My esteemed former housemate has a post up on the current ideological state of American TV that I thought was worthy of discussion, so go read that first.
Whilst in the most general sense, I have sympathy for an argument that says that the TV deck is stacked in favour of my end of the aisle, I think the actual situation is deeply complex, and merits detailed consideration.
First of all, at the risk of being facetious, I'm not sure 2.5 M is necessarily the best case study for liberal programming. A rich playboy who beds whomever the hell he wants without consequences? That's pretty much the GOP dream. The only difference between Charlie PseudoSheen and Newt Gingrich is that Newt screwed around whilst he was already married. And then ran for President.
Dexter also strikes me as a poor example, because whilst there's certainly a good deal of shagging going on in there, the central concept of a man who decides that the legal system (controlled by the government) needs to be circumvented in favour of individual action is entirely consistent with the views of much of the American right. "Government is never the solution", as Reagan put it.
This, indeed, points to a major problem in determining the ideology of such shows; a live-and-let-live ethos and a rejection of standard authority is at least as indicative and in many ways more indicative of right wing libertarianism than it is of what the Americans would recognise as liberalism (and what, and I'm sure Tomsk will correct me if I'm wrong, I tend to think of as "social liberalism"). One need only look - and I think I've mentioned this before - at the number of US shows that start from the premise that someone can redeem themselves for past crimes according to their own moral compass, rather than that of the state (see, for example, Angel, or (EDIT: Whoops! Forgot to actually add the second example, which I've now forgotten. Damn.)). That's neither a liberal nor a conservative position, so much as a libertarian one.
Moreover, it makes for good TV, in a way that a hero turning himself into the boys in blue doesn't. The idea of "do what thou wilt" is hardwired into an awful lot of American TV, and I'd question whether that stems from liberal leanings so much as the the veneration (I'd would say "fetishisation", but that's both an abuse of language and a topic for another time) of freedom in American culture. In truth, I rather think in recent years American conservatives have become rather contemptuous of a whole host of freedoms, but I feel safe in assuming that this is a point neither Gooder nor FOX is attempting to make.
We should also consider that there's a real risk of selection bias here. The vast majority of British people - including me - who watch American TV shows are watching those that have already been judged impressive (or at least watchable) by some kind of international Western audience, which is of course significantly more liberal (as a general rule) than a great deal of the States. I have some vague recollection - and that's all it is, so take this with a hefty pinch of salt - that a lot of local American TV in the Bible Belt and elsewhere in the South is a lot more socially conservative, and we never get to see it. As I say, I can't back that up at the minute with any specific examples, but it's at least worth bearing in mind when Englishmen discuss the state of American TV.
More importantly, the problem with saying things like "US TV is liberal" is that it fails to note that liberalism can be divided into social and economic arms at the very least, and also -as mentioned already - because liberalism and libertarianism, whilst very different in many respects, both have (or are supposed to have) a live-and-let-live attitude, which I think is what's really on display here. In addition, one needs to consider what a conservative program would even look like in the first place. I can't say what made Gooder choose the examples that he did, but the common theme would seem to be that the "liberal" programmes include things that piss of conservatives, whereas his example of a "conservative" programme, 24 , got liberals hot under the collar. But 24 is an anomalously easy call because it explicitly deals with politics and national security, both of which have (broadly speaking) well established and mutually exclusive liberal and conservative positions.
If we're really going to compartmentalise American TV in general, though , we need a better definition of a conservative show. Is, for example, The Cosby Show conservative? That's all about the importance of family and marriage, two things which American conservatives are convinced liberals don't give a shit about. If a show in which a woman gets an abortion without crippling remorse or long-term psychological problems, then a) is that a liberal show, and b) what's the alternative to make the show conservative? If she chooses to keep the baby, is that conservative (in truth, a lot of liberals argued that this was the case regarding Juno, which if nothing else serves as proof that not everyone I nominally agree with necessarily has two IQ points to rub together)? Or does the show specifically have to show her refusing to even countenance it, or even for her to go through with it with massive negative consequences?
This is where we get to the very meat of the problem. Even at its best, American conservatism, as well as our home-grown version, is as regards its social aspect (there is of course an economic aspect which is just as important; this is another reason why breaking up TV shows into "liberal", "conservative" and "neither" is probably a bad idea) significantly, if not primarily, concerned with the importance of what is "normal". Marriage is "normal". Family is "normal". Being straight, white and heterosexual is "normal". All of which means that shows that fit in with the conservative viewpoint are by their very nature more difficult to spot [1]. I wonder what the black, Hispanic and homosexual communities would think about Gooder's suggestion that Friends is liberal. Six white straight people with more money than sense taking it in turns to sleep with each other? That's not the liberal dream, that Paris Hilton's Saturday afternoons.
We cannot judge a show by how many times it does something contrary to conservative thinking, because so often every time it does something in line with conservative thinking, it passes without comment.
And all of this, all nine of the above paragraphs (hey, well done for making it this far!) is without dealing with the fact that over-representation is not the same thing as bias. There are certainly TV shows (or at least episodes) that do portray certain conservative ideas in a bad light. But that's where studies need to be focused. Not on how different political groups view what is portrayed, but regarding how political groups are portrayed themselves.
(Lastly, and somewhat parenthetically, I'd like to point out that the example of the Simpsons might show something other than what is intended. Far from proving that even FOX feels compelled to show liberal shows, I'd say it merely proves that FOX prefers raking in shitloads of cash to ensuring all it's programmes tow the conservative line. Indeed, the one time I'm aware of FOX giving direct orders to the Simpsons writers, it was that they were never again allowed to make fun of FOX News, after Groening et al portrayed FOX News anchors as being rabid propagandists.)
[1] Indeed, the argument that US TV is drowning in a sea of liberalism can be easily punctured thus: liberals don't like guns. How many American shows involve people who have are not agents of the state using guns? I can't give a precise value, but I'm estimating that it's a metric fuck ton. And why? Because guns can make a story interesting. Just like divorce and constant bonking.
In fact, I'll make Gooder a deal. Let's go through all the American TV drama episodes we own between us (I'm only including drama because sex is far easier to get laughs out of than gunplay), and count how many of them involve sex outside of marriage, and how many involve a hero or heroine holding a gun despite being neither a cop nor a federal agent. If the ratio ends up being more than 1:10 (a fairly generous one in scientific terms) in favour of between-the-sheets action, I'll buy you dinner.
But not in a gay way. I don't want this argument to have a liberal bias.
20 comments:
I'll respond to some of the other points later but I think you'll own me a dinner
(5 years of Six Feet Under, 15 years of ER, 5 (at least) years of Ally McBeal, a few years of St. Elsewhere, three years of Mad Men, Dirty Sexy Money; as a starting point means you need to find a lot of guns ;-) )
I've got five years of Wesley wandering around Angel taking pot-shots at all and sundry, so I'm off to a good start (by the same token, you've got both series of Dollhouse, which is heavy on both bonking and shooting, IIRC). BSG is exceptionally gun-heavy, so there's another four or five seasons there.
Five seasons of the Wire should add a fair few episodes to the list; I mean, surely there can't be an episode without illegal gun-handling of some kind...
(and, in a glorious segue, Peter Clarke and Dominic West are starring in Othello in Sheffield in September/October, sounds awesome! http://www.sheffieldtheatres.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=whatson.production&ProductionID=1152 )
There certainly is a lot of shooting going on in that show, but I don't think a lot of it would count, since it's being done by criminals. Sure, The Wire takes great pains to present the various Baltimore gangs as far more than just standard villains, but I can't imagine much of what goes on in the show would make a conservative sit back and think "Well thank God for the 2nd Amendment".
Havins said that, you have made me think of Supernatural. Another five seasons of the heroes taking the law into their own hands in a hail of gunfire, compared with - at most - a dozen sexual encounters for the Winchester boys.
Surely most of the people in BSG with guns, are in the Military and thus are authourised (you did put in a officer of the law caveat)
Also Wesley's gun use is easily balanced out and overtaken by the hi-jink of the rest of the Scooby Gang throughout 7 years of Buffy.
Will get to the rest of the post when I get time (at the weekend probably)
Interesting though that the most conservative show you seem to think of is about a black family and went a long way to breaking down racial barriers on TV.
Bill Cosby is conservative as hell though.
There were plenty of civilians in the mix for BSG, especially on New Caprica. There were also a lot of people who, whilst part of the heirarchy, used guns in ways that were not authorised under that heirarchy. You have Lee's brief mutiny at the end of the first season, Baltar shooting Crashdown, the Star Chamber that was set up after New Caprica, and so on.
I probably should have been more specific, actually, and rather than saying "a legitimate agent of the state", have said "a legitimate agent of the state acting legitimately". That, after all, is one reason people see 24 as conservative, because Bauer so frequently steps over the line.
(That would add the X-Files to the gun tally, actually, though all the stuff with Mulder after his dismissal from the FBI would count in any case).
I'm not sure about your argument regarding Wesley, actually. Sex in Buffy was far from uncommon (especially during Season 6), but I'm far from sure it happened as often as Wesley got out his firearms. IIRC, the first three seasons of Buffy contain exactly three sexual encounters (one each for Buffy, Xander and Willow).
In fact, Buffy brings up another interesting point. That show is absolutely stuffed with vigilante violence and the idea that the authorities are somewhere between clueless and actively antagonistic. The only reason it doesn't fall into my original formulation is that Buffy and the Scoobies use stakes and crossbows instead of guns. Buffy's antics are entirely consistent with any reading of the 2nd Amendment that sees "arms" as being a general reference, rather than exclusively to guns (plus, I still get to claim Season 4, with all that lovely Initiative action).
Lastly, I didn't choose The Cosby Show because I thought it was "the most" conservative show available, but because it's a show that's fundamentally in line with conservative social values whilst also being of aid to race relations. It was another example of how difficult (if not unwise) it is to see TV through such a narrow lens.
It's also interesting to note that having extramarital sex in the third season of Buffy literally ends with someone losing their soul.
Second season, but yeah. Buffy's first sexual encounter leads to the sudden destruction of her relationship and her life, and the second turns out to have been a terrible mistake since the guy in question was a complete douche. Xander gets thrown out by Faith and devastates Willow when she finds out, and Oz sleeping with Veronica leaves Willow distraught once again. In addition he whole of Season 6's Buffy-Spike bonkathon is about how sex can be controlling, addictive, violent and desperately unhealthy. Riley is miserable for much of his relationship with Buffy, and only becomes happy when he gets married.
In other words, Buffy might be full of extra-marital nob-play, but an awful lot of it seems to end up pretty badly for those involved.
It doesn't get better in Angel. Wesley's almost purely sexual relationship wiht Lila is portrayed as self destructive, Angel considers having sex with Darla an absolute low point and and Connor having sex with Cordelia also ends badly.
I'd say it started out pretty badly too...
Maybe since soldiers and police using guns doesn't count then maybe only extra marital sex that is portrayed as good or neutral should count too (which means that all seasons of Mad Men is off limits).
I think that's an excellent idea. A show in which things conservatives dislike have disastrous consequences can hardly be considered liberal in outlook.
[First of all, at the risk of being facetious, I'm not sure 2.5 M is necessarily the best case study for liberal programming. A rich playboy who beds whomever the hell he wants without consequences? That's pretty much the GOP dream. The only difference between Charlie PseudoSheen and Newt Gingrich is that Newt screwed around whilst he was already married. And then ran for President]
It is however the most popular sitcom on American TV (well until it’s enforced break from the screen) and does feature a divorced single father, as mention whose wife has a lesbian affair at one stage and Charlie's playboy like lifestlye is not one portrayed in a negitive light as surely as it would be in a conservative approach? But if you want we can take Modern Family, the 2nd most popular sitcom. Which features a mixed race couple and a gay couple with an adopted daughter for starters. Your choice.
[Dexter also strikes me as a poor example, because whilst there's certainly a good deal of shagging going on in there, the central concept of a man who decides that the legal system (controlled by the government) needs to be circumvented in favour of individual action is entirely consistent with the views of much of the American right. "Government is never the solution", as Reagan put it. ]
It does feauture a number of ethic minroities in positions of authority and whilst I take the point on vigilantism it doesn’t portray Dexter is an outright villian but rather a sympathetic characer. So mass murderer as hero; doesn’t exactly sound like a conservative position to me.
[This, indeed, points to a major problem in determining the ideology of such shows; a live-and-let-live.. recognise as liberalism can redeem themselves for past crimes according to their own moral compass, rather than that of the state (see, for example, Angel, or That's neither a liberal nor a conservative position, so much as a libertarian one.
We should also consider that there's a real risk of selection bias here. The vast majority of British people - including me - who watch American TV shows are watching those that have already been judged impressive (or at least watchable) by some kind of international Western audience, which is of course significantly more liberal (as a general rule) than a great deal of the States. I have some vague recollection - and that's all it is, so take this with a hefty pinch of salt - that a lot of local American TV in the Bible Belt and elsewhere in the South is a lot more socially conservative, and we never get to see it. As I say, I can't back that up at the minute with any specific examples, but it's at least worth bearing in mind when Englishmen discuss the state of American TV.]
Worth considering the output of the major networks still makes the majority of American television and now in the multichannel age we get to see most of what they produce. The local networks will mostly consist of news output (which I’m not talking about here, rather the entertainment output) game shows and soaps; hardly bastions of conservatism those last two.
[More importantly, the problem with saying things like "US TV is liberal" is that it fails to note that liberalism can be divided into social and economic arms at the very least, and also -as mentioned already - because liberalism and libertarianism, whilst very different in many respects, both have (or are supposed to have) a live-and-let-live attitude, which I think is what's really on display here. In addition, one needs to consider what a conservative program would even look like in the first place. I can't say what made Gooder choose the examples that he did, but the common theme would seem to be that the "liberal" programmes include things that piss of conservatives, whereas his example of a "conservative" programme, , got liberals hot under the collar. But 24 is an anomalously easy call because it explicitly deals with politics and national security, both of which have (broadly speaking) well established and mutually exclusive liberal and conservative positions.]
If you notice I said I’m not even convinced 24 can be called conservative. And whilst clearly things can have infinite sublte subcategories to look at anything widescale you have to have broader defintion otherwise you can never label anything. Or others word arguing for smaller and smaller definitions is a brillant counter point if you ask me.
[If we're really going to compartmentalise American TV in general, though , we need a better definition of a conservative show. Is, for example, The Cosby Show conservative? That's all about the importance of family and marriage, two...liberal show, that not everyone I nominally agree with necessarily has two IQ points to rub together)? Or does the show specifically have to show her refusing to even countenance it, or even for her to go through with it with massive negative consequences?]
As I pointed out The Cosby Show, whilst conservative in it’s portrait of family vaules was the first major network show to feautre a black family as it’s stars; far from conservative on that front.
I’m sure you could examine each and everyshow in the way you mention but it would take a long long time, but crucially it’s also a point I can flip round and apply to asking what makes a show conservative? Basically in general terms I think you can call most shows either liberal or conservative in broad terms fairly easily.
[This is where we get to the very meat of the problem. Even at its best, American conservatism, as well as our home-grown version, is as regards its social aspect (there is of course an economic aspect which is just as important; this is another reason why breaking up TV shows into "liberal", "conservative" and "neither" is probably a bad idea) significantly, if not primarily, concerned with the importance of what is "normal". Marriage is "normal". Family is "normal". Being straight, white and heterosexual is "normal". All of which means that shows that fit in with the conservative viewpoint are by their very nature more difficult to spot [1]. I wonder what the black, Hispanic and homosexual communities would think about Gooder's suggestion that Friends is liberal. Six white straight people with more money than sense taking it in turns to sleep with each other? That's not the liberal dream, that Paris Hilton's Saturday afternoons.]
Let’s see Friends had rejection of the standard family structure, adoption, the search for real parents, a porn star twin, jokes about gay relationships, plenty of extra marital sex, a woman starting her own business, a husband financially supported by his wife, Chandler’s cross dressing gay parent...I think they covered plenty of liberal material. Yes, it was the glamours version but then that’s because it was a prime time sticom. It has now be replaced by the afore mentioned Modern Family.
[We cannot judge a show by how many times it does something contrary to conservative thinking, because so often every time it does something in line with conservative thinking, it passes without comment.]
So something with a lot of liberal content can not be called liberal if it’s 100% gay sex?
[And all of this, all nine of the above paragraphs (hey, well done for making it this far!) is without dealing with the fact that over-representation is not the same thing as bias. There are certainly TV shows (or at least episodes) that do portray certain conservative ideas in a bad light. But that's where studies need to be focused. Not on how different political groups view what is portrayed, but regarding how political groups are portrayed themselves.
(Lastly, and somewhat parenthetically, I'd like to point out that the example of the Simpsons might show something other than what is intended. Far from proving that even FOX feels compelled to show liberal shows, I'd say it merely proves that FOX prefers raking in shitloads of cash to ensuring all it's programmes tow the conservative line. Indeed, the one time I'm aware of FOX giving direct orders to the Simpsons writers, it was that they were never again allowed to make fun of FOX News, after Groening et al portrayed FOX News anchors as being rabid propagandists.)]
Still, the points exists, The Simpsons one of the most popular, most successful shows of the last 20years plus is really quite liberal in it’s worldview. But I guess you’ll argue it isn’t because it also includes family values.
But if you're so determined to deny that TV and the entertainment industry at large is liberal (leaning at the very least) so be it. But can you name one show that is a massive hit that is undeniably conservative?
First of all, my apologies that it’s taken a week and a half to reply to your points. I’ve been working through a fairly major back-log, as well as getting things ready for two international jaunts in the next six weeks.
Anyway, to war! ;)
Regarding 2.5M, I think it’s actually very much debatable as to how negatively Charlie’s lifestyle is portrayed, but I confess that I’ve seen comparatively little of the show. The last episode I watched, though, involved Charlie seducing some woman he knew he shouldn’t, which resulted in her stealing his car. Not exactly a free love message, I would argue.
In any case, even if we accept the (distinctly shaky) premise that by constantly screwing anything that moves Charlie is being liberal, his ridiculously ostentatious displays of wealth most certainly aren’t. Why focus on his shagging, rather than his cars?
That, though, is a comparatively minor point compared to the two big issues I have with your argument here. Number one, the idea that a divorced character is in itself evidence of a liberal slant makes no sense to me at all. One third of marriages (give or take) in the US end in divorce. Excluding divorced characters from television shows wouldn’t be “conservative”, it would be flat-out delusional.
The same is true of homosexual characters. I spend a good 30-40% of this blog talking about how much I despise certain elements of conservative American culture, but even I wouldn’t want to argue that the only way to be a conservative-friendly show is to pretend gay people don’t exist.
This is to say nothing of the fact that divorced or gay characters can be a good route to strong characterisation and engaging drama. There are reasons why I labelled 24 as a conservative show, but I don’t think the central premise that foreigners are constantly trying to blow up the States is one of them. 24 doesn’t feature an endless parade of threats to the US because it can’t view the international community as either irrelevant or threatening (which is certainly a common conservative position), but because the twenty-four hours where Jack Bauer is investigating some West Bank terrorist suspects who turn out to be entirely innocent and also make him some falafel would make for terrible television.
With Dexter, I think you’re focussing too much on the protagonist of the show, as oppose to the ethos of the show. It was not my suggestion that conservatives would view a mass murderer as a hero (though if you listen to how a non-trivial subset of Americans venerate those who murder abortion doctors, I think you might change your mind on that to some extent), but that the idea that the law is frequently not only ineffectual but counter-productive, and that someone is going to have to take the law into their own hands (consider Gran Torino, which - as I understand it, having not seen it - is clever insofar as it portrays the exact kind of person who’s liable to declare their own private war on crime: a racist gun-lover) is something beloved of the American right.
That's not to say it's an exclusively conservative position, of course, but it is far more commonly held on the left than the right in the US. That’s why people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman load their speeches with blood-thirsty ammo/insurgency references. Not because they want their supporters to go out and shoot government officials or census workers or whomever has got them hot under the collar this time, but because they know the imagery of operating independently from - if not in opposition to - the authorities is a staggeringly popular idea for many of the people who attend their rallies.
“[I]n the multichannel age we get to see most of what they produce. ”
I have to say I find that hard to believe. I’m happy to admit I’m working on little evidence here, but I find it tough to credit that we have access to the entire TV output of a nation five times bigger than us (by population). Especially since I just don’t understand a business model that would say “This sank like a fucking stone on NBC, let’s show it on Sky Atlantic”.
The fact that there’s more channels than ever allows us more choice, but also means more competition for our attention. So it’s at least arguable (which is all I can do, without data) that TV stations which operate over here would be even less likely to bid for a) dross and b) shows they figure we’d never “get” (think Joan of Arcadia, for example).
“If you notice I said I’m not even convinced 24 can be called conservative. And whilst clearly things can have infinite sublte subcategories to look at anything widescale you have to have broader defintion otherwise you can never label anything.”
I don’t think that’s true at all. There are times broad labels are useful, and times when they’re not useful, or even counter-productive. I’m arguing that this is one of those times when it does no good. That's not the same as suggesting it should never be done.
“As I pointed out The Cosby Show, whilst conservative in it’s portrait of family vaules was the first major network show to feautre a black family as it’s stars; far from conservative on that front.”
I think you’re moving the goalposts, from “shows that depict liberal vs. conservative ideals in their stories” to “shows that represent liberal vs. conservative ideals in terms of being commissioned”. Leaving aside the argument of whether or not you're implicitly arguing that even if conservatives aren't racist, that's only been true for 25 years, the most obvious reason this argument doesn't track is that it immediately means any TV show that focusses almost exclusively on white people counts as conservative. Including Friends.
“Let’s see Friends had rejection of the standard family structure, adoption, the search for real parents, a porn star twin, jokes about gay relationships, plenty of extra marital sex, a woman starting her own business, a husband financially supported by his wife, Chandler’s cross dressing gay parent”
Wait. Adoption is liberal? What does non-liberal even mean, if that's true? Name me one conservative who thinks abortion isn’t moral. I’d be impressed if you can find one, and even if you can, I can’t for a moment imagine they could fairly be considered representative of the group as a whole.
And where did you get the idea that making jokes about gay people is liberal, for that matter? That’s like saying making jokes about women or black people is liberal.
I’d also question your suggestion that Friends “[rejected] the standard family structure”. Chandler and Monica were desperate to have the standard family structure; and it was only due to medical issues that they didn’t get it.
Again, this goes back to what I was saying before-hand. If Ross and Rachel represent a “liberal” couple, then Chandler and Monica represent a “conservative” couple, but it’s the former people concentrate on because “conservative” and “standard” are so closely linked.
“But if you're so determined to deny that TV and the entertainment industry at large is liberal (leaning at the very least) so be it. But can you name one show that is a massive hit that is undeniably conservative?”
Three points, here. One, my argument was predicated on the idea that labelling shows “liberal” and “conservative” is a fool’s errand, which makes asking me to try it myself somewhat pointless. Two, this reads like a change of argument from “TV shows lean liberal” to “TV shows that do lean liberal are more successful”. Now, that’s a fascinating suggestion and one worthy of careful consideration, but nothing you or I have said has had anything to do with it. Three, you still haven’t come up with a definition of what constitutes a liberal show, other than the idea that including divorced or gay protagonists (or in the eighties, black protagonists) should somehow qualify, especially if they’re having sex. More to the point, you haven’t defined what a conservative show should be, other than lacking the above.
That’s why I’m saying this is a dead-end. I continue to think labelling shows as “liberal” and “conservative” will never get us anywhere, but the more immediate issue here is that I’m not even close to convinced that your labelling system is coherent. "There are X things in this show I consider liberal" isn't a system that I can see taking us very far.
Post a Comment