MTV has recently provided a thought-provoking halftime show that is raising all kinds of interesting questions about the American entertainment industry. In this piece, I would like to address some of these questions, and propose some actions to improve the consumer choices available in TV and film.
First of all, I should point out that I didn't watch the Superbowl. My Dutch father taught me that football was a rather stupid sport, expressing numerous vulgar features of the American spirit for which he did not care, and that I should stick with real football (i.e., soccer). Hence, I never developed much of an interest, particularly since various liability issues seemed to have forced flag-football – itself, I thought, a rather alright game – out of my high school PE curriculum. Or perhaps it was simply thought that there was little place in a Catholic, college-preparatory environment for even a scaled-down version of a game that principally consists of over-aggressive, under-educated athletes smashing into each other?
Anyway, I am wondering if maybe the MTV-halftime show might be a bit of a "you reap what you sow" case. However, the show did occur during a time slot designated for families with young children, and it would have been known that such families would be a major portion of the audience. And, The Incident aside, anything with Janet Jackson and male-crotch grabbing in it, is a good candidate for being in poor taste.
I will take it as settled that the content of the show led directly to questions being raised about why Hollywood does not give consumers what they want, and also gives them what they don't want. My interest is in why Hollywood would experience such a "market failure," and what to do about it.
Soft porn appeals to large numbers of viewers, without necessarily alienating so many so deeply that they offer any real market response, such as boycotting a company's wares. One solution is government regulation. However, since this solution is going to have numerous side effects that are tied up with violation of speech and property rights, I will put it aside. It is true that if the FCC is misleading consumers into thinking that it will screen out family-unfriendly shows, but then does not, this is a problem. But one could just as easily respond to this problem by claiming that the FCC isn't working and we need to get rid of it, as respond by saying we need a government clampdown.
The fact is, no one is forcing families to buy TVs. And civilization would not come to end if we simply auctioned off all the broadcast frequencies, instead of hoarding them like petite socialists. This is particularly true given that we already have the technology for parental TV controls that would lock out all non-approved programming. It would be possible to program one's TV so it only plays content from providers who have contractually promised to meet certain specifications (e.g., no Friends, or no reality TV, or at least 30% British shows, or no nudity, or whatever).
So I'll just take it as a given that government is part of the problem, and not the solution. But is getting rid of state interference in broadcasting really going to solve the issue of Hollywood's underperformance? Well, no, because, for one thing, the state's interference in almost every other sector of society is also going to hurt the entertainment industry. However, since the overactive state is going to be with us for the foreseeable future, I'd like some alternative strategies besides merely advocating more cuts in the size of government. (One problem I've noticed here is that people get very tired and turn blue if you keep mentioning that, well, the STATE IS JUST TOO HUGE! But, really, it is.)
Hollywood continues to produce works that are boring, un-intelligent, politically correct, anti-Christian, anti-rural, and involving a significant number of gratuitous explosions and car chases. Indeed, Hollywood produces almost nothing besides such works. Why does this occur? Having spent my early years living just a few miles from Hollywood, and moreover having had many friends and acquaintances involved in The Industry, I have a few ideas here. One is that most of the people working in Hollywood are politically correct, anti-religious types with no respect for Americans with traditional cultural values. Another is that most of the people working in Hollywood are politically-correct, anti-religious types who….
Wait, I said that already, didn't I? Perhaps I should add: and they are going to interpret marketing results any way they damn well please. Because that is the heart of the matter. There have been a good many conservatives who defend Hollywood on the grounds that "it gives the people what they want." But it doesn't. It gives the people what the latest market results, as interpreted by whatever spin on them will be appealing to the producer and other powers-that-be, say that the people want. This certainly has something to do with what people want. The people get the 10% of what they want that matches up with the reigning political and social ideologies in Industry LA.
That, my friends, is capitalism, at least of a sort. People with capital don't always just want more capital. Sometimes they want more capital, and also want to feel like they are advancing THE CAUSE. You know, THE CAUSE of getting all those bloody gun-toting, tax-hating BARBARIANS out in Orange County or wherever; THE CAUSE of bringing about de facto One Government rule, because it's necessary for the environment, after all, the environment that the sad little non-media capitalists are constantly fouling with their hideous, racist desires for economic and technological expansion; THE CAUSE of girldom, I mean womendom, everywhere, which does, after all, really cut down on the domestic birthrate pretty effectively; THE CAUSE of separating the narrow-minded, homosexual-hating church, from lovely, wonderful, potentially quite responsive to u2018progressive' plans government; and so on, and so forth, let there be light, you get the picture.
Now if we had more capitalism, as in a free market, we would long ago have successfully sent the particular capitalists who run Hollywood packing, having had the means and freedom to set up competing media-industries tailored to "middle America" and niche markets. I am sorry if this strikes some as overly utopian, but: wealth would abound under a free market. At least in America, we would have plenty left over for charity to feed, clothe, and house the poor, and set up an ethical media industry or two besides. (If, for whatever reason, you still aren't a libertarian, try to consider – really consider – what 10% annual growth rates would be like in this country. And you want to trade such for what? Poor educational systems, decrepit socialized medicine, near-insolvent retirement programs, dysfunctional welfare families? What gives?)
But, again, yeah not in the cards any time soon. Still, if you are serious about improving media culture, charity and/or ethically-directed capital is the only answer. Consumer choice alone won't work in a mixed-economy; there are too many forces limiting the flow of capital and the development of consumer preferences. What we have today is a situation of de facto monopoly by a web of government-buttressed, interlocking media companies, and supported by a not merely undereducated, but wrongly educated consumer. If you want to change this, forget about going into the media business for direct head-to-head competition for profits. What is instead necessary, is the gaining of support of wealthy, religious capitalists in setting up an alternate media production system to the one we currently have in this country (one which is, I might add, globally dominant).
There is of course a precedent for this, in the great patrons of the arts who once dominated Venice and other European cities. And today, of course, private charitable support for the arts continues. But it is one thing to support "the arts," and another to aim at supplanting Hollywood. And, great town though it is – well, some of the surrounding areas are kind of nice, anyways – supplanting Hollywood is the only way to go.
February 11, 2004
