Moving beyond the “Vast Wasteland”

Abstract

In the United States, there are two basic positions on television and cultural policy. The dominant position, promoted by the television industry and by free-market conservatives, is that television culture is best left in the hands of commerce: if the people want certain types of programming, then the market will provide them. This view can be traced to the free-market ideology that permitted U.S. broadcasting, unlike most European models, to develop as a commercially sponsored, private enterprise.The second position, promoted mainly by liberal reformers, argues that television must be at least partially protected from the ravages of commercialism, with its drive toward cultural malaise and the lowest common denominator: only through some type of policy intervention can cultural standards be maintained and the public interest be served. This view achieved its peak of legitimacy in the 1960s, when an unsuccessful move to upgrade the quality of commercial television, fueled by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Newton Minow's (1961) metaphor of the "vast wasteland," eventually spawned the establishment of a nationalized public broadcasting system (Baughman 1985). With the exception of political economic critiques of media ownership that circulate on the margins of public discourse, these positions dominate public debates about television and cultural policy.In this article, we suggest that both views are fraught with contradictions. The first, as many critics have observed, overlooks the limitations of

Media as Sentimental Education: The Political Lessons of HBO'sThe Laramie Projectand PBS'sTwo Towns of Jasper

“…PBS's social and regulatory distinction relies upon a special relationship to public service: one that defines itself in opposition to popular entertainment. This distinction is maintained through mechanisms such as a subdued aesthetic, programming labeled as educational and culturally elevating, and high-brow cultural affiliations (Murray, 2004;Ouellette & Lewis, 2000); educational materials such as those distributed with Two Towns are both a service to the public and a mechanism for this distinction. To go along with Two Towns, PBS.org offers two lesson plans, ''Examining Prejudice'' and ''Examining White Privilege,'' geared toward K-12 classrooms.…”

“…While many scholars and politicians fear emotional discourse as being more open to manipulation, it is important to remember that rational argumentation may just as easily hide specific interests and sentiments. For example, Laurie Ouellette (1999) shows how PBS's articulation of public service has traditionally centered upon teaching a rationalist style of discourse to a public in need of elevation. Ouellette points out that this vision of public service was actualized as an effort to inculcate bourgeois class, racial, and gender norms in those of ''lower'' social class.…”