WHAT'S ON T.V.?

 

WHAT'S ON T.V.?

 

When I retired two years ago, one of the things that I was really looking forward to was being able to watch more TV. I know that sounds daft but it was true. Take note, I'm wild and crazy in other ways.

 

In the decades that I was on the government tick, I often had work-related stuff to do at home in the evenings so I listened to an awful lot of talk-back radio during those times. It was an easier medium to accommodate as I corrected scholars' recounts on 'The night I met Beelzebub' and planned lessons on box girder bridges etc etc. The little television I did watch always seemed uninteresting and one-dimensional.

 

However, once I was freed from the shackles of labouring for the great state I figured that unlimited free time would afford me plenty of opportunities to peruse everything the box had to offer in ways I couldn't beforehand.

 

But the problem is this......... In these two years of 'Choose your own waiting room', I have watched even less television than when I was working. Why?

My trouble with current television is simple and you only have to inspect any recent 'TV Week' to discover why. My kitchen rules, Married at first sight, I'm a celebrity....get me out of here! and Bride and prejudice: the forbidden weddings all form the motherlode of prime time free-to-air viewing and they'll soon pass the batons to others of their ilk, such as The biggest loser, The block and The bachelor/ bachelorette nonsense amongst others.

 

What's more, these shows regularly repeat in 'encore' presentation modes throughout the daytime hours. Even further, the goings-on of the participants feature in not only the magazine-style entertainment shows but, unbelievably, in the respective station's news and current affairs programming. It's as if the reality television genre generates its own gravity field and the rest of the various broadcasters' timetabling falls in behind these evening standard bearers, both in time and content.

 

As you’ve already guessed, I can’t stand any of them but that, in a way, is irrelevant. Far more importantly, what is the ‘structure’ of these shows and why are they popular?

The apparent success of these reality shows is directly related to how they're structured and who they attract as viewers. Both of these considerations have 'stereotyping' as their central plank.

 

In reality (no pun intended), the ultimate 'winners' in these shows are incidental to what is the true business, that is, entertaining the masses through the use of familiar and comforting contestant 'types'. Of course, these types regularly include bitches, hipsters, ockers/ ockerinas, opinionated turds, dumb arses, 'sensitive' hippies and the like.

 

Very little diversity, in terms of reflecting the true Oz content sample, is a crucial part of the modus operandi of these monstrosities but when it is present (e.g. subservient Chinese-background brothers who only want to 'honour' their mother), the stereotyping is even more distilled. Moreover, you have to wonder if the contestants/ participants are selected because they fall into such ‘types’ or whether they follow pre-ordained scripts. I reckon it just may be a combination of both.

 

But the illuminating thing in all of this is what it indicates about the audiences and their thinking processes. Walter Lippmann wrote in his book ‘Public Opinion’……. ‘The stereotype’s hallmark is that it precedes the use of reason. It imposes a certain character on the data of our senses, before the data reaches the intelligence. There is nothing so obdurate to education or criticism as the stereotype. It stamps itself upon evidence in the very act of securing the evidence.’

 

It certainly seems like Jeffrey Green's ‘Age of Spectatorship’ is upon us and that our intelligences are quickly retreating towards a low-water mark.