‘Obligingly agreeable’–to a fault
Our recent article on TV program hosts who are safely and “obligingly agreeable” has elicited requests for more details and clarification on the admittedly complex issue. Our follow-up discussion:
Basically, the disagreement lies in conflicting points of view on what TV show hosts are supposed to do.
One “school of thought” and practice has it that they should be pleasant, upbeat and focused on giving viewers a good, cheerful time.
So, they shouldn’t “rock the boat” with “controversial” comments and opinions that could disturb or distress some viewers.
On the other hand, a contrary view has it that “agreeable” means blandness, predictability—and bored viewers.
The “safe” TV hosts may have long careers on the tube, but they are generally undistinguished ones that aren’t influential or celebrated.
Who are the opinionated people on the local TV screen? Teddy Boy Locsin, Pia Hontiveros, Winnie Monsod, Karen Davila, Ted Failon, Cheche Lazaro, Vice Ganda, Boy Abunda, Vic Sotto, Joey de Leon, Willie Revillame, Kris Aquino and Popoy de Vera.
Be it in talk, noontime variety, game, news and public affairs and/or entertainment programs, they come across as individuals with their own strong opinions and points of view—and aren’t shy about colorfully or pithily expressing them—hopefully to viewers’ delighted edification.
They’re characters, while most other TV show hosts are bland stereotypes who dutifully read their spiels and articulate “expected” views that follow the general norm, instead of running counter to “accepted” opinion or practice.
But, the key insight is that it’s the Winnie Monsods, Karen Davilas and Vice Gandas of the TV world who make waves and influence public opinion.
So, if TV host wannabes don’t want to blend into the industry’s wallpaper, they should individually discover and develop what makes them unique, not generic.
Of course, that’s easier said than done, because industry stalwarts and leaders didn’t get to where they are without a lot of preparation, training, experience and moxie.
It’s also a “risky” row to hoe, because contrary opinions do sometimes create tsunami waves and a lot of critics and enemies.
So, independent thinkers on TV have to have the guts and focused self-confidence to weather all storms and face up to their critics and dissers.
But, if the TV newbie has “it” in him or her, that should be the way to go.
Why be satisfied with being a generic “wallpaper” when you can be a change agent and affect viewers in significant—rather than decorative and irrelevant—ways? The choice is clear.
