Flicking through the possibilities

Press, 21 May 1987, Page 19

Flicking through the possibilities

Ken Strongman

on television

If you think what you are watching is bad, then you can thank your lucky stars (and stripes) that you are not in the land of the big white stetson. At face value, 20 or so channels seem better than two, but it depends what they offer. This much choice causes considerable unease.

It took a few days to realise what was wrong, but then it resolved itself into that awful, child-like feeling of missing something. Whatever is on, there could be something better (easily), on another channel. In the absence of the remote button, it is up and down every 10 minutes to flick through the possibilities. By the end of the evening, to save energy, it is necessary to sit within arm’s length of the box.

The next obvious comparison point between the nuclear and non-nuclear forms of television is the advertisements. In the United States they seem to appear every 10 seconds or so and to last for 11 seconds.

They obtrude with the insistence of u child at 5.30 on Christmas morning, but with none of the naive grace. They are crass, shallow, crudely manipulative and encourage ever more conspicuous consumption in a society in which spending is avid. In spite of all their years of practice, the ad-makers have not produced a new art form.

Desperation to escape the commercials again

prompts a constant searching through the channels. Such choice is not easy when it must be made between the worst programme you can imagine and another which is even worse (don’t forget, TVNZ buys some of the best programmes from abroad).

There are alternatives. On the eastern seaboard, there is one channel which seems to carry only advertisements — one definition of hell.

Of course, there is public television, supported by subscription and noncommercial. It has good plays and series from Britain, but some rather tedious programmes about building houses in the rain and the plight of the lesser spotted pillock in Slovobia.

Not everything is bad. One channel features

sport all day long. Now, this is splendid if you happen to like baseball, basketball, ice-hockey, or gridiron, relieved by occasional golf, boxing, or women’s volleyball. Okay, but it is nice to be able to count on seeing something. Similarly, at most times of day it is possible to watch a film or two or six. There is even usually one in black and white for those who believe that old is good or that colour somehow detracts from the form. You can have a week of “terror-filled features” on Philly 57 or a week of Clint Eastwood. What more could you want?

The business of television running 24 hours a day, like the shops, might be good for the hypochondriac who cannot read or the odd burglar who has an early night, but it has its bad side. Waking up with television is dreadful. Watching it at breakfast

time ranges from the grubby to a sort of guilt, as though one has weakened and been seduced into a new vice. It is like leaving the cinema in the daylight, or overeating, or walking barefoot in mud (so people tell me).

With our two little channels, then, we are really doing pretty well. However, the news programmes on American television are frequent, well made and sometimes contain some reasonable investigative journalism. They seem to have faced the fact that for most people, the only brush with news is through television, and they do it well.

The problem is that one is aware of being in a very large country with much happening in it, to say nothing of the remainder of the world (which they usually do). So, it must be very selective and somehow parochial,

even though it is a large parish. It is the opposite of New Zealand where the impression is that the news-compilers are sometimes looking for material, even ending up with the bits the Americans do not use. We did not see a frog-licking contest in three weeks. Recently, the most extreme aspect of American television, to the visitor’s eye, has been the daily live coverage of the Congressional Iran-contra hearings. This matter could hardly be more significant for American society, embracing all manner of searching questions about the President’s culpability or the disposition of his brain. And here it is for all to see as it happens, turning politicians, lawyers, and even former generals into television stars. The shape of things to come in New Zealand? This brief flirtation with

s American television, left one disappointed. Nobody ’ around, including a few j hotels, appeared to have : availed themselves of one • of the new cables — it • must be something to do • with the circles in which ■ we move. Among other I things, it brings 24 hours • of continuous pom. In spite of making many in- ■ quiries and conducting i several interrogations, no- ; body would admit to hav- ' ing it, so there is no way to tell you what you are i missing. On return to Godzone, 1 perhaps it will be worth t erecting an enormous - satellite dish in the garf den, or making a suggest tion for the third channel. Tailpiece. If it is has not yet appeared, watch the final episode of “Cheers.” It is excellent. How’s that for oneupmanship?

(Ken Strongman’s regular column will resume in July.)