The Question: TV, or Not TV?

#17, June 23, 1999

My favorite author, Edward Abbey, once wrote that the central principle of the television is the vacuum tube: you put your head in it, and it sucks your brains out.

Mr. Abbey's critique is not far off. Consider the commercials of commercial television. We can swear we are not influenced by them, but those who pay a million bucks a minute just for the airtime know better. The intended result of this vast investment in advertising is that we consume more of their products, whether or not it's good for us or the earth.

What about the news? Not a pretty picture. The media is becoming concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer large corporations. These conglomerations have other interests that are not served by independent and unbiased reporting. Would weapons-maker General Electric, who owns NBC, want to broadcast films of a hospital accidentally bombed by one of its jets?

Then there's the TV programs. Some of them are great, some good, but most are just chewing gum for the mind. But even this chewing gum can be harmful. Television, to the extent it keeps our attention away from the injustices in the world, has been called a "weapon of mass distraction." It makes us more like regimes whose comfortable populace never knew about their nation's genocidal behavior. For example, how many people heard the recent revelations about how the U.S.-trained and financed Guatemalan Army massacred village after village of indigenous Mayans in the early 1980's? If this upsets you, check the links from www.powerup.com.au/~dmcclure/media.htm to learn more about media monopolization and how to stop it.

Still, I believe television holds great potential for improving the world. If it's true that the daily average personal TV viewing is anywhere near the seven hours it's reported to be, think of the vast potential of constructive energy that could be released if people broke loose from television's hold. Apply those human resources to political reform and community service, and the face of this nation would change overnight.

The other great hope is community television. A good local public access television station can create an "electronic town square," where people can come to teach and to learn, to entertain and be entertained. It's non-commercial status gives it the freedom to allow all tastes, preferences, and points of view.

Petaluma is lucky to have such an institution, Petaluma Community Access. PCA's motto, "building community through communications," is an apt summary of the function it performs. In addition to providing coverage of local government meetings and emergencies such as floods, they are supporting volunteer producers of programs aimed at serving a broad spectrum of the community, including seniors, ethnic minorities, abused women, students and their parents, young athletes, artists and musicians, political candidates… the list goes on. Public access television takes advantage of TV technology's strengths to bring your community into your living room. This is a real plus for people who, for whatever reason, are unable to leave their home to attend meetings, classes, or other community events.

You don't have to agree with my politics to support PCA. It is truly free-speech TV -- many interests can and do speak out. Contrast Chicken Scratch (Thursdays at 8PM) with The O'Brien Factor, the show which follows.

Like so many good things, PCA is endangered. As a non-profit organization, most of its effort comes from volunteers. Overhead is low-- the 2.5 person paid staff works directly with the equipment and in training and supporting their citizen customers. They've struggled to meet growing community demands with only half the budget of comparable stations in other communities.

PCA is asking the Petaluma City Council to approve an increase in funding from the cable subscribers of seventy five cents a month, the annual cost of a few video rentals. If you want good TV, you should write to the Council Members, and ask them to support the PCA request.