by Robert Guenette

The Season Of Our Discontent:
Members of The Caucus Speak Out on Issues That Disturb Them

It's also been called "the killing fields," where violence, according to one independent survey, is up 27% from last year, where a homicide takes place once every seventy-eight minutes on prime-time and where, in a single hour, sixty acts of violence have been recorded in one program.

Listen to Newton Minow's reappraisal of his "wasteland" speech... "In 1961, I worried that my children would not benefit much from television. But, now I worry that my grandchildren will actually be harmed by it."

Television used to be thought of as "a harmless diversion." At it's worst, it was what couch-potatoes could space out on. Today, it is being perceived as something less passive and potentially dangerous. A U.C. Berkeley sociologist recently called "the glut of trivia on the tube... coarse, glib and nihilistic."

And over half of the members of The Caucus who recently responded to the Quarterly's request for comments on the state of Television seem to agree with him.

The Caucus' Aims and Objectives and its stated goals in its own WHO'S RESPONSIBLE? paper on violence (reprinted in this issue) are explicit about how we, as producers, writers and directors, should be aware of how we deal with violence in our work. "We are what we do," that document proclaimed.

In speaking out, many members of The Caucus are disturbed by what it is we are doing. In this issue's lead article, Bruce Sallan has clearly stated the dilemma and laid down the challenge with regard to our chasing down the murder-of-the-week. And in their remarks to The Quarterly, other members echo his sentiments over and over again.

Freyda Rothstein writes: "The networks' continued thirst for headline stories has taken its toll on creative storytelling, adding that "I am very proud of the thirty-something movies for television that I have produced, (but) I am less proud of some of the material I am now developing..."

Ann Marcus asks, "Why do we, the writers, producers and directors in this medium perpetuate a continuing diet of violent, aberrant and sociopathic programming which we know has such a terrible impact on the vast TV audience?"

Dorothea Petrie extends that question, stating that the "challenge facing everyone in the entertainment industry is to resist the temptation and pressures to glorify violence." Her challenge is ­ if we don't resist "Aren't we building an increasing appetite for titillation, corruption, infidelity and cynicism?"

Gerald W. Abrams agrees: "The biggest challenge that I feel we face in television today is the courage to withstand the constant onslaught of having to participate in chasing down these horrific true-life murder stories."

"These stories may be hot, commercial properties today, "he writes," but, in my opinion, they just undermine the creativity of writers, producers and directors, and, in the end, what do you have to show for it? How does producing these vehicles for commercial television better the fate of mankind?"

David Levy adds "This pollution of the cultural environment envelops us all. Cultural pollution is as dangerous to our society as is environmental pollution."

At a recent symposium held at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, scholars, critics and practition-ers gathered to discuss the challenges facing the television industry.

Violence, clearly was an issue. Television movies based on fact were considered a "TV hazard," not just because as the late president of CBS News, Dick Salant, said in 1985, "The problem with docu-dramas is people don't know where the docu ends and the drama begins," but also because the form encourages laziness. New York Times television critic calls such "crime of the week" movies "paint by the numbers reality rip-offs."

Jeff Sagansky, CBS programming chief, discussed the Amy Fisher movies at the Harvard symposium. He said CBS' contribution "was not particularly exemplary; it was awful."

Ruth Slawson, NBC's former movie chief, was not present at Harvard. But in the January 5th, 1993 edition of The New York Times she was quoted as saying "We all say we don't want to keep on doing these true crime stories but then the numbers come in and what choice do we have?" She then said she was happy "with the success" of the Amy Fisher movie, but added... "However, I'm not happy about the state of movies on television."

The Harvard Symposium, press statements by network executives and The Caucus Quarterly's own survey indicate no-one wants this kind of programming on television.

Yet, there it is.

Michael Fuchs of HBO challenged the Harvard audience, saying that they were at fault; they were getting the television they wanted. "You all act like you're going to watch 'The Mayan Civilization, but you tune in Geraldo!"

Who is to blame? The money-driven market (it's a consumer democracy, we're told; we get the government and the TV we deserve) or the network executives or the producers, writers and directors or the taste of the public?

If you've answered "all of the above" you probably wouldn't get an argument from many of the members of the Caucus who answered our call for "what bothers you about TV and what can we do about it?"

Joan Barnet and Jack Grossbart write (in a common letter) that "many of us strive to elevate our work, but the reality of the business makes this growth, at best, measurable in minuscule steps."

"We perpetuate the myth of pandering to the lowest common denominator," they add, "because of economics and the limited scope of the buyers."

"We would love to see us move up a notch in our conception of the audience we serve."

Diana Kerew believes this is possible... and necessary. "All of America is not composed of readers of the tabloids and television should be able to offer some alternatives."

She believes there is room for both tabloid TV and "a wider range of subjects" in what appears on the home screen. She believes we are selling our audiences short, not giving them "credit for having some intelligence and imagination."

As a group, the respondents to The Caucus Quarterly agree... Television increasingly panders to the lowest common denominator and unfortunately "the worst is driving out the better."

Gary David Goldberg, whose recent public announcement that he was "turning away from network TV," lamented that "Television just keeps escalating in crassness." He was present at the Harvard symposium mentioned above. He said the TV networks "have become tabloids. At one point they used to be full newspapers."

As Diana Kerew and others wrote in their statements -- we want and we need "the full newspaper."

Marian Rees, in her statement, talks about "the tyranny of exclusion." What's not on television, she states, is as important as what's on. And what's not on, Bill Moyers calls "the shame of our industry" and that is a full-blown look at the marvelous differences in our country... our diversity.

The more channels we get, we get more of the same. The channels clone; the programs clone.

Ronald Cohen was among those who were particularly upset by the failure of television to offer more alternatives, of the networks failure "to portray America as it really is today." He would like to see more complex issues addressed in movies and programming, like a film about environmental issues vs the job issues.

Bill Blinn warns: "The increasing timidity of television programming sows the seeds for our future demise. The lack of challenge to the audience, the sameness of what's offered, are turning all three major networks into fast food suppliers of the mind. To the degree we serve those ends in partnership with them we will have become our own Dr. Kevorkians."

Stan Margulies also addresses this issue of "sameness":

"Maya Angelou, in her Inauguration poem, named many of the ethnic groups that are a part of America, a longoverdue acknowledgement of our society's diverse elements.

Most of those groups are conspicuously absent on our home screens. Situation comedies with all-black casts are well and good, but where are the dramas about African Americans? Anyone see a Chicano on the tube? An Asian American? How about a Chinese family in San Francisco or New York? What about the particular joys and problems of intermarriage? Or haven't you looked around lately? And don't forget America's earliest -- and least identified -- residents: the Native Americans.

As a country, we have all the available colors in our citizens. How come they show up so seldom on our color TV screens?"

Stephen Downing, in his statement, suggests an answer to Stan's question: He wonders if we can show the nation's diversity on the TV screen if we ourselves (The Caucus) don't "first provide the example of adding the threads of diversity to the fabric of our own tapestry."

Caryn Mandabach verbally addressed this issue of diversity -- of minorities -- with me on the telephone, lamenting the fact that Caucus members have focused on FIN-SYN and other related financial issues rather than, face the issue of the lack of minorities among us.

Hear Dick Berg on this issue:

"Until we create a workplace for substantial numbers of women, ethnic minorities and handicapped people, our industry is mired in the past. Because until that time, we not only fail to tap the fullest resources of our creative potential, but we continue to ignore the dwindling state of our audience. This applies to personnel on all levels, creative and technical. And unless we can bring a meaningful mix into the decisionmaking process, we are just marking time."

In this issue of the Caucus Quarterly a young writer, Ruben Navarrette discusses the experiences he had trying to become part of the television industry. He is not a Caucus member, but he is a member of an ethnic minority, and his take on his experiences is worth your reading.

In seeking a more diverse look on television, Nancy Malone addresses the problems of portraying women. "We need to see more realistic examples of women in "lower, middle and upper class lives," she writes, "women with varying degrees of education, income beliefs demonstrating the realities of women, especially from the 1970's on up to the present."

For instance, a major newspaper recently wondered where the portrayals of saleswomen were on TV. It's the #1 most common occupation in the United States. Cashiers are the sixth most common. We have doctors, lawyers, cops and television professionals in prime-time but no saleswomen or cashiers as leads. (Or truck drivers, that's the 5th most common occupation in the United States).

Nancy Malone further feels the need for "entertainment that young people and families can watch together."

Fern Field, also bashing the reliance on ratings and bottom line, feels the most neglected (and most important, she says) area is children's programming. She thinks it should be included in the Emmy prime-time telecast and attacks the Network's attitude on programming for the preschoolers. "Except for cartoons," she writes, they feel "it's not worth doing because 'the little ones will watch what the older kids are watching and they're the one's with buying power'."

Ernest Chambers alone addressed the issue of News on television (though many addressed the issue of para-journalism, which Bruce Sallan also discusses in his lead article MURDERS OF THE WEEK. With the recent NBC/GM rigged pick-up truck scandal, in which the News department faked a fiery explosion in an "expose," and with the line between real journalism and para-journalism certainly blurring, we felt his solitary statement needed airing.

Chambers writes that "Television news must stop worrying about being entertaining." He warns that "if freedom of the press is to have any true meaning, (the news departments) must give the public something to think about."

Interestingly enough, a recent poll by the Times-Mirror organization revealed that up to 50% of those watching parajournalistic crime re-creation shows on TV felt they were watching the real thing - even when those segments were labeled "re-enactment."

No one of The Caucus Members addressed the issue of the manipulation of the media by Presidential candidates in the last election, but surely some time must be spent evaluating if the public was truly well-served by allowing candidates to escape the hard questions by appearing on talk shows with friendly hosts.

In total, The Caucus Quarterly received statements from almost 25% of the membership. What ticked them off most was the violence and the pursuit of violence as a way to make a living as TV producers. The failure to show the diverse elements of American life was a close second. Other issues that provoked comment were ownership of the work we do, which Chuck Fries and Andy Solt address separately in this issue and the abuse of creative talent. The failure to credit the artists among us and the proliferation of credits also received some attention. Statements by Danny Arnold, Gilbert Cates, Gerald Isenberg and George Schaefer follow this article. They were part of the incoming mail for this issue.

The most troubling aspect of the statements received was: WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT? If television has evolved from what Joanna Lee calls it in her statement "a sort of white noise machine... something to block out the noise of a neighbor's gardener, a barking dog, or as a fill-in to a too silent house," to something potentially harmful to Newton Minow's and our grandchildren, how do we change it?

"I see pratfalls, but no wit," Joanna Lee writes. "I see sensation, but no feelings. I see sex, but no love. I see fashion replace original thought and self-indulgence replace integrity."

She remembers -- as we all do -- "when television regularly offered shows that were events. Shows that brought the family together to watch." She stated explicitly what others intimate discreetly: "The damn thing (TV)," she says, "is lousy." But then she says, "Don't tell me it can't be fixed." "Surely," she adds, "as a collective community of the most creative people this rich and varied country has to offer, we can do better."

Ann Marcus adds words of urgency to Joanna's: "We've got to do something. Now!", she says. "As The Caucus," she urges. "let's find a way out of this nightmare. Let's sit down with the networks and the cable companies and talk."

Norman Felton feels the need, too, to talk. He asks for a prestigious commission of the best of us and others to take on this question of "cultural pollution" and begin to search for answers.

Dorothea Petrie feels it begins with each of us. "In search of ratings," she writes, "we must each bear individual responsibility for what we offer to our American and International audiences and to young people throughout the world."

Arnold Shapiro writes that each of us "has an ethical and civic obligation to evaluate each program for its impact on younger viewers."

Roger Gimbel sees the challenge as "meeting The Neilsen test in a moral way and still being provocative."

Newton Minow again: "If television is to change, the men and women in it will have to make it a leading institution in American life rather than merely a reactive mirror of the lowest common denominator in the market place."

Collectively, we kind of came up short on the answers, stating the obvious, echoing truths that, unless acted upon, may eventually wind up sounding like platitudes. But it's a start and as my Indian grandmother once told me, "The lack of a remedy is no reason to stop looking for one."

What's striking about our responses is not that we don't have the answers, but that we know the questions. We know the narrowness of the line we're walking... and we're mad. We're as mad as hell and...

Robert Guenette is president of Robert Guenette Productions. His most recent programs were "Orson Welles: What Went Wrong?" and "Here's Looking At You, Warner Bros."