|
Rejecting Television by Per Bylund
I
don’t have a television set. I do own one, but it is in a box
somewhere in the attic (I think). When
I tell people of this, they usually think I’m crazy: “How the
hell can you do without television?” Well, it’s easy, especially
with my libertarian convictions and anarchist morality. I haven’t
missed a moment of TV gawking since I threw the set out. Since you
probably share (most of) my ideals, I’d like to tell you of my
reasons for rejecting television. Firstly,
what’s on television is mostly crap. Actually, television is
hardly ever intellectually stimulating or morally satisfying.
Rather, it is about stupid people making even bigger fools of
themselves than they are on That’s
the reason I don’t miss it – there is really nothing to miss. I
still get to see whatever films I like in the movies and I can buy
interesting documentaries or entertaining series on DVD. Also, the
Internet provides enormous opportunities to download almost anything
you like. All the things on television I can’t find elsewhere is
really crap. Secondly,
television programs are horribly expensive. Now you probably ask,
why would you care about that? It is all paid for by companies
buying air time in the programming to advertise their products.
Sure, if you don’t live in a socialist country such as The
enormous cost would mean nothing in a free world, but it means quite
a lot in our super-politicized welfare-warfare state society. In a
free world, anyone could set up a television station and broadcast
whatever shows he or she feels like, or whatever people want to see. In
this world, almost no one can afford the costs of producing and
broadcasting television programming. That means there is limited
supply, which means politicians have seized the opportunity to
regulate who gets to broadcast (and what they can broadcast) in
order to create “multitude” and “neutrality” in programming
and news broadcasts. So: unlicensed operation of television
broadcasting is prohibited by government. That, of course, means
political correctness and good relations with Capitol Hill has
become more important than good programming. Even
though it is not always explicit, and usually denied by both
politicians and television networks management, television is a
great (if not the greatest) channel for propaganda. Programming is
controlled by the FCC, and if programming does not adhere to
government regulations, the license is revoked. Does anyone really
believe that television will be a source of facts about government?
I guess it really depends on how gullible you are.
It
is not an incentive of television networks and stations to criticize
or review government policies; rather, there is a great deal of
incentive for them to make friends with government and thereby get
political leverage in order to beat competition. Sure, the world
isn’t black and white – if it were, people would probably see
what’s going on. The
truth is there are television programs that question some government
policies and even individual politicians. But how far do you think
these programs are allowed to go? The television stations and
networks cannot allow themselves to seem biased (i.e., to question
government “too much”), but they do want to be perceived by
their audience as independent and trustworthy. They’re in a
position where they need to keep a balance between having
government’s support and making the market believe they are
independent rather than (which is a fact) government-controlled. Fourthly,
I’d like to stress another aspect of brainwashing which is
nevertheless important. Television is not only disinformation and
biased news; it also takes people’s attention from what is really
important. News programs seem to emphasize “progressive”
government policies while casually reporting on bad news too
important to leave out; they emphasize “domestic” news while
uninterestedly reporting on crises “far away” (such crises are
almost without exception the result of “failing” politics
abroad); and they tend to cut back on news reviewing and
investigating journalism in order to provide swift reporting of
what’s happening on Capitol Hill. What
they are actually doing is directing people’s attention from that
which is important to politics. On television, people can watch only
politics and brain-dead entertainment, to put it incisively. Since
people spend multiple hours in front of their television set every
day, it seems reasonable to suggest the programming they watch is a
common topic when talking to people. If this is true, then people
would mostly tend to talk about politics, in the way directed by
government via television, and reality shows, soap operas, etc. This
analysis seems about right – people don’t talk very much about
things that are really important in their lives (such as their
families, work, the quality of education, their plans for the
future, etc.). Instead, they talk a lot about school reforms, the
new public daycare policy, the terrorist threat and the Sure,
one might claim that politics today is
an important part of people’s lives. Sure, that’s one of the
effects of the ever growing welfare-warfare state. But politics
alone doesn’t make people suckers for politics, and the fact that
there are people making up new rules and regulations doesn’t mean
people ask for even more rules and regulations. The natural attitude
to adopt is not to ask for more but to ask for less. People
generally want to lead their lives without people bossing them
around. Actually, I would say people in general are anarchists. But
the political brain drain has made them unable to apply their own
natural right on other individuals or on society as a whole. The
reason for this is that politics teaches that “other people” are
assholes and need to be ruled (to protect your
right). Only
propaganda and social pressure can make people give up their
individual rational thoughts to believe in something that is
inherently irrational, at least if the world is populated by
individuals rather than groups or communities. Television is
probably the most effective means of propaganda in our age; without
television, we would probably enjoy a much freer life. Another
important feature of television is that it is one-way communication
only. As a viewer, you can only accept and receive, you cannot
interact, ask questions, or influence discussions. To do so, you
need to use other means of communication. That makes television
perfect for propaganda, since people will sit alone and be fed with
“truths” without a chance of knowing what is really going on.
When they later on meet other people, they have all been fed with
the same “truths” – how many of them do you think will claim
all they heard is really untrue? To me, it can be entertaining to watch a movie sometimes or watch the news or a television series. But I wouldn’t want a television set in my home, it is far too dangerous. I know how it is if the television set is there, after a long day’s work you usually end up passively watching something that is not really that interesting – and that you know has been government approved. No thanks. I’d rather get on the Internet or read or talk on the phone. Television is not the future, it is the past. Per Bylund is the founder of Anarchism.net and the founding editor of the Libertarianskt Forum (Libertarian Forum), a radically libertarian anthology published annually in Swedish. Visit his personal website at www.perbylund.com
|