Think family TV viewing is a passive pastime? Who holds the remote in
your household? Who selects the programs? What's mom doing while she's
watching TV? Where do the kids sit?
Are you in control?
|
The way your family interacts around the television set can tell you
things about family relationships you never imagined. That's part of
what Sheri Parks finds fascinating in her research on family and media
studies. The very casualness of TV viewing, the sense that it is "play,"
lets families talk openly about habits or styles that would be taboo if,
for instance, the subject were finances. But when they state that, yes,
the leather recliner is Dad's seat, and Mom always sits at the end of
the sofa with the lamp, or the only show the family watches all together
is (blank), kids and parents alike gain new awareness of their family
dynamic.
In this age where TV is by far the most pervasive medium of
communication, there is a logic, even an imperative, to looking at its
effects across the culture. Just as interesting to Parks, associate
professor of American studies, as what is watched is how TV mediates and
underscores family relationships, how it is used to strengthen a
family's definition of itself and its core values. "There's a concept in
family therapy studies called family mythology," Parks explains. "It's
how the family represents itself, the stories it tells its children,
where it situates itself in the world. The way families attend to media
is a very unselfconscious expression of that mythology."
It's Everywhere
Parks challenges her undergraduates, in a course called American Culture
in the Information Age, with a little exercise. She writes on the board
"TV, Running Water, Telephones," and asks students to guess which one is
most available in American households. The answer, of course, is TV,
with between 98 and 99 percent of households having at least one
television set, and the majority of homes more than one. The average TV
set is on five to seven hours every day. "Nothing else permeates family
culture to that extent," Parks states. "No other market product has that
saturation. Small children watch TV more than they do anything else but
sleep." Add to this weight the amount of time we spend listening to the
radio, playing music, watching videos, going to the movies, reading
books, newspapers, comic books, surfing the Internet, and we begin to
understand the power of media to influence and shape ideas and actions.
The question needs to be asked:
WHY? Why are we so unanimously wedded
to, imbedded in, needful of this media blanket? Parks asserts that we
turned to media, particularly to TV, to fill voids in our social
structure created by the breakdown of the extended family, the mobility
of modern families, the anonymity of housing developments and high
rises, the drop off in social gatherings. Instead of Grandma or Aunt
Mary to watch the young ones while Mom makes dinner, there's the TV. In
an age where children playing outdoors unsupervised is increasingly
irresponsible, there's the TV. When Mom needs to take a break, or Dad
needs to unwind from a hard day at work, there's the TV. Whether or not
there is room for a "which came first?" argument, the truth is that
TV--and other media--very quickly became a surrogate friend, family member
and babysitter for most people in the United States, and increasingly,
around the world.
Each semester, Parks asks her class to keep a media log for a week, and
then to go without media for two days--that's everything from a radio
alarm to CDs, and particularly TV. The students' reaction is "pretty
extreme," she says. "They complain, for instance, that getting into a
car is painful; they become moody, they eat more; they do all sorts of
things that make them realize how much of a crutch media is in their
lives." Students are already cynical about the role of media in the
culture, but when they see what a profound influence it has in their
personal and social lives, they get excited about that awareness, Parks
says. There's power in the possibility of being analytical about
"something that's been in their face since they were born."
TV is a contradiction and a paradox. It seems to demand nothing of the
viewer, except that it be viewed. Unlike radio, TV requires eye contact,
and, really, stasis. Its visual information is (should be!) as important
as the spoken world. It is one-way communication, except through the
veto power of the remote, and, ironically, forms the basis for much of
the casual social discourse of actual social encounters with real
people. It is the "medium" of much of our shared experience of the
world.
TV, as Parks points out in its favor, opens up to everyone, pretty much
equally, a window on the world. It allows us to see and experience
vicariously world cultures, human differences, geographic variety,
events, science, sports, history, the future, to an extent not possible
before. TV can also convey emotional information very well, and some
parents use it to approach difficult subjects with their children. In
those senses, TV has fulfilled an anticipated educational mission. But
its educational power has tremendous negative impact as well.
"TV, and every other commercial medium, has a very dangerous attitude
toward violence and death, one that is related closely to an attitude
about sexuality," Parks says. "First of all, we are not shown death,
we're shown killing. Violence is glorified; often the good guy is more
violent than the bad guy--that's how he wins. Thousands of studies have
shown that children imitate the violence they see on TV. A close look at
those studies will confirm that most of the imitators are male. What
happens to little girls? They identify with the victims, and that is a
very dangerous consequence, as well.
"The grand contradiction," Parks continues, "is that we regard TV as a
social institution and a business. We can't resolve our ambivalence
about this issue. We want it to act as responsibly as other
institutions--the state, the family, church, school--all of which run at a
deficit, so to speak. But we don't want to pay for it, we don't want our
tax dollars to support it--not even public TV." The commercial interests
that control TV programming, knowing from the ratings that violence pays
(another contradiction), are not likely to sympathize with our desire
for "witness and truth" without our taking some responsibility for our
ambivalence. Meanwhile, their claim on our attention allows the media to
shape an entire cultural event around, not just the Super Bowl, but
Super Bowl advertising!
Different Strokes
Parks' research has confirmed differences in viewing habits based on
gender, class, race, education and other social conditions that she does
not find surprising. Poor families watch more TV than affluent ones,
African Americans and Latinos watch more than Caucasians across all
economic levels. This is explained in part, she believes, because
African Americans come from an oral culture--African children learn
better by hearing than by reading. African Americans, Parks believes,
appear to be bicultural in this way and learn as well by hearing as by
seeing. White students, on the other hand, learn better from visual and
written material.
Women watch more TV, and watch in a more involved way than men. In
general, women will plan more, ritualize their viewing ("On Wednesday
night I watch my favorite show..."), and become more involved with
characters and plots. This goes a long way, says Parks, in explaining
the "War of the Remote." Men are more involved in the act of watching
TV. "They come in, sit in their chair, pick up the remote and look for
something they want to watch. Most likely they will find three or four
things, and jump back and forth between them. That drives women crazy,
because they're trying to follow a narrative. You see the point of
conflict."
African Americans also watch almost entirely different content, Parks
found. "Ratings surveys that examine the top shows watched by African
Americans and all U.S. viewers have revealed that very few shows are to
be found on both lists. The only program that has remained consistently
popular with both groups has been Monday Night Football (Nielsen Media
Research, 1991, 1994, 1997)." As illustration, Parks notes that
"Seinfeld," the top rated program in 1998 for all viewers, was rated
50th for African Americans. These differences have emerged rather
recently, as black-oriented programming has increased--with the
realization that African Americans watched more TV and responded better
to shows that portrayed blacks positively and in starring roles. In
1998, the top three shows for African Americans were all on Fox:
"Between Brothers," "13 Hope Street" and "Living Single."
A Closer Look at Family Matters
Some of these viewing statistics prefaced a recent case study that Parks
conducted of two African American families and two Caucasian families
("Race and Electronic Media in the Lives of Four Families: An
Ethnographic Study," appeared in Communication, Race, and Family:
Exploring Communication in Black, White and Biracial Families, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1999). She selected these four families
as much for their similarities--economic status, family structure, and
commitment to a child-centered family ethos--as for their racial
identities. She asked them all the same questions about their media
routines, parental roles and family history, with the intention of
getting quickly into the family system and the role media played in the
whole life of the family. As with her students, these families
discovered behaviors and patterns around their media interaction of
which they had been unaware.
Men are more involved in the act of watching TV. "They come in, sit in
their chair, pick up the remote and look for something they want to
watch. Most likely they will find three or four things, and jump back
and forth between them."
|
Two families, one white, one black, consisted of husband, wife and two
children in the 9-14 year age range. Both units watched television as a
family activity. Each had multiple television sets in the home, but had
established a "hearth" room where the family gathered to watch TV. From
her questions and subsequent discussions, Parks learned that both
families closely monitored their childrens' viewing, with the mothers
making decisions about (non-sports) content and fathers weighing in on
enforcement and discipline. In the black family, there was an unspoken
rule that no one held the remote, but Parks noted that the father was
able to enter the room and change the channel at any time. The children
could not change the channel if the father was watching, but could
request that they "see what else is on." There was also a general rule
that if the father was watching sports, that was what stayed on. The
mother in this family rarely sat down to watch television, but was often
in the room or within earshot, even though her attention was on other
things. The parents watched little television as a couple.
The white family watched many favorite shows together. When the father
was present, he sat in the recliner directly in front of the TV; when he
was out of the room, the younger son used this chair. The older son sat
on the sofa with his mother, often reading while the others watched a
show. The mother would almost always leave the room when sporting events
were on, going into the kitchen to do housework or schoolwork. She took
responsibility, however, for monitoring and censoring nonsporting
events, and the family had recently purchased a second remote so that
she could quickly change the channel if offensive content appeared. The
parents screened any shows they deemed questionable, and discussed
marginal shows with their sons. "South Park" was a matter of
controversy, resolved by allowing the boys to view the show only if an
adult were in the room to talk about what they were seeing. The parents
trusted that the boys would not imitate the worst aspects of the
program. The only show husband and wife watched as a couple was "ER."
The other pair of families were single mothers with one son. The black
mother had never married, and so had lived alone with her son for his 9
years. His father lived close by, also was single, and was very active
in the daily life of the child. Mother and son had a varied schedule of
leisure time activities, including roller skating, going to the library
or to church and visiting. Until recently, their weekly ritual included
watching "Touched By an Angel," the mother's favorite show, but the son
now preferred other black situation comedies, like "Family Matters."
They had no one room where they watched TV; there were five sets in the
house, and most often when they watched together it was in the mother's
bedroom. The son controlled much of the programming of the TV, but if
there was a disagreement, the mother would explain the reasons for her
disapproval, and, if necessary, "put her foot down." She trusted that
her son would follow her rules.
The boy shared an interest in sports with his father as he grew older.
They increasingly spent weekends involved in tournament bowling or
watching it on TV, activities his mother did not share.
The white mother and son were adjusting to a recent marital separation,
still working on new patterns and rituals. Most weekends, the son spent
with his father. Mother and son had pitched in to buy a new televison
set, which moved between the mother's and son's bedrooms. This child,
among all families, had most control over his viewing.
A second TV was located in the living room, and though the mother
reported that she only occasionally watched TV with her son, she
actually shared his viewing frequently from an adjacent room while
working. At his father's house, where there was cable TV, the son
watched "mostly sports," but his mother was uneasy about her lack of
control over what he was seeing there.
Parks found that both single mothers did not know or directly control
what their children saw at their father's house, but, while the white
mother expressed unease, the black mother was confident that her
influence held whatever the context.
Parks noted that even where TV was not a central activity within the
families she studied, it played a major role in family systems. She felt
that race did play a significant part in the differences she found,
particularly that the black families both exercised more direct control
over their children's viewing and expected their influence to prevail in
all circumstances. Black families used the media for racial
socialization, choosing programs that starred African Americans. Even
sports provided racial role models. As the black father expressed it,
sports taught that skill and persistence might overcome racial
attitudes, "everyone is equal" and "you have to work as a team."
The white families, however, made their viewing choices for reasons
other than race. The married-parent family watched "Family Matters" for
years, only stopping when they felt the plotlines became "too mature"
for their children. In both white families, "South Park" was an area of
dispute because of its racist and sexist attitudes, but both families
viewed it anyway. Interestingly, this program--the most popular among the
white children--did not come up at all in discussion with the black
families. When asked, both stated that their children had no interest in
watching the show. Says Parks, "The white families recognized the
mediated bigotry but could look past it; the black families could not."
Parks effectively turns the mirror of research back to her subjects. The
value of the information she gathers is, perhaps, greatest for the
families themselves. Awareness, she implies, is the beginning of
control. What we, as a nation, deem harmless and inconsequential--"play,"
in Parks' terms--has tremendous power to mold our understanding and
patterns of behavior. Knowing this power might make us more mindful of
the source of our opinions and attitudes. As we exercise our choices of
media and media content we are revealing information about how we
perceive ourselves, what our values are and how we operate as a family
system.
A media log seems like an interesting exercise. Doing without media for
two days? Like fasting for the mind--not to mention eyes and ears. It
sounds like it would be good for you. Maybe next week, after the (take
your choice: Academy Awards, Final Four, World Series, Olympics, finale
of "ER"...). Meanwhile, what did you do with the remote?
----
Mining the Media for Ideas
Sheri Parks has taken her interest in the media to the airwaves. In a
provocative radio program, "Media Matters," she and co-host David
Zurawik, media critic for the Baltimore Sun, take a thoughtful and
lively look at the impact and meaning of media phenomena from Internet
hacking to TV specials and everything in between.
The show, which airs on WJHU, 88.1 in the Baltimore area, owes its start
to producer Lisa Morgan, '89, who pitched the idea to JHU management
after Parks and Zurawik had appeared on the Mark Steiner show, a popular
local phone-in program.
"Dave and I have known each other for years," Parks says, "He'd call me
often for quotes for his column. When Mark asked us to do a monthly
appearance on his show, we were just having fun." Now, balancing her
academic responsibilities as associate professor of American studies at
the University of Maryland with the demands of a weekly broadcast
is--"pretty hard, but pretty exciting. The pace is much faster than
academic life. In some ways, I'm in the best position I could be in--I
get to keep the richness of academic understanding, but I also get to
have the impact of a wider audience," Parks says.
The challenge, she adds, is to take the audience beneath the surface, to
tell them things no one else is saying about the media. The goal is to
be thoughtful, but to avoid "academese". "Our audience is very smart. We
know that from their e-mails and from some specific studies. They demand
we keep the ideas rich--I didn't anticipate the passion that the show
often provokes."
What is the consequence of media exposure? "I never think of myself as a
media personality," Park says. "But people do recognize my voice.
They've come to have a relationship with my voice, and the first time
someone said that it sounded too close, too personal. I like the privacy
of radio, of course I can walk down the street, but I have to watch what
I say. As soon as someone turns and says, 'You're Sheri Parks,'
everything changes."
One of the big surprises for Parks in the course of choosing content for
the program has been learning how deep and varied the arts and media
community is in the state of Maryland. "There is a huge community of
artists in video, film and music that many of us are not aware of," she
says. "Every couple of months we interview someone who grew up in
Baltimore, or lives in Baltimore, who has a national audience." --Judith
Bair
So, you want to be a Reporter...
Story by Brenna McBride
Radio Waves
Story by Dianne Burch
New ingredients in the Newsroom
Story by Carl Sessions Stepp
