There is still no cable on Boston University’s campus. Well, John R. Silber’s essay ‘Television: A personal view’ happened to fall into my lap. Actually, he gave it to me during a meeting with him, and when I first began reading, I hoped to find out why he is against having television in dorms. Below are a few ‘taken out of context’ excerpts that will hopefully prompt you to go and pick up a copy. Here’s a little background into why Silber feels he is apt to speak about TV and its effects.
Silber first began watching fights on TV in 1951 when he was a graduate student at Yale. In those days, Yale faculty members who owned TVs ‘lived dangerously’ and ‘in sin,’ according to Silber. Silber, a young voyeur of barbarically primitive boxing matches? I’m confused. After an almost 12-page introduction on how to be a rational, responsive and open-minded reader, a summary of the animalistic nature of man who only wants ‘pleasure and immediate gratification’ and an appeal to resist hedonistic desires, Silber gets into his views on commercial television.
OK, why can’t I watch ‘The Osbournes?’ Interestingly, much (I wouldn’t say all) of his preamble is necessary to understanding this complex man’s views on television. Silber finally writes a sentence that got my mouth wet: ‘Now let me apply … the centrality of meaning and time in the life of each developing person to the critical evaluation of television.’
Silber praises several shows for their educational undertones and for relaying real-life lessons. He says the show ‘Bonanza,’ which teaches that ‘time is sequential’ and a ‘boy doesn’t know as much as a grown man’ is ‘the perfect antidote to ‘Father Knows Best’ and other idiotic shows that … discredit male authority figures.’ He also says ‘The Beverly Hillbillies’ is solid in that it teaches there are many ways to get rich, and people who are talented or intelligent are products of luck.
So, let’s just have ‘educational’ cable networks, Silber. What if you pick the lineup? Then I began to imagine attending classes, doing school work and then plopping myself down on the couch, only to see Silber on TV, in a leather chair, dressed in a robe, smoking a pipe and introducing a new mini-series entitled ‘Plato: the Lost Republic.’ I also realized I typically prefer not to spend time watching educational programs. I experienced flashbacks of flipping past a Martin Luther King, Jr. biography to watch a VH1 sneak peak at Mariah Carey bouncing around Europe with an entourage. What the hell is wrong with me?
How can I begin to justify my shallow taste besides referencing Freud in saying that there is a point beyond which I cannot sustain anymore pressure and need enjoyable distraction. Schoolwork is sometimes stressful, and TV is sometimes cathartic, or is it? Silber even acknowledges that TV can sometimes be more effective in changing a person’s viewpoint than literature or speakers. ‘It is far easier for a racial bigot to accept enlightenment from Matt Dillon [of ‘Bonanza’] than from Martin Luther King.’
Overall, Silber seems to take issue with two things: the frequency of violence on TV and the exploitation of children, specifically little girls dressed promiscuously in bikinis. He dislikes violent television programs that do not relay any positive messages. Silber calls ‘Lone Ranger’-type programs ‘a continual invitation to take the law into one’s own hand’ and says the program only gives viewers the ‘vindictive pleasure of knowing that the bad guy got his.’ Because of the frequency of violence on TV, viewers ‘no longer find it terrifying’ but ‘find pleasure in watching it.’ No disagreement from me there, I never understood the thrill of ‘Jackass.’
According to Silber, advertisements just encourage an insatiable lifestyle, where man must obtain the newest and more expensive, though not necessarily better product; this is particularly true of families who are poor. ‘With $3,000 a year a family could enjoy … oatmeal rather than Cheerios … advertising has made oatmeal obsolete and is making our people want to spend more money for less nourishing food.’
After reading this, I couldn’t figure out why I like Lucky Charms so much. In his argument, Silber ineffectually sites a coffee commercial where a couple embraces in a way he says ‘foretells an orgy’ and says the advertising company transformed coffee into an aphrodisiac. I personally have never felt the urge to jump the guy who serves me my Starbucks. Then I began to think about my addiction to Starbucks. ‘But the coffee really does taste better,’ I thought nervously.
Silber makes some intriguing arguments. He ends his essay by proposing the creation of a national education network, independent from government and commercial control, with affiliate stations featuring local talent to enhance civic pride. I used to think, ‘I watch, I absorb and I am entitled to freedom.’ I always felt competent enough to filter garbage on TV. However, once I finished Silber’s essay, the illusory feeling that I had always been potty trained somehow dissipated and I pictured myself back on the potty sucking my thumb; teach me to hold my own, Silber.
I found his argument fair and reasonable, but I purposely wouldn’t say persuasive. If I had cable, all I’d want to do would be to watch cable. Look what it has done to me I’m obsessed with sugar cereals, I like pointless sitcoms and I drive an SUV. When I was done reading, I went to my kitchen to get some food. I opened the cabinet and saw a huge box of Cheerios.
I almost climbed into the box to be marketed with all the other wheat holes. I guess that’s what college is all about learning you’re wrong.
Amy Horowitz, a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Communication, is a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press.