Core Post #2

Newcomb and Hirsch’s 1983 essay proposes that television could function as a public space in which important issues of wide interest are hashed out from all perspectives. The insight that we should consider the reception of the audience and emphasize “on process rather than production, on discussion rather than indoctrination, on contradiction and confusion rather than coherence” is particularly compelling to me. However, I find it hard to be completely satisfied with the argument. While it might be true that television has the potential to be a public forum—the case analyses of “Betty, Girl Engineer” fit into the argument pretty well—I cannot stop but wondering how much liberating power the medium itself really has.

The episode “Betty, Girl Engineer” reminds me of the television regulations in China. Recently, the National Radio and Television Administration has banned drama series that have “unhealthy” or “abnormal” contents. These include, but are not limited to, adultery, queer relationship, adolescent love, and adolescent fight. Although there remains space to display various opinions or comment on heated social issues, “mistakes” have to be eventually “corrected” and the general tone of the show should be healthy and optimistic. When television could only showcase what a society or a government considers appropriate, it is hard to believe that the variation of contents is for public discussion rather than propaganda.

This leads me to think how much the “cultural forum” argument depends on its particular historical and national circumstances. If there can be a cultural forum based on television contents, it is perhaps driven more by the larger environment that encourages this kind of discussion rather than the medium itself, though it remains an important factor. The notions that people might watch the same show and discuss collective concerns are based on the fact that there were only limited channels broadcasted in the Network era and that the issues brought up already drew significant attention and debates in the public sphere. While Hendershot discusses how television might still function as a cultural forum in an age of niche programming, the argument is still largely based on the analysis of Parks and Recreation and might not be applicable to other cases. Both Hendershot and Newcomb & Hirsch rests on the potential of television to be a cultural forum. It could be, admittedly—but only in very optimistic circumstances. That is, people all have their own judgements and are uninfluenced by the television’s explicit ideology, and every voice is heard and taken as equally important. 

Given these claims, although television provides space for the public to participate in the discussion of controversial issues, I am still not satisfied just celebrating its widely acclaimed progressive power, and instead, tend to believe that different voices are far from equal and are dominated by some larger forces. The acknowledgement of ideological problem is not the defining feature or the purpose of TV, but rather more like a side product of the (often commercial) need for certain innocuous variations of mainstream values in television programs. This makes Todd Gitlin’s argument about the hegemonic commercial cultural system in liberal capitalist society and the system’s routine incorporation of alternative ideology particularly interesting to me. The alternative values cannot cause a serious threat because they are only transported and reframed by the system—this is, disappointingly, still very different from what I expect from an equal discussion in public forums.

x