Controversial issues on TV

Our television networks work really hard to keep up a happy face, but not everything is hunky-dory on and behind the small screen that exerts such a powerful influence on viewers.

Our first bone of contention is the continuing practice of some TV studios to allow their broadcast news personalities to appear in commercials or to otherwise endorse products or services, obviously for a hefty fee.

This is disallowed by more enlightened broadcast news organizations because it potentially compromises the objectivity and “trust factor” that are key requirements or tenets of the news trade.

In other words, would you take a TV newscast as seriously as you’re supposed to if you saw its news anchor plug a vinegar product, soap, shampoo or real estate company?

Next question: If it’s OK with some broadcast news personalities and organizations, is it as fine and dandy with you, the televiewer? If it is, you need to firm up your understanding of the importance of objectivity and trust in news reportage—and your reception of it!

Our next issue is even more controversial and delicate: Some TV shows “hook” viewers’ attention by featuring poor people afflicted with very serious illnesses, whom they proceed to help in different ways: They arrange for medical treatment, and cheer the patient and his family up with trips, feasts, gifts and “start-up” earning opportunities.

All this is laudable—but some viewers note that the “charitable” program format has also become potentially exploitative, with the patients’ poverty and pain being focused on too much for their emotional shock or “awa quotient.”

This is exceedingly delicate, because TV people who sincerely want to help shouldn’t be faulted for their proactive concern. But, those who “use” the patient’s misery to generate viewership should take time to reexamine their motives and the way they do things.

These thoughts came feelingly to mind when we watched a well-meaning telecast that focused on a very sick child who was obviously in pain, and stricken with a well-nigh incurable disease.

After we viewed the program, we had a lot of misgivings, and ultimately found it exploitative, partly because the child’s illness was deemed to be incurable.

After discussing the telecast with others, we’ve come to the conclusion that, for many viewers, focusing on terrible hardships, grave illnesses and pain, especially when children are involved, is tolerable—if a cure is possible.

That gives everyone reason to bear the shared pain, and to hope, no matter how desperately, that the terrible situation will eventually find surcease.

But, if the situation is needlessly hopeless, the better and more generous option could be to help the ailing and suffering child as much as the TV people and their show’s donors can— and not to put the hopeless case on-cam. Dear thoughtful reader, what do you think?