If You Build It, They Will Come"

[Philip Coates]

It’s an open secret that television (along with the movies) has descended into mediocrity, mindlessness, and to the fourth grade level. People need to be entertained and the boob tube is the major source right in front of them. Yet for at least a decade, and getting worse by the year, it has been an open secret among Americans that “there are a hundred channels and there is nothing on.”

But this week the television viewership of the Olympics has been staggering. Every single day, every single hour of televised coverage for the first week and now well into the second, well over ten percent of the American people have been untiringly tuned in. 35 miliion, 37 million 38 million. The number of television sets tuned to NBC has been greater than the total of all the sets tuned into CBS, ABC, FOX and well over a hundred cable channels put together. The next strongest program on any channel on any day has had about 7 or 8 million viewers.

In the words of that noted deep thinker Kevin Costner, "If you build it, they will come."

If you show people excelling in something, straining against obstacles, even if it’s something obscure like Serbian water polo or rhythmic cycling, people will want to see it. Not reality shows about lowlifes or situation comedies about stupidity and incompetence. People are hungry, starved, for anything beautiful, dignified, enobling, where people train and work and struggle and put enormous effort on the line.

In much of life, the lessons are obvious. The way to succeed is in reach and not that complicated.

The keys to success in television (and movies) are really simple: Tell stories. Build suspense. Know the principles of literature and drama. Don’t talk down or insult the intelligence. Have likable and attractive or at least interesting characters. Don’t promote lowlifes or have morons as stars. Take the high road. But those in control find all sorts of excuses not to do what is needed.

It’s really hard to make yourself do what is simple and obvious.

The keys to success in spreading Objectivism are also clear-cut and obvious: Be a good to great writer or public speaker. Polish your skills. Develop the ability to persuade people and to get them to like you. Don’t use jargon. Learn to simplify. Develop the common touch. Don’t use ad hominem or personal denunciations or moral attacks on those who disagree. Build teamwork. Know the details of your subject before you pontificate. Anticipate objections. Focus on the ideas not the people. Take the high road. Focus on the positive and the optimistic and the ideal.

If you build it, they will come.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Before I move this, why is it in the Barbara Branden corner? This is a section devoted to her work.

Is there any reason, or was this a mistake?

Do you have a preference for another section?

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Michael,

It was a mistake - feel free to move it. (I only see the "new topic" button at the bottom of whatever I am reading not on the page objectivistliving.com with which I enter this site and didn't realize it meant new -sub- topic under the current one.)

My only preference would be for a frequently read section - something which has to do with cultural commentary or how to succeed, since this is actually a blend of both. I'll leave it up to you.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I put it in Sports and Recreation because of the Olympics theme.

Your post is a very inspiring read and the Olympics is one of the few things mankind in general gets right. I think your uplifting commentary is a fitting tribute to that magnificent sports event.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Phil, Rand herself is the best possible example of your thesis. She had a genius for reaching and inspiring people through her novels, and because of it she was able to challenge almost everything her readers believed and keep them coming back for more.

Television today is even worse than you suggest, but it is only a reflection of the state of much of our culture. I watched a couple of infomercials recently, with a sort of horrible fascination, and I realized that the producers of the goods being touted do not expect the viewers to believe what's being pitched to them -- that is, they do not expect us to believe that X makeup will make an ugly woman beautiful or that X vitamin will enable us to regain the vigor of a 20-year old. And the viewers, even as they buy the products, share in the deception; they know they are being lied to, they know they are not expected to believe the hype, and they do not believe it. Everyone is in on the deception, and no one protests.

And then I listened to a couple of politicians, and I realized that the identical lies and acceptance of being lied to occurs when a politician announces, for instance, that he and only he can and will "put Americans back to work;" he knows that there is relatively little unemployment today and that his proudly announced plans to solve all the problems of the world if only he is elected dogcatcher or president have not the slightest chance of becoming law. The viewers know it, too, they know they are being lied to, but they vote for him anyway. Everyone is in on the deception, and no one protests.

The television emperor not only has no clothes, he is losing his skin as well.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, Rand herself is the best possible example of your thesis. She had a genius for reaching and inspiring people through her novels, and because of it she was able to challenge almost everything her readers believed and keep them coming back for more.

Television today is even worse than you suggest, but it is only a reflection of the state of much of our culture. I watched a couple of infomercials recently, with a sort of horrible fascination, and I realized that the producers of the goods being touted do not expect the viewers to believe what's being pitched to them -- that is, they do not expect us to believe that X makeup will make an ugly woman beautiful or that X vitamin will enable us to regain the vigor of a 20-year old. And the viewers, even as they buy the products, share in the deception; they know they are being lied to, they know they are not expected to believe the hype, and they do not believe it. Everyone is in on the deception, and no one protests.

And then I listened to a couple of politicians, and I realized that the identical lies and acceptance of being lied to occurs when a politician announces, for instance, that he and only he can and will "put Americans back to work;" he knows that there is relatively little unemployment today and that his proudly announced plans to solve all the problems of the world if only he is elected dogcatcher or president have not the slightest chance of becoming law. The viewers know it, too, they know they are being lied to, but they vote for him anyway. Everyone is in on the deception, and no one protests.

The television emperor not only has no clothes, he is losing his skin as well.

Barbara

This is interesting, but not new. The voters are still waiting for the honest politician. As for TV, I no longer watch any network series show. There is no one show that pulls me in week after week the way The Twilight Zone did or This Is Your Life or The Howdy Doody Show or Sky King or The Lone Ranger or Hopalong Cassidy or Gunsmoke or The Rifleman or The Crosby Show Or The Millionaire, or even Dallas, etc. I don't even KNOW the names of the new shows. A small some of it is lack of time, but WHERE IS BONANZA these days? From my extremely limited understanding, video games are crap except for hand-eye coordination for future warriors. Are there VALUES depicted or is it all only KILL THE OTHER GUY!

--Brant

[J. D. Johnson]

Just my two cents:

On the topic of television, it should be noted that CSI (the excellent original series) and its not so excellent spin-offs have been in the top ten most-watched list for quite some time.

Why?

I would contend that CSI portrays three themes not found in other series:

1. A group of intelligent people interested in finding truth using science, technology, and logical thinking; and then

2. doing so with integrity;

3. in the interest of Justice.

This series supports the argument that "if you build it, they will come." Unfortunately, CSI is a rare diamond in a mountain of coal.

[Chris Grieb]

I have to add the point that cable has better shows than the networks. That paid cable has better shows than the basic cable shows.

That shows from Great Britain are in most cases better than shows from the US.

I must also mention that I really enjoy Penn and Teller's

"Bullshit".

Some of the shows mentioned in the earlier post such as Sky King have not been seen and when I did see one recently I did not find it very well done.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I wish the issue were simply deception. Then it would be easy to fix. But it is more complicated.

Cialdini has written works used by marketers (and politicians and others) on the psychological triggers of human motivation. In a nutshell, they are reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social proof, authority, liking and scarcity.

If you look at the Olympics or at Rand's works, they are full of masterful uses of these persuasion triggers in addition to the challenges to attain greatness. And I find nothing wrong with that. (A study of the psychological triggers used in Rand's works is a terrific idea for a project.) That is the reason they stand out in the mainstream environment while other fine events and works that equally shoot for the highest do not.

Whether people like it or not, this reality of human nature exists and it works for both producer and scoundrel. It is kind of like atomic energy. There is no intrinsic good or evil in it. You can use the same energy to light up a city or blow it up.

I know this goes against the traditional Objectivist view of human nature, but when you look at reality and see it working time after time, both with good guys and bad guys, you have to admit what you see.

Infomercials are not built on deception. They are built on psychological triggers. There are specific techniques that are taught and I have some works that teach them if you are interested. I have not studied the Infomercial format per se, but it works a lot like an Internet sales page and I have work after work dissecting sales pages. In fact, many of these works cite Infomercials as the bare-bones TV version of the principles being discussed.

It so happens that often people with low moral standards use the Infomercial system of advertising, but there is no reason why a solid producer cannot. (Anthony Robbins is a good example of one who did.) A producer will achieve much more sales doing so if he is just starting out.

Infomercials exist because they work on the free market, not because they are evil and the customers are evil. If a dark side must be attributed to them, they are proof that when reason is not insisted on by a customer for evaluating products, structured methods of persuasion do exist to tap into the customer's wants and pain. This structure is based on how human beings work. The methods of producing Infomercials cost money but the outstanding results are predictable, time after time.

They work so well that it's almost comical to read authors of persuasion and marketing methods constantly remind the reader that he must provide value to the customer when using the techniques. But there it is.

When you get to bigger companies, this does not get better, it gets worse. Their advertising/publicity moves away from the sleazy obviousness of Infomercials (as used for poor products) and goes for the more subtle but deadly subliminal jugular.

On a side issue, I want to say that I do not share pessimism about modern TV (although there is a lot of garbage). There is simply too much good stuff on it.

For instance, there is a line of mainstream TV program that is marvelous. I am a big fan of shows like Law and Order (all the different versions), Criminal Intent, etc. I have become a big fan of The Cleaner for obvious reasons (it deals with a crusader against addiction).

These are shows about men and women who are passionately involved in doing what's right and doing their very best with what they've got at the time and within their understanding to make it so.

I am constantly watching documentaries on cable TV. I just saw one on Hemingway last night and it was very pleasurable. I even began to understand one of Hemingway's main recurrent themes (human striving for greatness will always be torn apart by big evil society). Now I know what has always bothered me about his works.

Also, I cannot stress enough the glorious nature of the Internet. It works so well that even sleazeballs have to provide some free useful or desired information or entertainment (value) to customers if they want to get anywhere. They are practically forced by their own greed to do some good. But if you want human greatness, it is right there on the Internet at your fingertips.

I love living at the time I am living.

Michael

EDIT: My post crossed with J. D. Johnson's. I am a big fan of CSI, also, which is a prime example of what I am talking about.

[Brant Gaede]

I have to add the point that cable has better shows than the networks. That paid cable has better shows than the basic cable shows.

That shows from Great Britain are in most cases better than shows from the US.

I must also mention that I really enjoy Penn and Teller's

"Bullshit".

Some of the shows mentioned in the earlier post such as Sky King have not been seen and when I did see one recently I did not find it very well done.

Sky King was very badly done. I haven't seen an episode for well over 50 years. Sea Hunt and Highway Patrol were much better but no where near as good technically as today's shows. As for SK, they couldn't properly integrate the airplane into the storylines, such as they were, but they had to do something. Some of the contemporary TV shows I have seen are written with great technical competence.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; Sometimes the memory of the show is a lot better than the show.

[Philip Coates]

> The television emperor not only has no clothes, he is losing his skin as well.

Barbara, this is a great line and funny, albeit somewhat gruesome! I've just put it and you in my 'quotes--pithy, aphoristic formulations' file. You now share space with Tennyson, Julia Roberts, Maya Angelou, Epicurus, and Ronald Reagan.

[Jonathan]

There's a lot of good television out there. My current favorites are House MD, Monk, Burn Notice, Psych, The Tudors, South Park, How I Met Your Mother, Penn and Teller's Bullshit, Project Runway, Top Chef, and a variety of very informative shows on the History Channel, PBS and other similar channels. The West Wing is no longer on the air with new shows, but it's recent enough to be considered a part of contemporary television culture, and I think that it's one of the best television shows ever.

I think people who gripe about modern television might want to try an experiment to see if the medium has actually "descended into mediocrity" or if they're romanticizing their memories of the good old days. There are a lot of old series available on DVD now. Rent or buy some, including your favorite old shows and some not-so-favorites, and I think that more often than not, you'll discover that the good old days weren't always as good as you remembered them being. There's always been a mix of great, mediocre and bad.

J

Edited August 23, 2008 by Jonathan

[Chris Grieb]

Jonathan; Did you catch the latest Penn & Teller which dealt with the idealizing of the past. I think this is very true about our memories of TV shows. I agree with many of your choices. I like "The Closer" too. I also like the BBC shows Primeval and Robin Hood.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Philip Coates]

**The Brain Dead Nature of Almost All Television**

The only one of the shows Jonathan and Chris list that I've seen is "Monk" and parts of "How I Met Your Mother" since I don't have cable. So I can't really be certain there is not some -great- homerun t.v. series lurking somewhere.

Certainly not on the mass market broadcast networks, though, it seems.

I found Monk usually clever and entertaining in summer reruns, although I've seen more than one absolutely pointless and snore-inducing episodes. The times I've clicked onto HIMYM, it has been silly. And not funny, which I would think is the point of a comedy.

As far as romanticizing the past is concerned, maybe the opposite problem exists - that of letting one's standards atrophy in part through not having seen enough truly superb television. So that one acclaims what were the equivalent of "B" movies in the old days. Because one is simply not familar enough with what a slam-dunk, homerun-hitting entertainment is like. (Akin to only celebrating light fiction or thrillers because one has not been exposed to great literature.)

But, just to be clear - I have seen a lot of the old series and my standards for 'decline' are not the existence of mildly entertaining stuff, but the existence of at least one or two **truly great** shows. And, every night of the week, you know the whole evening won’t be a waste. You can find, either at 8 or 9 or 10 PM – whenever you have free time - at least one skillfully done, entertaining show with likeable or funny or interesting characters and stories.

That doesn’t insult even a nine year old’s intelligence. Or make you want to scrub yourself with a stiff brush after watching.

Yes, PBS has good stuff. Especially the nature shows and the British mysteries and comedies. But notice: Almost all the later were made a decade or more ago - whether it be Monty Python (if you like it - I don't) or Masterpiece Theater or Mystery!

This reminds me of a wider point about decline: All I need is one showstopper, one admirable and memorabe thing to see one hour a week. It's true that West Wing and Gilmore Girls only just ended a year or three ago. [i’ve reviewed both and given detailed reasons why these two shows were great in other posts over the years.]

But I've seen -nothing- [if anyone has, and has high standards, please post your opinion and, if you can, – give some reasons – not just a laundry list of names of things you like sans explanation] which replaces either of those shows in terms of intelligence, wonderful stories and conflicts, wide interest, dramatic skills, dialogue. In fact, it seems as if the level of everything is so far below those two shows that one wonders if anything will match them. Just like in the decline of the movies.

Yes, "golden ages" exist - in movies, in television, in literature.

And, no, we're not even close to being in one. Let alone getting bronze or silver.

As Rand pointed out, when philosophy goes into the crapper, eventually the arts of every kind hit the septic tank. [well, no, she didn't word it that way exactly.]

[Dragonfly]

My absolute favourite is the British series Foyle's war. Michael Kitchen as Foyle is a superb actor, very subtle and low-key but with great expressive power. No silly car chases with exploding cars (okay, occasionally a bomb explodes, after all it's set in the 2nd world war), no display of all kinds of special effects, no noisy "music" or nervously moving cameras, but excellent plots with excellent actors.

What I miss today are intelligent science programs. It seems now unavoidable that any program about a scientific subject must be "funny", with all kinds of spectacular effects, explosions, jokes, dazzling camera work etc., but it must never ever be serious. In this respect tv has been enormously dumbed down. Compare that crap for example with the superb series The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski in the seventies. I'm afraid such series are no longer made today.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Dragonfly

[Philip Coates]

> Compare that crap for example with the superb series The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski in the seventies. [Dragonfly]

Yes - or "Cosmos" or The Day the Universe Ended"...all either based on, or the scripts made into, books.

Dragonfly, are these things the same in your country? (aren't you Scandinavian?) I would have thought at least the worst of this decline was a made in Hollywood or found in America issue.

Or am I mistaken on this?

[Philip Coates]

I forgot: MSK mentioned "Law and Order".

In my desperate hunger to find something to watch, I've seen a lot of the 'crime procedurals' - CSI, CSI MIami, Law and Order I thru XI, NCIS...and the "hospital shows". They -- and their too frequent focus on shock, gore, incisions, and body parts -- are all that's left of a residue of good story- and plot- and conflict- and character-driven television with the descent into "reality" television. At a certain point, after half a season, they get dull and I stop watching. I slap my head: “I coulda-had-a-V8”. I turn off the "idiot lantern". And read a good book. The downside of the “procedurals” is often tedium for someone who has been exposed to better shows. They are slow-moving without good reason, seem dull, or seem repetitious. There is a struggle between good and evil. Or at least between lack of knowledge and detective-work and filling in the blanks in one’s knowledge. All of which are good things. But not often executed with skill and surefootedness...

There is -one- good show of this 'action' type that I’m aware of. The only show I watch regularly: "The Unit".

The men (and women) of the Special Forces. Those on the front line of the war against terrorism. And that's because someone intelligent, David Mamet, is responsible for it. Warning: It's not as good as West Wing or Gilmore Girls...and does, in some episodes, get lame or mindless or repetitious – three of the great artistic diseases of the start of the 21st Century. But it never gets ugly. It has a genuine respect for heroism, resourcefulness, intelligence. Rarer than diamonds these days.

Outside of the Olympics - to come full circle with the start of this thread.

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly, are these things the same in your country? (aren't you Scandinavian?) I would have thought at least the worst of this decline was a made in Hollywood or found in America issue.

No, I'm a Dutchman. What we have here is rather a mixed bag. It includes such trash as "Big Brother" (invented here) and its even worse successor "De gouden kooi" ("The Golden Cage"), but also gems like "Een schitterend ongeluk" ("A Glorious Accident") and "Van de schoonheid en de troost" ("Of Beauty and Consolation") by Wim Kayzer, with extensive interviews and discussions with scientists, philosophers and artists. The only drawback was in fact Kayzer himself, a romantic who was continuously looking for personal stories and was in fact out of his depth in these discussions. Nevertheless the result was fascinating television.

Further I like many of the British series that are regularly broadcast here, like Wycliffe, McCallum, Morse, Lewis and Foyle's war (there are only a few, mediocre, Dutch productions). But in the informative-scientific department there isn't anything worthwile after Kayzer's series (that ended in 2000).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At a certain point, after half a season, they get dull and I stop watching. I slap my head: “I coulda-had-a-V8”.

Phil,

That's strange. I have not been able to detect a pattern like that. I have found individual episodes to be far superior to other episodes, but I have not found them to fall within the same time block. I believe the irregularity is due to using different writers.

You might shudder, but I am also a fan of "The Shield." I was really into "24" for a while, but the overdose of betrayals began to take its toll. For a quirky sitcom/drama, I watched the entire run of "Six Feet Under." Now that one had a pattern like you stated. At a certain point, around the 4rth season, the producers and authors started mistreating the characters to the extreme just to get them to go "ouch" and the program lost its charm (although the last episode was a stroke of dramatic genius for tying it all together).

Anyway, while there are those who only see the half-empty glass, I personally will be sniffing and savoring the half-full one.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

Deadwood was excellent. I am partial to House, but I avoided it for two years because the star reminded me of how obnoxious and cutting I can become in a knockdown, drag out debate! lol.

Enjoyed Six Feet Under, partly because of the death issues, black comedy always peaks my interest, IE., Little Murders with Alan Arkin.

I love Bullshit.

24 petered out and I never thought about your point of the constant betrayals becoming banal.

And I can't quite figure out why both Lost and Hero capture my interests.

CSI

Law and Order

There are some descent shows, but it is a matter of time, as in not enough of it to spend on the box.

Adam

[Jonathan]

As far as romanticizing the past is concerned, maybe the opposite problem exists - that of letting one's standards atrophy in part through not having seen enough truly superb television.

I think it would be helpful if you (and others interested in this topic) would make a list of the shows of the past that you think were truly superb, and which, when viewed today, would still hold up.

I'd include Columbo, All in the Family, The Twilight Zone, The Rifleman (and maybe a few other Westerns), The Honeymooners, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, the early years of M*A*S*H, and several episodes of The Waltons. But there are a lot of shows which are often cited as being great, but which I don't think hold up when compared to more recent programs. For example, I'd rate I Love Lucy, The Carol Burnett Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show and Laugh-in much lower than Cheers, Seinfeld, The Simpsons and South Park.

And, duh -- it just occurred to me that, since this thread is about the Olympics, I should add American sports programming to the list of great contemporary television. One doesn't have to wait until the Olympics to see the greatest athletes in the world competing against each other. Almost any day of the week you can see world-class champions performing at their peak level, often out-performing the greatest athletes of the past. There are no greater athletes performing at a higher level than those in the NFL, NBA, WNBA, NHL, MLB, and even some college sports.

As Rand pointed out, when philosophy goes into the crapper, eventually the arts of every kind hit the septic tank. [well, no, she didn't word it that way exactly.]

Well, let's not forget that Rand didn't exactly have the most reliable or consistent tastes in art. She cited Charlie's Angels as a great television program. She was highly contemptuous of some of the world's greatest art while going gaga over mediocrity.

J

[Mindy Newton]

And, duh --

You said it, Jonathan.

= Mindy

[Alfonso Jones]

There are some descent shows, but it is a matter of time, as in not enough of it to spend on the box.

Adam

Too many "descent" shows, actually. Not enough decent ones.

Bill P (smiling)

[Jonathan]

I wanted to bump this thread and point out again, as I did above, that you don't need to wait for the Olympics to see the greatest athletes in the world competing against each other. The NBA tournament has been fricking awesome so far this year. LeBron James nailed a buzzer-beating, game-winning three-pointer the other night which will go down in history as one of the greatest shots ever. And there's still time to get into it and enjoy the suspense, beauty and sheer glory of it all. LeBron, Kobe, Carmelo, Chauncey, Birdman, Hedo and the rest are putting on one hell of a show this year, and you're really missing out if you're not watching.

J