Controversial issues on TV | Inquirer Entertainment
Viewfinder

Controversial issues on TV

/ 02:29 AM January 07, 2016

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.

Article continues after this advertisement

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?

FEATURED STORIES

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.

Article continues after this advertisement

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.”

Article continues after this advertisement

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.

Article continues after this advertisement

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.

Article continues after this advertisement

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.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

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?

TAGS: Television, Television networks

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.