TELELITERACY OR TELEGARBAGE?

It has been perhaps the oldest debate in the west. Television has been variously called ‘The Plug-in Drug’, ‘The Glass Teat’, ‘The One-Eyed Monster’ and of course, ‘The Idiot Box’.

But before we get into the debate, a few words about the background.

Today, technology has been the motor of television development worldwide. From the first colour set to high-definition reception, broadcasting methods have travelled and multiplied to the point where capacity seems to be infinite. Terrestrial, cable, satellite, video. And now, new distribution methods — HDTV, CD-1 and interactive cable are opening, creating fascinating dimensions. The software has gown from soaps and television to reality shows and niche channels.

But it is curious to know that it all began with an article written by the celebrated science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke in 1945 for the magazine Wireless World for which he got paid the princely sum of œ15!

In his long, complicated article for Wireless World, Arthur C Clarke explained an idea he had recently had about space rockets. He suggested that if a spacecraft (remember, this was 12 years before the first Sputnik was launched) could get high enough, some 36,000 kilometers over the equator, its orbit would exactly follow the rotation of the earth. In other words, from the ground, it would appear to be stationary. Using these satellites, Clarke opined, it would be possible to send information around the world. And those early days (year 1945) when television itself was barely emerging from the shadows of World War II, he predicted that one day global television networks would emerge, with identical images transmitted across the planet to the entire population of the earth.

See where those œ15 paid by Wireless World to Arthur C Clarke have taken us today?

Back to teleliteracy or telegarbage.

Mass contempt for any mass media is not new. Since Plato in his The Republic 2,500 years ago arguing to exclude drama and poetry from any ideal city, to the latest diatribes of the critics for whom cinema and television have been favourite flogging horses, nothing much has changed. From corrupting our youth to distorting reality, encouraging indecent behaviour, glorifying sex and violence, the charges too haven’t changed much.

Hitler was never known to be a fan of television and he killed six million Jews. Genghis Khan had never heard of television let alone watched it. John Wilkes Booth who shot Lincoln missed television by almost 250 years. And Godse who shot Gandhi missed it by a decade. The entire history of mankind has been mostly written with blood and is full of sex and violence without relying on television and cinema for aiding and abetting it. Look at our own mythology which is being repeated for not less than 10,000 years to the masses — kids, youth, women, all impressionable minds. And what does it contain? Lord Indra, the Emperor of the Gods, is forever looking for a suitable opportunity to seduce the wives of the unsuspecting sages. Sex is not uncommon. Not even for Lord Shiva. Whenever the gods are tormented by demons and rush to Him for help, He is too busy with Parvati to pay attention to their pleas. They, in fact, have to wait till He is through. And as far as His violence is concerned, He is not averse to chopping His own son’s head. I love our mythology precisely for this reason — they make even gods as fallible as humans. And as loveable. And the ‘Drona Parva’ of The Mahabharata is perhaps the most violent passage written in the history of mankind. Compared to The Mahabharata and what it contains, television is kid-stuff. Almost antiseptic.

Most of the criticism of cinema and television appears out of an overraction to the power and the dominance of the medium. And most definitely, out of a snobbery. I mean, how can anyone in his right mind like television? Intelligent people are supposed to only read and write books, not watch television. That’s for idiots. But in their criticism, they are simply acknowledging the power of the medium. But they don’t realise that this way, they are abdicating a responsibility which may allow mediocrities to turn television into telegarbage.

Television is addictive because it is repetitive and interactive. Yes, television does shorten attention span. Yes, the quick, split-second change of imagery does disorient you. But in the process, it re-orients you for an environment where large volumes of information have to be assimilated very quickly and understood and reacted to with the same speed. For example, consider the bullock cart driver. His mind is oriented to 12 kilometer/hr speed. His coping ability too is oriented to 12 kilometers/hr speed. But a man who flies a jet plane, his mind is groomed to think and react and decide at 800 kilomters/hr. You can’t slow down change. You can either jump off the train or re-orient yourself to the speed of change.

Television can never replace books. In fact, television can be a powerful introduction to the books. And if television does reduce reading and often encroach on homework, it is not a reflection on the ill effects of television but a reflection on the depressing quality of our education system and the sheer lack of imagination and competence in our teachers.

If there can be stunning literature, why can’t there be stunning television? The trouble is, there hasn’t even been stunning literature in a long, long time. It is not that there are no readers, there are no writers too. Ridiculing television may be a favourite intellectual pastime, but it is not going to wish television away because unless and until a more powerful and more popular medium than television is discovered, it is going to stay. And if sufficient time and talent is allotted to understand television, instead of being part of the problem than it is supposed to be, it can become part of the solution... its own solution.