Fear and Self-Loathing in Couchland: Eight Myths about Television

Author: Mark Kingwell
Publication: Queen's Quarterly; Kingston Vol. 107, Iss. 1, (Spring 2000): 101-121.

The "Technorealism Manifesto" highlights the misconception that technologies are more or less neutral and devoid of bias.
Technologies carry intended and unintended social, political, and economic biases that shape user behavior and perceptions.
Understanding television requires knowing its cultural context and norms that dictate what constitutes "good TV" before its content is even produced.

Kingwell asserts the necessity of treating television as a serious medium, given its status as a dominant source of information and entertainment.
Many intellectuals overlook television's significance, which may contribute to its negative perceptions and disapproval from academics.
Kingwell argues for a deeper examination of television's role in culture, without dismissing the engagement with it.

Four main interactions:
- As a viewer (labelled as a "rapacious and insatiable viewer")
- As a critic for Saturday Night magazine
- As a participant in various television formats (e.g., panel shows, documentaries)
This combination of experiences highlights the disparity between academic prestige and mainstream media opposition.

General notion: These myths represent accepted ideas about television, often seen as common sense, and create barriers to productive discourse about its qualities and impacts.

Assertion of neutrality allows broadcasters to deflect responsibility for content quality and reinforces the illusion that television is merely a vessel for transmission.
Kingwell states that media shape our perceptions and experiences and that this is particularly true for television, which is inherently biased.
Citing McLuhan: "Media are never simple chutes moving data," rather, they create worlds based on specific values and norms.

Control in television stems less from individuals than from pre-existing norms and the advertising structure that influences content and programming decisions.
Individuals in power positions respond to established criteria rather than making autonomous decisions, relegating personal responsibility to the background.

The claim of democracy centers on ratings; a market of undifferentiated viewers who are often viewed as unsophisticated.
Viewers are not a true demographic; they are constructed as a mass whose desires shape content but often lack the intelligence or diversity of interest represented in demographics.
The underlying marketing strategies reveal a disconnect between what is desired and what is delivered, resulting in degrading content produced for an unimaginative audience.

While junk is prevalent in television programming, there is also quality content which can be interesting and worthwhile.
The medium can reward brilliance and creativity, but also allows for poor quality to shape overall perceptions of value.
Kingwell emphasizes the necessity of discerning quality in programming and challenges the cliché that all television is inherently subpar.

The narrative that television alone causes social issues simplifies the complexity of societal problems.
Kingwell criticizes the tendency to blame television for real-world violence, suggesting this overlooks the deeper and multifaceted causes of societal phenomena.
This kind of reasoning perpetuates a failure to critically examine our relationship with media, instead serving as an easy scapegoat.

Kingwell argues that true critique of television cannot occur within its own medium due to inherent biases and limitations in the medium's structure.
Citing Bourdieu, he discusses the pitfalls of relying on media pundits who frequently appear on shows, reinforcing the existing dialogues without creating substantive critique.
The superficiality of televised criticism leads to missed opportunities for genuine engagement with media's complexities.

Kingwell critiques the academic gatekeeping around mainstream media, noting that scholars often dismiss television outright due to its perceived lower status.
This creates a disconnect between scholarly insights and the public, rendering important intellectual discourse inaccessible to broader audiences.
He suggests that true understanding and engagement with media is an intellectual responsibility, questioning the detrimental effects of disdainful attitudes toward television.

Kingwell emphasizes that belief in the hopelessness of television's quality limits the potential for improvement and transformation.
He calls for individual action and critical engagement, proposing that it is possible to push back against the prevailing structure and demand better programming.
Without collective effort to reconsider standards and content, progress will not materialize.

Call to Action: Viewers and producers alike need to revise their relationship with television; judge less quickly, challenge established norms, and engage critically with content.
Kingwell underscores the importance of print in fostering dialogue separated from television’s confines; reflection necessitates turning the television off in order to engage thoughtfully with content and its implications.

Various works cited throughout the text include discussions by Neil Postman, Pierre Bourdieu, and others, emphasizing the complexity and nuances in the discourse on television as a media form.

Mark Kingwell, teaches philosophy at the University of Toronto and is a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Law and Society at UC Berkeley.
His contributions focus on media criticism, cultural analysis, and philosophy, as seen in his various publications including Marginalia (1999).