The Inherent Bias of Television by Cameron Gaut
25 February 2004

In the 1940’s, America was recovering from World War II. The war had alleviated the depression of the 30’s; it created new jobs for people to build war supplies. Although this jumpstarted the slow economy, it was only a matter of time before the war would come to an end. After there were no more uniforms to make, no more tanks, America needed something to keep the economy strong. Thus, “a new vision was born that equated the good life with consumer goods” (Mander 136). Tail finned cars rolled off of assembly lines and sleek chrome appliances began to make life more comfortable and convenient – for those who could afford it. The rise of technology, made possible by patriotic consumer spending, provoked visions of a utopian society in which all could live in a world free of war, poverty, labor, and ignorance. America believed in this vision, because for the first time ever, we could see it happening in our own living rooms. TV offered entertainment with a price; advertisements would be shown for several minutes per hour of programming. The function of commercial TV was, and still is, to attract viewers and present them to advertisers. When this advertiser-consumer relationship of TV was initially created, no one knew that the television would eventually become the unavoidable hub of pop culture consciousness. Yet today, TV programs and their advertisements have come to influence our lives and culture the way that community and spiritual values used to. TV is more than merely entertainment, it’s a virtual reality made possible by advertisers with a self-serving agenda. This agenda, as we will soon see, often exploits us in the name of profit. Therefore, commercial television should be boycotted because it is detrimental to our well-being.

TV, unlike any other form of media, has the unique ability to shape our perceptions of reality. Before video was invented, humans relied on always trusting their sensual perceptions to survive. If they saw something, they believed that it was real. To doubt the reality of the oncoming lion would be fatal. It’s part of nature; we are genetically coded to accept images as truth (Mander 249). Moving images are very convincing. After all, it’s right there before our eyes. Of course, adults know that not everything on TV is “real.” But what is real? Whether fact or fiction, we are seeing real people truly interacting. The effect of watching a fictional show on TV has nearly the same effect as watching a documentary or the news. We identify with people on TV, fictional or not. Notice how many people talk about fictional characters on television as if they were real people. A typical conversation may consist of, “Oh my god, last night on Friends, Phoebe tried to teach Joey to speak French. It was SO hilarious!” Because television images can be so convincingly real to our minds, there are likely to be values and messages that we may “absorb unintentionally” (Lichter Online).
This is particularly the case with young people. For a specific example of this, consider violence on TV. According to studies conducted at Columbia University in 2002, the ever-increasing prevalence of violence on TV is causing teens to become more violent. Among youths who “watched less than an hour of television daily at age 14, just 5.7% were involved in aggressive acts by the ages of 16 to 22.” For those who watched more than three hours daily, the aggression rate skyrocketed to 28.8% (USA Today Online). The reason for this correlation between TV viewing and aggressive behavior seems to be that people subconsciously accept television as a reflection of reality. And on TV, people often resolve conflicts with violence that is portrayed as cool, free of consequence, painless, and quick, just in time for the commercial break.

A study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health concluded that “many viewers seem to be seeing the [television] shows they value as directly relevant to their own lives” (Mander 254). Most of those studied tended to copy social behavior from situations presented on TV in their daily lives. Even adults absorbed practical knowledge and methods of problem solving from TV. Watching TV stimulates our sensual perceptions into believing what we are seeing. Repeated impressions of these images alter our understanding and expectations of human nature. Repeated commercials contribute small pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of the American Consumer. Advertisers are harming us with their superficial messages that we are unintentionally absorbing.

Since the beginning of television, advertisers have always had a significant influence on the content of television. To illustrate this, we must analyze the production of programs on TV. Programs that are aired on television have been created or purchased by major TV networks. Before a show’s creation, advertisers often opt for “product placement,” or the discrete use of the advertised item in the television program. This discreetly advertised item can be placed in the main character’s hand (e.g. drinking a Pepsi) or on a billboard in the background of a set. After the creation of the show, advertisers can then purchase time slots between shows. A general precedent in commercial television is that if the program does not receive support from advertisers, it will not make its way into the broadcasting schedule (Rafuse online). A number of factors are considered before advertisers will purchase expensive time slots on TV. The content and message of the aired program must be “congruent with the objectives of the sponsor” (Rafuse Online). Advertisers also must be confident that their money is going to be spent efficiently, i.e. there must be as many potential customers as feasible. This is all made possible through the analysis of viewer demographics.

TV ratings are just collections of demographic data collected by companies such as Nielsen Media Research. Since 1923, they’ve been analyzing audiences of radio and TV programs. In a specially selected sample of homes, Nielsen Media Research technicians install metering equipment on TV sets, VCRs, cable boxes, and satellite dishes. These TV meters “automatically and invisibly keep track of when the sets are on and what the sets are tuned to” (Nielsen Media Online). The meters are connected to a "black box," which is actually just a very small computer and modem. Information from the meters is collected by the black box, and in the middle of the night, all the black boxes call in their information to central computers. Then, according to a universal TV program listing, the raw data from the black boxes is translated into which shows are being watched. Once all of the statistics are collected, advertisers can purchase them and use them to strategically target specific groups of individuals. For instance, if the demographic statistics show that males from the ages of 17 to 35 watch a particular show, advertisers for say, electric shavers, will most likely purchase time slots during that show. If the show has high ratings, then the price for time slots multiplies. This technology allows advertisers to categorize people, to use them as statistics, in order to make a profit.

Advertisers have one sole purpose: to sell us things that we don’t need. Advertisers may say that ads merely give people what they need, that they are a kind of public service. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. People will find what they truly need without advertising. In this case, a need is something that is essential to survival. Nobody needs advertisers to tell them that they’re hungry or that they need a place to sleep. People will naturally find food and shelter. By creating artificial needs, advertisers effectively instill dissatisfaction within its audiences. The other day, I turned on the TV and the first commercial I saw was for Riesen chocolates. Near the end of the commercial, we are told that “all you need is Riesen.” Moments later, an ad for Victoria’s Secret’s new pushup bra came on. The motto for this lingerie was “It’s you, only better.” Commercials like these constantly push a message onto us: happiness can be bought. And advertisers don’t want you to buy just once. They want you to keep buying.

In some cases, to keep the consumption rate as high as possible, companies will intentionally decrease the life of a product so it can be disposed of, and replaced with the newer rendition. Nike once made a shoe that was durable enough to last for years, but after initial sales, no one was coming back for more. To fix this “problem,” they diminished the quality of their shoes so they would break down sooner, compelling consumers to buy a new pair. Eventually, the newer pair will be disposed of, only to be replaced again. Public television reinforces a consumer culture in which we are convinced that happiness and fulfillment can be found in the disposable products that we buy. Advertisers would like us to think that we are not complete without their products, or that we shouldn’t be satisfied with what we have. They do not want us to find our own answers; they want us to buy theirs. However, they don’t always get what they want.
Today’s sophisticated TV viewers are more critical of advertising than their parents were. In response to this, the mega-corporations that advertise on TV are getting more persistent. Advertising is now venturing out of television’s virtual reality into our daily reality. For example, New York City was recently "purchased" by Snapple Beverages for $250 million so that Snapple could have the right to market themselves as the "official beverage of the Big Apple." Now they have the rights to advertise and sell beverages in New York’s 1200 public schools, in office buildings, police stations, and sanitation depots (Herszenhorn Online). It seems that America isn’t the land of the free after all, because every square inch of it is only available for a price. Those who can afford the high price of advertising use it to get us to keep buying their products.

The pressure to buy that is exerted in the commercials and programs of TV reveal the biases inherent within it. The sole concern of both advertiser and TV station owner is profit, so TV naturally exists to fulfill the desires of those who control it. Television is biased against those who defy the regime of capitalist consumption. A perfect example of this occurred very recently. During the 2004 Super Bowl, an independent organization called MoveOn.org vied for the placement of an advertisement that was considered controversial. The ad showed children working at blue-collar jobs. One child is seen throwing a garbage bag into the back of a dump truck, another is seen washing dishes. These scenes are followed by a question that asks, “Guess who’s going to pay off President Bush’s $1 trillion deficit?” Deemed by CBS as too controversial, the ad went un-aired. Another example of this is an ad by the magazine Adbusters, in which this question is posed, “is economic 'progress' killing the planet?” Both NBC and CBS rejected the ad for the same reason. They were just too controversial.

This intrinsic bias can also be found within the programs themselves. The Discovery Channel is running a new series about the Arctic in the High Definition format. The commercial advertises that it’s so real you’ll think you’re there. In their commercial, a sensuous female voice says “if you’ve been thinking about getting an HDTV, now’s the time buy one, because Arctic Mission premieres tonight.” Although the Discovery Channel doesn’t sell HDTVs directly, this still points out the fact that commercial television exudes consumerism. This is the also case with fictional programs. It isn’t often that we find a character on TV that embraces a lifestyle of minimal consumption. Anything that contradicts TV’s incessant message of consumption is deemed unfit for the public by those who control the medium. Thus, advertisers and station owners are predisposed to partiality because they will only act within the confines of what is profitable.
It seems that motivation for profit has allowed this country to prosper like no country has before, but at the same time, the money flow has been concentrated into the hands of the few wealthy that own corporations and control the advertisements we see on TV. The endless cycle of consumption that America seems to be caught in is the only thing that keeps the money flowing to these corporations. We buy their products, they earn more and more money, and then they spend some of it to advertise to us again. Maybe we as Americans can learn something from those that live on very little, but are still happier than most of us. If we all rose together and stopped buying corporate products, they’d have to try a different approach. The entire hierarchy of television would have to change, because we, the consumers, have the final say. They would have to accommodate our new demands. In the words of Zack de la Rocha, “It’s got to start somewhere; it’s got to start somehow. What better place than here, what better time than now?” (Rage Against the Machine). Let’s start by turning off the TV.

Works cited

Herszenhorn, David. “Snapple snaffles the Big Apple as mayor turns into marketer.”
11 Sept. 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 Feb. 2004. <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/10/1063191457041.html >

Lichter, Linda S. and Robert, S. “Does TV shape ethnic images?” 2003. Center for Media
Literacy, 4 Feb. 2004. <http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article388.html>

Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. New York: Morrow Quill
Paperbacks, 1978.

Rafuse, Shawn. “Television: Check your brain at the door.” Critical Mass Webzine. 4 Feb. 2004.
<http://www.peak.sfu.ca/cmass/issue1/tv.html>

Rage Against the Machine. Guerilla Radio. Morella, Rocha, and Wilk. 1999. Epic Records.

“Study: Teens who watch much TV prone to violence.” USA Today. 4 Feb. 2004.
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/03/28/tv-violence.htm>

“What TV ratings really mean.” 28 Mar. 2002. Nielsen Media Research. 4 Feb. 2004.
<http://www.nielsenmedia.com/whatratingsmean>