Television reflects us, the good and bad

Television writers went on strike this week seeking, among other things, a share of the money the networks make from shows airing on the Internet. Both sides seem firmly entrenched, so the strike probably won’t end anytime soon.

Now, Americans love their TV. The average American watches four hours and 34 minutes a day. So the strike is a big deal. Viewers of late-night shows are going to see changes right away, as the shows go into reruns or the anchors try to hold their own without anyone to write their jokes. The strike isn’t going to affect prime-time shows for at least a month, however, when the producers are likely to run out of scripts. Hopefully the strike will be over by then. But if it’s not, how will the average American fill his time? Could he, I don’t know, read a book or something?

I wish more people read books. But I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with television. I love television too, and in fact, television series are made up of all the same components of novels. It’s just a different medium. It is a medium, however, that occasionally gets attacked for lacking moral values or intellectual value, which is unfair.

Granted, there are shows that are morally and intellectually vapid. “Big Brother” is a fine example. I’m sure George Orwell would be thrilled to know he accidentally contributed a title to a piece of entertainment that fine.

That’s a reality show, though. An example of a scripted show that’s spectacularly stupid and ethically challenged is no harder to find. Consider, for example, the inexplicably popular “Criminal Minds.” Actually, its popularity is not inexplicable: People watch the show because it requires no thought whatsoever. The show purports to get the viewer inside the mind of a criminal, but it does no such thing. The criminals in the show are not real people, but caricatures of evil, while the detectives are nothing more than caricatures of the embattled good, endlessly struggling against said evil. The victims are never developed at all, and are thus reduced to bloody props. The cases are always solved, as the detectives methodically lead the audience through each step of the crime, never leaving a blank for the audience to fill in. The show is cynical, dehumanizing and borderline sadistic, all dressed up in a good-defeats-evil wrapping. It’s the very worst of the procedurals on television, just as “Big Brother” is the very worst of the reality shows. These shows, however, are not indicative of their medium or even their genres.

Even the most maligned television genres can have value. The Fox reality program “Wife Swap” was fairly well-maligned when it first appeared. But rather than being an attack on family, it’s actually more of a commentary on the importance of family. By swapping out the mother in each household, the viewer gets to see different parenting styles and how different families raise children. Usually, at least in the couple of episodes I’ve seen, by the end of the swap, everybody has learned something and the families seem strengthened as a result. It seems to me that it’s the sort of show conservative evangelical types would want to see more of, though a name change would definitely do the show some good.

Sticking with Fox, “House” is a tremendously popular, entertaining and smart hospital procedural. House is a misanthropic doctor who hates everyone and doesn’t believe in anything – the only thing he does seem to like is solving mysterious medical conditions. Because House knows no limits, the show raises some interesting ethical questions. And because House is the most overtly atheistic character in the history of television, the writers on the show can have a good time questioning his outlook on life. In an episode early this season, for example, House kills himself for a few minutes to see if there’s an afterlife. According to his experiment, there’s not. While the viewer may not come to the same conclusions as House, the show certainly takes the ethical and spiritual issues it raises seriously.

Sitcoms, too, can have value. “Seinfeld” claimed to be a show about nothing, but it was actually a show about the selfish, almost amoral lives of its characters. That we, as viewers, identified with them is not necessarily a point of pride. One reason the finale was so unpopular is because it judged these characters, and therefore us, and the judgment was not good.

“How I Met Your Mother” features one character, the hilarious, womanizing Barney, who would be right at home on Seinfeld. Two other single characters, Robin and Ted, act as ciphers for the show’s target audience, twentysomething singles. And it features two other characters, Lily and Marshall, a newly married couple that has been together for a decade. Neither Lily nor Marshall has had sex with anyone else. Even Barney recognizes the sweetness of their relationship, while it is exactly the sort of relationship Ted wishes he had. Indeed, the show is about the challenge and reward of commitment, a serious moral issue. Plus, it’s really funny, and there’s value in laughter.

And then there are those shows that defy description. “Pushing Daisies” is one. The main character is a nice fellow named Ned who can bring people and animals back to life, but only for a minute, or something else dies in its place. Once that other thing has died, the originally dead entity is immortal. Look, I told you it defies description. Suffice to say, it’s about life and death, love and touch, sacrifice and selfishness, mysteries and pie. And it too is really funny.

So the medium of television is not the barren wasteland that some would lead you to believe. While there are some intellectually vapid and ethically icky shows, there are also many that challenge their viewers’ preconceived notions, morally and spiritually, just like a good book would. When there’s a problem, it’s not with the medium, it’s with specific shows. So let’s root for the networks to give the writers a fair deal. Except for the writers of “Criminal Minds” – those guys don’t deserve a penny.

Justin Fowler is a student at University College of Bangor. He may be reached at justin.fowler@verizon.net. Voices is a weekly commentary by Maine people who explore issues affecting spirituality and religious life.