Reality in the TV Age

This blog is not an academic or scientific paper. I claim no research or data to back up my views. These are just the opinions of an amateur social observer, posted to accompany my fictional novel on the deceit and illusions shaping our society.

I listened to a true crime podcast recently - a great source for ideas for that future detective novel I plan to write. It was a particularly disturbing case where a group of people all bullied a vulnerable individual, culminating in the person’s murder. Having discovered the defendants watched an infamous horror film prior to the crime, the sentencing judge drew a link to the resultant behaviour and condemned the film. This in turn led to criticism of the judge, with experts saying there was no direct link between watching horror films and violent acts. I’m sure that is the case in the simple scenario of where a horror film is released and the audience restrains itself from mimicking what they have seen, knowing right from wrong. However, it got me thinking about the social impact of films and television (all forms of modern media), a strand of illusion and fantasy that occupies a prominent position within our lives. Afterall, there I was listening to a true crime podcast (one of the most popular genres) as a form of entertainment!

The act of watching TV/film is easy and feels non-consequential. At the pressing of a button our lives go on and we head to bed or move to the next programme, film or series. But how many of us could live without our TV? I recall one news story of an individual claiming TV as a human right! It appears a great way to unwind in our frantic world, taking us away from our worries and into other people’s lives, be that fantasy or actual. What better way to occupy those energy-filled cherubs, our children, than introduce them to the screen and let the cartoons entertain them while we get on with other jobs around the house?

For most of us, the screen forms a daily companion: a source of information, entertainment and insight. I’ve never been to the Middle East or America, but I’ve seen them many times via the TV, on the news and in drama, and have formed an opinion of their people and landscape as a consequence. My mind remains open enough to understand my view is restricted and I’m not seeing the full picture, but still I have been influenced. The news rarely reports on the harmonious town that has escaped violence, when there are explosions on the other side of the country, while a drama needs, well, drama to draw in the audience, warping reality to keep the theatrical rhythm moving at pace. Therefore, my window on the world is selective and my opinions have limited data to draw upon.

We are still in the early days of this social phenomenon of modern media. Most people didn’t own a TV until the 1950/60s and, using the UK as an example, saturation TV (multiple channels on 24/7) didn’t infiltrate until the 1990s. With the arrival of the internet and smartphones, a further shift has taken place, with people able to watch what they choose, when and where they want. The first generation to experience the TV revolution are still alive and can recall the community gathered round the TV to watch Queen Elizabeth’s coronation or the moon landings. Lounges have changed their layout to accommodate as the TV’s place in our lives has grown, chairs no longer orchestrated around the fireplace, but before the TV (their screen size also growing to dominate the room). For those who lived through the 70s and 80s, with a choice of three or four channels, there was the ‘tea-point’ interaction, namely talking about a common programme all watched the previous night, providing a thread of unity with the shared experience. Now it’s a personal experience, perhaps shared with friends through a WhatsApp message. This shows how our behaviour to TV has changed but not how TV has changed us.

It is impossible to focus down on one issue to identify social trends and behaviours. Modern times have seen major changes, all impacting on us, many good, some not so good: a long period of peace (from a Western perspective), relative wealth, technological advancements, liberalisation and a move towards equality, the breakdown of the traditional family model, an increase in drug use and related crime, a rise in mental health problems etc. This confluence of factors gets mixed in the bowl of life and comes out as a societal recipe, often with lumpy bits! Whatever society emerges, there are key points of influence from within: parental guidance, religion, school culture, peer pressure, state and social expectations and, finally, the media. TV/film, as part of the media, have been a constant during this period and I am going to argue that it’s provided an ever growing and powerful point of influence, dominating over some of the others listed.

Of course, there is a chicken and egg scenario to be considered here: does TV/film reflect society or influence it? I personally believe it is both. It makes sense that a culture likes to see itself reflected in its drama and other arts, something familiar and comprehensible, occasionally a harsh reminder of the worst aspects. It is harder to prove the opposite, that TV influences our behaviour . However, like all industries, TV/film has to adapt to keep in business. One thing I’ve noticed is, due to the competitive nature of TV channels, there is a compulsion to push templates to the extreme: bigger, bolder, brighter. In the past presenters were straight-laced, somewhat dry and drab, not meant to distract the viewer from the content, which was delivered without much fuss. Now, in the race for ratings, they are louder and more exuberant, part of the overall drama, pushing their own agenda for air time. Even the news is a ‘show’, with dramatic music, pithy, eye-catching statements, flashy, bold graphics, and ‘performing,’ glamourous newsreaders (TV celebrities in their own right and occasionally making news themselves), sweeping across the floor to stand before a screen or presenting live from an external location, struggling to ‘entertain’ for 24hrs each day. It is more style than substance because the visual catches the attention. And once something becomes the norm, something grander and more eye-catching is required to continue to capture the viewer, until things are trivialised and those watching only see serious subjects in a sanitised, showman style, meeting the lowest common denominator rather than encouraging effort at a higher level of understanding. Reality TV is perhaps a consequence of this trend, sometimes badged as social experiments, but ultimately voyeuristic, cheap TV, where the more outrageous the participants, the more headlines and higher ratings. For many this is just guilty TV, but for others the participants, seeking the shortcut to fame, become role models, their shallow behaviour a template. And it is this fusion of reality with the fantasy projected through our screens that causes me most concern.

One reason for this is that, as any neurologist will tell you, the brain’s currency is very much fantasy. It is an energy hungry organ and so seeks as many ways as possible to economise and take short-cuts. Much of what you consider reality is in fact your brain’s projection of its interpretation of reality. Think of it like those stunning pictures of distant galaxies and nebula. Those aren’t a straightforward photograph, but a collection of seemingly meaningless data (light wave-lengths) that a computer then interprets into colour, depth, scale etc to present as something that has meaning to us. That is how the brain works. Lots of what we think we see, is the brain interpreting what it thinks we should be seeing. Is it so far-fetched to, therefore, think that the brain is fairly accommodating with all the fantasy we generate for ourselves? A film like the Matrix has become the underpinning explanation for many a paranoic mind.

If TV doesn’t impact on our behaviour, why do companies spend a fortune advertising there? The trick to TV advertising is to plant a seed in the mind of the viewer, establishing familiarity and credibility for a brand. When confronted with a choice the consumer will buy the ‘As seen on the shiny advert’ brand, over the ‘I’ve never heard of that one before!’ brand. Some people will be more susceptible than others but it is the percentage game also utilised by tele-salesmen or conmen: call a thousand people and one will make a purchase. We now have social media influencers, unregulated celebrities who tap into peer pressure channels, creating a viral demand for products that are, at most, ordinary. And the dreaded algorithm, targeting and manipulating us because of an acquired ‘knowledge’ of our behaviour and likes from our internet use (I don’t like Justin Bieber. I just bought one of his CDs as a gift for a teenager!). Adverts contain the same balance of fact and fiction as your average drama, I don’t see why the latter can’t influence in the same manner. Your actor (along with sports stars) is now the most effective influencer because people trust a familiar face, even though you will rarely experience the real person behind the acting mask. As with any influence, it is not universal or comprehensive, but it works like a rolling snowball, accumulating as it rolls and impacts, growing or shrinking depending on the conduciveness of the surface and other obstacles or influences in its way, the young being particularly adhesive and suitable for building growth. Much is peer pressure, the fear of missing out or being excluded.

Before visual media, ignorance coloured many a decision. The glory of war and desire to do heroic deeds drew men to their death, few aware of the horrors they would have to endure or even the nature of the country their bones would lay in. While a cynicism has now entered our mindset, the ignorance lingers, perhaps now a case of seeing things through tinted glasses, the nature of the tint effecting our view. I’m minded of gangster films/TV, creating a glamour from a seedy, violent existence, which no one in their right-mind would champion as a lifestyle. But people mimic the talk and the walk: appearing hard creates kudos that looking smart lacks. Following Peaky Blinders (an excellent TV drama), the flat caps and waistcoats worn by the protagonists became a very popular fashion. On the face of it this is fine, there is no harm in clothes. But what has inspired the mimics? Have the characters struck a chord? Did the tribal camaraderie of the gangs stir a primordial sense of belonging, while the alpha males appear good role models? What else within their behaviour has inspired others? Has that 1:1000 susceptible individual taken to wearing razor blades in their hat’s rim too? You can’t say ‘I just liked the hat’. People love the bonnets in a Jane Austen drama but that doesn’t inspire ladies to wear them, because they don’t wish to project the image of an 18th Century women in 21st Century life. Some coutures of Peaky Blinder will have been directly influenced by the programme, while others from seeing people in the street wearing such clothes. Other layers of experience shape someone drawn to the extreme end of imitation. Perhaps a childhood where authority was framed in a certain poor light and the aspiring hero is the man on the run-down estate who drives the powerful BMW that no one else in the area can afford, or simply someone who grew up with parents who followed every new fashion. Everything we make a choice on reflects who we are, and if that choice is shaped by the fabrication or gloss of TV, then that’s a big impact on society.

Some films get badged with the term ‘cultural phenomenon’, creating a loyal following which embeds its style, language and characters into our culture. Stars Wars and Harry Potter are two such examples. Again, it is the young who are particularly susceptible to the hypnotising lure of these franchises. What’s not to like? Action and adventure, magic and thrills. However, the marketers and moneymen have their claws dug deep, pushing the brands through every possible means, convincing the consumer it is something they can’t live without. In truth they are enjoyable fantasies, designed to fill a few hours of your day. An ephemeral treat. But which child doesn’t want a lightsabre to pretend they’re a jedi knight or a wand to bring out their inner Harry? Of course, they grow out of such… Well, no, a number of people don’t. Many adults are obsessed by fictional characters, collecting merchandise, worshipping the actors, believing the later Star Wars films were good, naming their children after their favourites and sometimes marrying in fancy dress. And if you think these are an insignificant handful of fanatics, not impacting on society, how did jedi become a religion included in the UK census (over 170K indicated it as their religion in the 2011 census, though maybe a few in jest)?

Drama works by triggering an emotional response. Who hasn’t welled-up in Bambi or held their breath as T-Rex sniffs around in Jurassic Park? Our conscious selves compartmentalise these as part of the entertainment, dismissing the fictional death, for example, as separate from a real loss. However, there is a proper physical reaction, be it pumping adrenaline or another neurological chemical burst, and it must condition us to some degree. What does it do at the sub-conscious level? How does a child process these feelings when they have yet to fully process real life? What if 50% plus of your emotional experiences come through drama or other artificial visual stimulants? The notion that we can re-order everything clearly once in adulthood doesn’t fit in with other strands of psychology which put great emphasis on the buried experiences of childhood resurfacing to shape adulthood.

So, do I believe a horror film can lead someone to murder? Not directly, but as part of a cultural cocktail, I do. Like an ill-advised mixture of alcoholic drinks, the film can be that fatal, final shot. The individual may be drawn to the genre to fulfil a love of thrills or a sadistic pleasure, one benign, the other a concern. I personally do not think watching others suffer, even if make-believe, is a healthy psychological state but I’ve met lots of level-headed people who like a bit of gore and can perhaps disassociate better than I. However, I’ve also met people unable to distinguish fact from fiction and it feels like their numbers are growing, perhaps due to their entire youth being awash in the powerful visual fantasies of modern life. Fictionalised violence may reinforce the factual violence some have been exposed to, nurturing ideas and justification for when their psychological trauma one day erupts.

I don’t offer solutions - I said this is not evidence-based opinion. It would be nice to have ‘responsible’ media but how do you define that without censoring. I suspect this is no topic a scientific study could ever prove one way or other. A singular lab experiment with wires connected to the brain measuring emotional responses to a visual stimulant, will only prove that we’re all individuals with our own response built upon differing foundations. The only way I can think to study the phenomenon at a society level, is to introduce an isolated Amazon tribe to TV, monitoring their behavioural for decades either side, but I wouldn’t wish The Voice on anyone!

Anyway, must go, Home and Away is on and I have a sudden urge to surf down the stairs.

Nathaniel M Wrey