tend to be far more reflective of their target audience rather than specifically trying to shape that audience (that is not to say that no manipulation occurs!).
Given their pervasiveness and their influential power, the way that broadcasters are being manipulative must raise concerns.
And, of course, where is this going to lead? Laddishness has been subtly and stealthily outlawed but what will be next. Bitchiness? You won’t be allowed to criticise the looks or attire of others for fear of undermining their confidence and consequent well-being.
We should recognise the aspirational desire to create a better world and that broadcasters can have a role in shaping that future. However, this does not mean that it is right, that it is good for us, that it does not need controlling.
Oxthink 