TV'S SCRIPTS BECOMES IN TEACHINGS

How many times has been branded TV like "telegarbage", "stupid box", "off-neurons ",...? But my theory is always will be that if the viewer wants to have quality television should make the effort to look for it, because, yes, we can find a good legacy from television.

The Star newspaper has published an article titled "A kind of wisdom on the small screen." It wants to prove that sometimes television is also education.

How many gaps in your education would you have if you never had watched television? This is theory of the report. To show it, they have gathered which they consider the best phrases from American television programs (mostly fictional). Quotations that make us think, that make us smile because they are brutally honest, and they describe us exactly how is the life of our specie. From the list published I selected the 15 best for me. And for you, what is the best?

"I think the lesson here is, does it matter where are you from while we will have the same religion?". By Peter, “Family guy”.

"Fortune is like you call who is fucking you when you do not know its real name".. Lois, “Malcom X”.

"Barnes has just break one of the main rules of politics: you never get caught in bed with a dead woman or a man alive". J.R., “Dallas”.

"Why did you have to break with her? Be a man. Just let to call her". Joey, “Friends”.

"We live as if the world was as it should be, to show what they can become”. Angel, “Angel”.

"Remember when your history teacher told you that the course of events what lives people are changing for the sacrifice of the big men? Well, that bitch was lying. Fucking to Caesar, to Lincoln and to Gandhi! The world continues to move for you and me, the anonymous. Revolutions are coming because there is not enough bread. Wars happen by an imbalance of money”. Augustus Hill, “Oz”.

"In life you have to do a lot of things that you, actually, don’t want to do. Often this is what life is... an ugly and dirty trick after another”. Al Swearengen, “Deadwood”.

"Normal is what is halfway between what you want and what you have”.
Samantha, “Sex and the city”.

"The truth is like sunlight. People thinks that is good for you”. Nancy Gribble, “King of the hill”.

"Don’t blame anotherone for prepar the trap in where you was so stupid to fall”. Abe Carver, “Days of Our Lives”.

"Without rules we would be uploaded in a tree through us our own shit each other”. Red, “That '70s Show”.

If you are going to lie, be creative or you will bore all us”. Green, “Law and Order”.

"With all my respect, you haven’t no fucking idea what is to be the Number One. Every decision you take affects every facet of every fucking thing you will do later. It is too much to handle everything. And at the end you are completely alone with it". Anthony Soprano, “The Sopranos”.

"I don’t have anything against education, while it doesn’t interfere with what I think”. Ben Cartwright, “Bonanza”.

"If more of our so-called leaders would walk on the same streets where walks people who vote, if they would live in the same buildings, and eat the same food, instead of glass, steel and bodyguards, maybe we would have better leaders more worry for our futures". John Sheridan, “Babylon 5”.

Particular importance have the scripts of two of the most successful series currently. A great fault of their succes are the fascinating appointments. Here I leave you two videos… maybe someone doesn’t know this “worship series”: “Grey’s Anatomy” and “House”.Sometimes, maybe just sometimes, we can learn emotional lessons with television...

WHEN TELEVISION THINKS WELL

Television is not static, never still. It’s always moving, searching for new ways to connect with the public, new ways to get their attention, new ways of doing television and provide treatments and different approaches.

But not only in the commercial field (where they are more obsessed with) but also in hunting the best format to get a good audience. Sometimes matters if this subject could be ethically correct. Most of the public channels have contributed greatly to the evolution of a television will educate and show worthy values.

One of the most prestigious public television and most have done for this evolution, the BBC, has done something that no every media would do: the gathered together in a conference room two people: one was a widow of a victim of terrorism, and at his side, the murderer who killed her husband. People might think that the channel was using terrorism as a central theme of a new talk show, but BBC did not.
Actually, that was a proposed charged by a Nobel Peace Prize, as the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, trying in a direct and responsible way, calling for dialogue rather than scandal, the rehabilitation of terrorists.

This was one of the chapters in a series of three documentaries titled like “Facing the truth”. The objective was to reach reconciliation with the protagonists of the conflict in Northern Ireland, through regret and forgiveness, acts extremely difficult to assume on these cases. One purpose daring and risky.

A format of this type, in the wrong hands, could become the latest formula to find the sickness television. But the approach that gave the British public channel was solemn, I would say that even beautiful. Something very difficult to achieve. Not only the fact of to gather these characters together, but also the result, which was ethically worthy. We can not forget how particularly difficult is to find this kind of programmes on television today.

THE TRINITY OF TELEVISION

At first, television, like the rest of the media, has three objectives: to inform, educate and entertain. This is the famous Trinity of Television. But under this area exists the interests of few corporations that control the mass media.

The journalist and writer Ignacio Ramonet, currently director of the French newspaper ‘Le Monde Diplomatique’, spoke about the current objectives of the media. This is the strategic information that companies can get through the incursion of the Internet in our lives. With Internet we can discover segments of the media market increasingly small. On television it is more difficult to get this information so detailed, although the strategies are following today this new way.

According wit Ramonet, "Actually, now what a communication company are looking for is, first to watch and know what you purchase, what you consume, what you read, etc; because you will do that through Internet, and you will leave footprints, we can elaborate a robot portrait about who are you and then, I will know what offer you by my interests. That is what is important to me: know who you are. "

In the last time, the communication companies have the same objectives like the rest of the corporations: giving to the costumers (in this case, the audience) what they want.

Now, it doesn’t matter if what you want is not information. The Trinity of Television is becoming in just theory.

JOURNALISM AGAINST POWER

Last week we saw like the journalist role is changing, and now, we will see one of the most important reasons: the relation between the Journalism and the Power.

The role of the journalist over the history has become in a key for the democracy. He has fought against political corruption, has denounced the abuses of power, has helped to create new laws covering needs and rights ... Its role like social observer at the service of a massive public with interest in knowing stories, stay informed, has become itself in an intermediary of the reality. A truth interpreted in a look that should always be critical and independent. But the reality also shows us that its independence could be damaged in an easy way by the powers who control de mass media.

Political power, economic power. Two brothers who always go hand in hand. That is the major problem of democracy. Now the powers are not exercised by politicians but big business. And we not only have to worry about, as journalists, for the tentacles of political interests but, specially, we have to take a look at business interests. Today, companies may have more power than some countries.

The best example to explain that is, according with the Spanish journalist Arturo San Agustín, the Watergate case: "Many journalists of my time say that the Watergate case reflects how two Washington Post journalists beat to President Nixon. By this way they want to demonstrate the power of the press. But power was which use that two journalists to load a member of power who in those times didn’t interest to someone. Behind the journalist has to be a power that uses it, which is almost always economic. And he, consciously or unconsciously, gets involved in the manipulation. Journalist is the ideal vehicle for declare war”.

SO... WHAT IS A REAL JOURNALIST?

According to the definition of the dictionary, a JOURNALIST is a person who practices JOURNALISM, the gathering and dissemination of a information about current events, trends, issues and people.
Then, we can find the Reporters, other type of journalist. They create reports as a profession for broadcast or publication in mass media such as newspapers, television, radio, magazine, Internet, etc. Reporters find sources for their work, their reports can be either spoken or written, and they are often expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good.

So then, do you think that this definition fits in some aspect with the new media leaders?. The most famous journalists around the world play this role actual?

In the last articles from this blog we have met the current success on the TV, with a lot of well-known faces, which we relate with the profession of Journalism.

Mislead the spectators mixing information and entertainment was dangerous, but even more would be if the journalistic profession is wounded by death. From there, without professionals who respect their social service, the objectivity, and the good use and diffusion of the free information, is then, when the real work of many is forgotten. Only survives the controversy.

Confuse the informative quality of the Watergate’s case with the television speech that Oprah Winfrey could do is an illiteracy chosen. Ladies and gentlemen, Oprah can influences in the USA’s elections (supporting a candidate, like Obama), but the real journalist will tell us…

NEW TELEVISION FORMATS 'VOL II': TALK SHOWS

Infidelities, hatred, violence, alcoholism, lies and treachery, between other human weaknesses, have passed to form part of the television since the decade of 90 with the ‘talk show’. The intimacies and confessions of persons, generally from socio-economic low sectors, exhibited publicly by the television, catch the attention of million television viewers around the world. But, there is a special audience: USA and Latin America.

Why can the public exhibition of the intimate, complicated and turbulent life of some persons, generate the attention of million television viewers? What are behind the production and emission of this talk shows? What causes that some of this programs commit excesses and degrade the dignity of the persons? For what this kind of production can be attractive and interesting for many people and repugnant for others?

A lot of questions have came up in the last years on this subject, a kind programs in the point of view. In the academic world, between the critics of television, in institutions and governmental authorities, as well as in the own public television viewer, all them analyze the situation. For example, even, in more than one country of Latin America, the place with more quantity of talk shows, they have begun the lawsuits to suspend the emission of some of this programmes.

And of course here is the most popular talk show’ in USA (together with ‘Oprah’s Show’ and ‘Jay Leno’s Show’, both in the photos): THE JERRY SPRINGER’S SHOW.

NEW TELEVISION FORMATS 'VOL I': REALITY SHOWS

In not too much occasions the same type of program can be exploited during several seasons, but the case of the 'reality show' is an exception. Its constant success tempts constantly the producers to inventing new ideas to set the next stage but with the same objective: to obtain the more shocking ideas, grotesques and specially controversial.

In its nine years of life, the 'reality show' has evolved up to unsuspected limits. Originally people in mass media was concerned about the lack of ethics in this kind of programs. Now they go too far: extreme proofs of survival and physical resistance, high degrees of capacity, absolute loss of private life ... the moral limit doesn’t exist.

The main characters of these programs are not prominent figures of science fiction. They are common persons who sell their intimacy and exhibit publicly his their human miseries in exchange for a juicy economic share. The television shows the caricature of the weakest, who for example, feels himself ugly or fat and wants to change his image. All those who take part in one 'reality show' they are used as ‘media animals’ inside of a special zoo called Television.

I leave you with a clear example and then all you could extract your own conclusions: the American channel ‘Channel 62’ chooses a marginalized social group, the Latin’s immigrants people of USA to subject them to proofs of humiliating character in exchange for legal help for one year to obtain the official card of residence.
So then… ¿Have everything a price?

NEW TIMES IN TV

Tell the difference between information against entertainment today turns into one intense job of study. The erudites in the subject start always from the same point: the evolution of the mass media. And if there is some way of diffusion that specially has suffered big changes that is the TV. Why? The principal reason is that it has turned into a great company that generates annually enormous quantities for the producers of television and private channels.

But then, those who are the responsibles of the programming in TV? Those who decide the program that will take up the ‘prime time’? Very simple: the own producers and, in the second request the private channels. They base on a premise: the high ratings; spectators eager to consume a certain kind of programs that have beaten in the last decade all prominence. All them dedicated to scatter the impact, not respecting the private life of the celebrities. Even they have created new television formats like the ' talk show ' or ' reality show '.

This type of programs are stealing hours of programming to the information and programs with most cultural character and with a social service. The professional thing is replaced by the morbid. And which is morbid in current, means money in Television.

The producers hide this new aspect of 'journalism' and they get to look professionals in front of an easily vulnerable public, unable to distinguish the journalistic analysis made by a correspondent of war in Iraq, from the other ones use by Jay Leno, Jerry Springer or Oprah Winfrey in their successful 'talks shows', most seen in USA.
However, it would be correct to indicate that if these programs take up many hours of programming, the rating answer them with a positive way. So, probably then, we cannot choose a guilty yet...