THE FOOLISHNESS of the claim that TV is intrinsically bad is so obvious to me that I am tempted to ignore it altogether. But the willingness with which otherwise thoughtful people lap up the assertion compels me to point out its flaws.
Most TV-bashers are book-lovers. They think books are the greatest, and that if everybody spent their time reading books rather than watching TV, the world would be a better place. But what if everyone was reading Harlequin romances, Taxes: How to Avoid Your Fair Share, or Mein Kampf? That wouldn't be so great.
To be sure, many TV shows are drivel. But using them to indict all of television is intellectually dishonest, NBC's decision to air Manimal doesn't make L.A. Law a bad show. Anyone who mentions Hard Copy and Nightline in the same breath is simply an idiot. If you watch Nova you'll learn something; if you watch Freddy's Nightmares, you won't. It's just common sense.
The more general claim that TV has, on balance, done more harm than good for society cannot be dismissed so easily. Television has caused profound changes in the way we think, learn and socialize.
But every societal ill imaginable has been laid at television's door. Some people blame TV for all of the problems with educating America's youth. They often hold up the Japanese system as the ideal. Of course, they neglect the fact that Japanese children watch more TV than American kids and that Japanese TV is often more inane than the American fare. Why engage in complex soul-searching to find the roots of the breakdown in American education when you can pin it on the TV bogeyman?
MY CRITIQUE of the knee-jerk TV critics will probably be a bit hard for them to swallow. But before they set out on their self-righteous campaign to rid the planed of this menace, there are some other people they should consult.
They should talk to the civil rights activists of the 1960s, who were seen on TV screens across the country being beaten and spat on by bigoted whites.
They should talk to the parents of those who served in the Vietnam war and ask them if it would have been all right if the war dragged on for a few more years. If the vivid TV images of the My Lai massacre and more mundane tragedies were only seen in sterile, still newspaper photos, it certainly would have.
They should talk to the thousands of Ethiopians who would have perished from famine if TV news crews hadn't broadcast their plight to viewers around the world.
They should talk to the East Europeans who used Western TV to pull down the Iron Curtain.
Finally, they should talk to Rodney King, the Los Angeles motorist who was beaten and shocked by police officers several weeks ago. Ask him if he thinks he would have been treated any differently if the inhuman brutality of that incident wasn't captured on videotape by a homeowner and broadcast around the nation.
As with those who fought the alphabet, the book and the telephone, those who treat TV as a curse will eventually be pushed aside by more powerful forces. What is unfortunate is that those at Harvard and other universities, who could be working on making the medium better, remain convinced that television is unredeemable heresy. Those of us who want academic advice on how to use TV to improve the world are destined to wait for the next generation of scholars, who will be willing to give TV a fair shake.
For a videotaped version of this article, send check or money order to Joshua A. Gerstein '91, c/o Lowell House. Please allow six to eight weeks for delivery.