It is one of the most memorable scenes ever played out in American film. Veteran UBS network news anchor Howard Beale (played by the late Peter Finch) is fed up with the state of the world and commandeers the network’s news broadcast to spell out his complaints. After ranting about society’s numerous ills, Beale jumps up from his chair, walks toward the camera and implores his audience to go to their windows and yell “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” (Gottfried & Lumet, 1976).

The scene is from the movie Network, written by Paddy Chayefsky. The biting satire offered a less than flattering commentary on the media’s role in shaping the world, circa 1976. While certainly less inflammatory than the fictional Howard Beale in making his arguments, author Jeffrey McCall still wants media consumers to get mad and to not take it anymore. In his book, Viewer Discretion Advised: Taking Control of Mass Media Influences, McCall offers a highly critical analysis of the media, circa 2007. While the title suggests a broad critique of mass media, McCall’s focus is on television, the dominant medium in American households.

There are numerous targets in the author’s sights: Entertainment program writers and producers, media corporations and government regulators to name a few. McCall, however, also finds blame with the American public for passively accepting the current state of electronic media. “Citizens,” McCall argues, “have a right, even an obligation, to influence the media marketplace to more clearly reflect their interests, values, and priorities” (p. 5). The author uses the allegory that while people will not take any action about a television program they consider obscene or offensive, they have no hesitation in complaining about a bad dining experience at a restaurant. McCall also points out while numerous opinion polls document public dissatisfaction about the level of inappropriate language and sexual content in television programs, very few citizen complaints are actually filed with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). While he has no illusions of citizen complaints acting as a magic bullet, McCall still advocates for “a multitude of consistent small gestures that create a cumulative effect that can’t ultimately be ignored by the media powerful” (p. 133). Suggestions about citizen action are found throughout the text, including the book’s last chapter, where specific types of actions are described, from contacting the FCC to complaining to advertisers.

Another theme in McCall’s text is the argument for greater media literacy, whether it is individuals thinking more about the messages they are consuming or establishing media literacy components within educational systems. McCall refers to the “media elephant in society’s living room” in arguing for a pro-active approach about media literacy (p. 2). The author laments that the country suffers by failing to educate its citizens about how the media works and their impact (p. vii). The book’s opening chapter provides a useful discussion of media literacy efforts already underway and what needs to be done in the future. While advocating media literacy being taught in the classroom, McCall derisively dismisses what he refers to as “gimmicks” aimed at raising media awareness, such as “TV Turnoff Week.”

The book’s other chapters offer McCall’s take on media issues frequently raised in academic and mainstream publications, particularly within television journalism. The author is critical of what he describes as new criteria seemingly being used to decide what stories are being presented on television newscasts, which in turn contribute to declining news standards. In place of traditional criteria such as “high impact” and “timeliness,” McCall believes too many newscast producers are enthralled with stories that contain “odd pictures,” “celebrities in trouble” and “bizarre events involving attractive young women” (p. 58-66).

McCall’s other criticisms about television news are familiar to those involved with or teaching broadcast journalism (e.g., having reporters go “live” from the scene even when there is no “live” aspect to the story). McCall does raise one point that should resonate with those teaching broadcast journalism: That real change in the newsroom environment starts with those in decision-making positions. McCall recounts the epiphany of a Louisville, Kentucky television station general manager who used an on-air commentary to blast the constant hyping of local news, even by his own station. The general manager was also critical of newsrooms using oxymoronic, consultant-driven slogans like “Breaking News Update” in the belief the phrase will somehow makes that story just a little more important. The training of future broadcast journalists would be so much easier if there were more television general managers like the one in Louisville who expected better from his newsroom! As Dr. McCall’s book suggests, those running newsrooms have to have the confidence and support to go against the trend where meaningful, in-depth local coverage is being ignored in favor of a news diet of crime, car crashes, and celebrity-driven stories. That begins with better training of future journalists. One cannot realistically expect local news to evolve for the better unless colleges and universities are actively engaging and training the potential agents of change about a revival in news reporting and news standards that best serve the community.

Another of McCall’s main points is his support of tougher FCC action on indecent language and program content seen and heard on electronic media. The book decries FCC enforcement efforts during the 1980s and 1990s, believing the commission’s laissez-faire approach has only hastened declining broadcast standards. Although political administrations come and go, McCall suggests that a more conservative United States Supreme Court coming out of the President George W. Bush administrations will contribute to tougher regulation of the airwaves. McCall also sets out a premise by which he could see the government being justified in regulating cable television network programs such as Nip/Tuck or The Shield on F/X. The author notes the government already engages in some regulation of cable programs (e.g., commercialization in children’s programming).

References

Gottfried, H. & Lumet, S.. (1976). Network [Motion picture]. United States: MGM.