Junk TV

The Jakarta Post - WEEKENDER   |  Sat, 08/23/2008 3:07 PM  |  Center Piece

In the everybody-is-a-celebrity age of reality TV, it takes a lot of channel surfing to find programs that do not fit the formulaic, ratings-oriented mold. What used to be a source of entertainment, information and, sometimes, inspiration increasingly resembles a bad wedding buffet: big on budget, very low on substance. Amid the fierce, win-at-all-costs battle for ratings, Maggie Tiojakin asks if TV has lost its luster.

 
The transformation of cultural, societal and political landscapes the world over brought some of the most outrageous, challenging and memorable TV programs straight into our living rooms. Lately, however, it does not seem quite the same: TV fodder increasingly lives up to the dismissive description of “chewing gum for the eyes”.

The surging number of TV channels was supposed to be a good thing – more choices, right? –after years when the only option was state-run TVRI. Yet, from the looks of it, viewers are merely getting more of the same: glitzy soaps, cheesy talent shows, mystery shows and sex farces.

In 2004, when the U.S.-franchised Indonesian Idol took off — with its catchy format of voting for talented singers via phone text messages, and fun, loving, sometimes grumpy judges — dozens of other talent contests immediately followed.

“I used to like those talent shows,” says Arul Bahran, a branch manager at HSBC Indonesia whose top 10 list of favorite TV shows includes Zona 80 on Metro TV. “They were fun at first, some were even quite original, like Mama Mia! Then, everybody else started doing the same thing, and that was when I decided to stop watching. It’s too much.”

Too much or too little?

As a public domain, the airwaves are inevitably dominated by advertising mediums. Network programs bank on what sells. Broadcasters, in competing for ad revenue, seem more focused on the bottom line over the obligations they have toward the general public to provide more than the lowest common denominators to attract viewers.

From a business perspective, ratings equal payload. The higher the number, the bigger the paycheck: it’s simple math. Nevertheless, from an intellectual perspective, quality always trumps quantity. The problem is, when it comes to math, quality is irrelevant.

“Ratings are very important in this industry,” says Nabila Santoso, a network programmer. “But to say quality doesn’t matter for us is ridiculous, because without quality there’s no quantity.”

Perhaps the question is: what is quality TV?

“Whatever stays within reasonable limits,” says Sandy Tumenggolo, a researcher at the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission, which is responsible for supervising the content of each program aired by the networks.

“TV is supposed to entertain, educate and inform viewers without exposing them to what we call ‘morally and socially abusive variables’ like pornography, violence and privacy violations.”

Early last May, the commission cited 10 programs – including soap operas, variety shows and children’s programs – that it deemed unsuitable. They were Cinta Bunga, Dangdut Mania Dadakan, Extravaganza, Jelita, Mask Rider Blade, Mister Bego, Namaku Mentari, Rubiah, Si Entong and Super Seleb Show. The commission said each of these programs displayed elements of violence, both in verbal and non-verbal forms, the exploitation of particular groups of people and individuals and/or child abuse.

Several talent shows have been said to be “inappropriate for viewing” because of their exploitation of the untalented, which resulted in vicious, unconstructive (albeit entertaining for some) mockery of the contestants.

“Rules are broken all the time,” Sandy points out. “There is not a single network which has not broken a rule or two. I understand that they need to achieve a certain quota, whether it’s ratings or demand — or both — but it’s very important for the general viewers to distinguish what’s permissible and what’s not. An example: making fun of the poor is not OK.”

As an arbitrator between the public and the mega-corporations that run the networks, the broadcasting commission has no other option but to set the highest standards in order to manage the way information is distributed and received. Information, when presented irresponsibly, may have fatal repercussions when it falls into the wrong hands.

“It’s too easy to blame us for these absurd acts,” says Vivi, an executive producer at one of the oldest private networks. “If a guy kills himself in a movie, and the person who watches that movie ends up killing him or herself — is that the filmmaker’s fault? Should we assume that we can’t trust the people to have a conscience? Wouldn’t we then be accused of patronizing their ability to think for themselves?”

Sandy attempts to draw the line.

“We should trust viewers as rational people,” he says. “I don’t imply that they’re anything less than rational; I’m merely suggesting we should not encourage behaviors or actions that violate our constitutional rights and break our customary values as human beings.”

Nabila offers a different take on the matter. In her opinion, television and viewers are engaged in a mutual relationship. “It’s like a dance, where one pushes and the other pulls,” she says. “Everything is cause-and-effect: there is violence on our TV because there is violence in our society.”

Which makes our subconscious a grand ballroom where fire and smoke tango with each other until the music stops — though, unfortunately, the music will never stop. In other words: we’re stuck.

OK, the tussle may go on forever, but do we have to suffer through another decade of bad TV?

More than just original ideas, viewers are looking for substantial content that is more than a mere distraction or amusement. So, instead of aiming for the big bucks, broadcasters should probably focus more on winning the audience’s respect.

“Popularity is what every broadcaster wants,” says Sandy, charting the course of a relationship between the media and the public in overlapping circles on paper. “When the popularity has outgrown the need, or worse, failed to meet them,” he says, “that’s when you know you’re not doing it right. It’s not enough to look for popularity, broadcasters should think of their audience as partners, not prey.”

Is it possible that in the rush for ratings, broadcasters have forgotten the people they are supposed to serve? Are they so drunk on power and wealth that they can’t see anymore where they’re going?

“Rule number one: you can’t please everybody,” says Vivi, adamant that the growing concern over the lack of quality on TV is not merely the fault of media institutions. “No matter what you do, there will always be people who want you to do more of this, less of that. The industry may look like it’s been here a long time, but it hasn’t. We’re still in the early stages of figuring out what the people want and need.”

Arul chuckles and gives out a short sigh. “Boy, what do I want?” he asks with a touch of irony.

“Let me give you the gist: I want TV to stop appealing to the audience — they’ve sold us the idea, it’s time for them to stop selling. Give us something worth watching, and we’ll give them their money’s worth.”

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.