|
牛頓‧邁諾 (NEWTON MINOW) 對廣播業的講話 Address to the Broadcasting Industry
我請你們坐在電視機前……用眼睛盯著電視機直到電視臺停止播送節目。我準保你看到的是茫茫一片荒原
牛頓‧邁諾(1926─
)被約翰‧甘迺迪總統任命為聯邦通訊委員會主席，該機構負責管理公共 電波的使用。1961年5月9日，他向全美廣播業者協會二千名成員發表講話，告訴他們，每天的電視內容是「茫茫一片荒原」。邁諾對商業化電視的指控引起一場對電視節目質量的全國性辯論。在邁諾的講話之後，《紐約時報》電視評論員這樣寫道：「今晚某些廣播業者正盡力為邁諾先生的態度找到隱秘的解釋。在這個問題上，觀眾或許可以有所幫助；而邁諾先生正在看電視。」
你們這一行擁有美國最強有力的聲音。讓它發出明智和主導的聲音是該行業不可推諉的責任。短短幾年之中，這一令人興奮的行業已從一種新事物發展成對美國人民具有勢不可當影響力的一種手段。它正準備發揮報紙和雜誌若干年前所承擔的那種主導作用，以便我國人民瞭解他們的世界。 我們的時代已被稱為噴射時代、原子時代、太空時代。我認為它也是電視時代。正如歷史將決定當今世界的領袖們用原子毀滅世界還是用原子為人類利益重建世界，歷史將決定當今廣播業者們用他們強有力的聲音使人民充實還是使人民墮落。…… 跟任何人一樣，我頭上也有不止一頂帽子。我是聯邦通訊委員會主席，同時也是一名電視觀眾以及另幾名電視觀眾的丈夫和父親。我已看過許多對我來說似乎很值得看的電視節目，而且我不是在談論「第九十劇場」和「一號演播室」帶來的令人惋惜的往日美好時光。 我所談的是剛剛過去的這個季度。有些節目非常精彩，例如「令人難以置信的50年代」、「弗雷德‧阿斯台爾的表演」和「賓‧克洛斯比特別節目」；有些節目富於戲劇性，令人感動，例如康拉德的「勝利」和「邊緣地區」；有些節目資訊量大，很有教益，例如「我國的未來」、「哥倫比亞廣播公司報導」和「英勇的歲月」。我還能舉出更多的例子，我肯定每個人都覺得這些節目充實了自己的生活，也豐富了全家的生活。當電視好看時，沒有什麼別的東西──戲劇、雜誌或報紙──比得上它。 可是當電視節目不好時，那就沒有什麼比它更糟了。我請你在電視臺正播放節目時坐在電視機前，且莫讓任何書報雜誌、損益帳表或定額手冊來分散你的注意力──用你的眼睛緊緊盯住電視機直到電視臺停止播送節目。我準保你看到的是茫茫一片荒原。 你將看到一連串體育比賽節目、暴力行為、觀眾參與的表演、關於怪誕家庭的公式化喜劇、流血和恐嚇、殘害肢體罪、暴力行為、性虐待、謀殺、西部不法之徒、西部的好人、私人偵探、匪徒、更多的暴力和動畫片。總是有沒完沒了的廣告節目──充滿尖叫、勾引，使人很不舒服。而且大多數節目令人生厭。當然你也會看到一些讓你欣賞的節目，但數量少得可憐。如果你認為我誇大其詞，那麼不妨打開電視試試。
今天在座的人之中是否有人以為廣播業已經完美無瑕了呢?…… 為什麼這麼多電視節目如此蹩腳呢? 我聽到了多種回答：你們的廣告商的需求；對節目受歡迎程度的競爭；始終吸引廣大觀眾的需要；電視節目的高製作成本；對節目素材貪得無厭的欲求，等等。無疑，這些確是不易解決的棘手問題。 但是我不信你們已盡了最大努力去解決這些問題。我無法接受這一觀點：目前的節目總體安排絲毫不差地切合公眾的興趣愛好。電視臺的節目受歡迎程度調查只是告訴我們，多少人打開了電視機，其中多少人收視某一頻道，又有多少人收視另一頻道。這些數字並未告訴我們，倘若公眾另有六個頻道可供選擇，他們將會看什麼節目。節目受歡迎程度的調查至多只是表明，有多少人看了你們奉送給他們的節目。不幸的是，它不能揭示節目打動人心的程度和觀眾反應是否熱烈；它從不能披露倘若你們給觀眾更好的節目──假如藝術魅力、創造力、勇氣和想像力得到充分發揮──他們會怎樣歡迎。我相信人民具有良好的辨別能力和欣賞水平，我不信人民的情趣像你們某些人所設想的那般鄙俗低下。…… 當然，我希望你們同意這個觀點：在涉及兒童時，電視節目受歡迎程度的調查結果不會有什麼影響。最準確的估計表明，從下午五時至六時，你們觀眾的60％由 12歲以下的孩子組成。信不信由你，如今大多數兒童看電視花的時間與他們呆在教室裏的時間同樣多。我重覆一遍，請記住：如今大多數兒童看電視所花的時間與他們呆在教室裏的時間同樣多。過去人們常說，一個孩子受到三方面的深刻影響：家庭、學校和教堂。如今又有第四方面的巨大影響，而它正掌握在你們這些女士、先生們手中。 如果家長、教師和牧師們都依從受歡迎程度調查結果來履行他們的職責，那麼孩子們就會定時定量吃上霜淇淋，就會有各校的假日，就不會有主日學校。你們的職責又該如何履行呢? 難道電視就騰不出時間對我們的孩子進行教育，傳授知識，提高、擴展他們的能力嗎? 難道電視就騰不出時間播放讓孩子們加深對其他國家兒童瞭解的節目嗎? 難道電視就騰不出時間播送兒童新聞節目，根據他們的理解力水平向他們解釋世界事務? 難道電視就騰不出時間為孩子們朗讀過去的文學名著，向他們教授自由的偉大傳統? 確實有一些很好的兒童節目，但它們被淹沒在動畫片和宣揚暴力加暴力的大量節目中。難道這些節目就非得是你們的商標? 請你們捫心自問，看是不是無法給你們的小觀眾──每天有這麼多時由你們指導他們的未來──更多更好的節目了。
成人節目的安排和受歡迎程度調查結果情況如何呢?
你們知道，報紙出版商們也向讀者調查。結果一目瞭然：幾乎總是報刊上的連環畫頁佔據榜首，其次是對失戀者的忠告專欄最受歡迎。但是女士們先生們，各家報紙的頭版仍刊登新聞，社論並未被連環畫頁所取代，報紙並為變成對失戀者忠告的集大成。然而報紙不需要從政府那裏取得營業執照──報紙不動用公共財產。但是在電視領域──其中你們作為公共受託管理人的職責是如此明白無誤──一旦調查結果顯示西部片受歡迎，立即便會播放模仿西部片的新劇，其速度之快超過用老式同軸電纜從好萊塢拍發電報到紐約。…… 請允許我說明，我正在談論的是平衡的問題。我認為，公眾利益是由多方面利益構成的。這個偉大的國家人口眾多，你們應該為我們全體人民服務。我將不會贊同你們的觀點。假如你們說：在一部西部片和一部交響樂之間，多數人將選看前者。我也愛看西部片和私人偵探劇，但是向全國提供千篇一律的節目形式顯然不符合大眾利益。眾所周知，比起受到激勵，獲取知識，人們常常更喜歡娛樂消遣。但倘若你們只把普及當作確定廣播內容的標準，你們還是沒有盡到義務。你們不僅是在從事娛樂業；你們不受阻礙地既傳送娛樂節目也傳播思想觀念。你們應該提供更大的選擇範圍，使節目更豐富多采，更多樣化。迎合全民族一時的興致是不夠的──你們還應該為全民族的需求服務。 現在讓我談談我作為聯邦通訊委員會主席的作用，而不是作為一名觀眾的作用。……我想闡明指導我工作的某些基本原則。 第一，人民是空間的主人。無論是星期日早晨六時，還是晚上的黃金時間，人民同樣是空間的主人。人民每給你們一小時，你們便欠了他們一筆債。我想看到你們用服務來償還欠債。 第二，我認為繼續就暗中賄賂、騙人的知識競賽節目以及其他以往的過錯爭論不休是愚蠢和多餘的。 第三，我相信自由經營制度。我期待廣播業得到改進，希望由你們來改進它。 第四，我將盡力扶持教育電視。教育電視臺數量太少，而我國的那些較重要的電視中心仍缺乏便於使用的教學節目頻道。 第五，我堅定不移地反對政府檢查制度。將不會禁播不合官僚口味的電視節目。檢查制度動搖我們自由社會的根基。 第六，我到華盛頓不是來對濫用公共電波的現象袖手旁觀，聽之任之的。濫用我們的公共電波與浪費任何寶貴的自然資源是同樣嚴重的問題。…… 先生們，你們通過人民的空間所播送的電視內容影響人民的情趣、知識、觀點，影響他們對自己對世界的認識，而且影響他們的未來。圖像和聲音即刻傳送的力量在人類歷史上是前所未有的。這是一種令人敬畏的力量。它有無限的行善能力，亦有無限的作惡能力。它承擔著巨大的責任──你們和我都無法逃避的責任。 附註：
...Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years this exciting industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world. Ours has been called the jet age, the atomic age, the space age. It is also, I submit, the television age. And just as history will decide whether the leaders of today's world employed the atom to destroy the world or rebuild it for mankind's benefit, so will history decide whether today's broadcasters employed their powerful voice to enrich the people or debase them.... Like everybody, I wear more than one hat. I am the chairman of the FCC. I am also a television viewer and the husband and father of other television viewers. I have seen a great many television programs that seemed to me eminently worthwhile, and I am not talking about the much-bemoaned good old days of "Playhouse 90" and "Studio One." I am talking about this past season. Some were wonderfully entertaining, such as "The Fabulous Fifties," the "Fred Astaire Show" and the "Bing Crosby Special"; some were dramatic and moving, such as Conrad's "Victory" and Twilight Zone"; some were marvelously informative, such as "The Nation's Future," "CBS Reports," and "The Valiant Years." I could list many more－ programs that I am sure everyone here felt enriched his own life and that of his family. When television is good, nothing－ not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers－ nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss sheet, or rating book to distract you－ and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, Western badmen, Western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials－ many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And, most of all, boredom. True, you will see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, try it. Is there one person in this room who claims that broadcasting can't do better? . . . Why is so much of television so bad? I have heard many answers: demands of your advertisers; competition for ever higher ratings; the need always to attract a mass audience; the high cost of television programs; the insatiable appetite for programming material－ these are some of them. Unquestionably these are tough problems not susceptible to easy answers. But I am not convinced that you have tried hard enough to solve them. I do not accept the idea that the present overall programming is aimed accurately at the public taste. The ratings tell us only that some people have their television sets turned on, and, of that number, so many are tuned to one channel and so many to another. They don't tell us what the public might watch if they were offered half a dozen additional choices. A rating, at best, is an indication of how many people saw what you gave them. Unfortunately it does not reveal the depth of the penetration or the intensity of reaction, and it never reveals what the acceptance would have been if what you gave them had been better－ if all the forces of art and creativity and daring and imagination had been unleashed. I believe in the people's good sense and good taste, and I am not convinced that the people's taste is as low as some of you assume. . . . Certainly I hope you will agree that ratings should have little influence where children are concerned. The best estimates indicate that during the hours of 5 to 6 P.M., 60 percent of your audience is composed of children under twelve. And most young children today, believe it or not, spend as much time watching television as they do in the schoolroom. I repeat－ let that sink in－ most young children today spend as much time watching television as they do in the schoolroom. It used to be said that there were three great influences on a child: home, school, and church. Today there is a fourth great influence, and you ladies and gentlemen control it. If parents, teachers, and ministers conducted their responsibilities by following the ratings, children would have a steady diet of ice cream, school holidays, and no Sunday school. What about your responsibilities? Is there no room on television to teach, to inform, to uplift, to stretch, to enlarge the capacities of our children? Is there no room for programs deepening their understanding of children in other lands? Is there no room for a children's news show explaining something about the world to them at their level of understanding? Is there no room for reading the great literature of the past, teaching them the great traditions of freedom? There are some fine children's shows, but they are drowned out in the massive doses of cartoons, violence, and more violence. Must these be your trademarks? Search your consciences and see if you cannot offer more to your young beneficiaries whose future you guide so many hours each and every day. What about adult programming and ratings? You know, newspaper publishers take popularity ratings too. The answers are pretty clear; it is almost always the comics, followed by the advice-to-the-lovelorn columns. But, ladies and gentlemen, the news is still on the front page of all newspapers, the editorials are not replaced by more comics, the newspapers have not become one long collection of advice to the lovelorn. Yet newspapers do not need a license from the government to be in business－ they do not use public property. But in television－ where your responsibilities as public trustees are so plain－ the moment that the ratings indicate that Westerns are popular, there are new imitations of Westerns on the air faster than the old coaxial cable could take us from Hollywood to New York.... Let me make clear that what I am talking about is balance. I believe that the public interest is made up of many interests. There are many people in this great country, and you must serve all of us. You will get no argument from me if you say that, given a choice between a Western and a symphony, more people will watch the Western. I like Westerns and private eyes too－ but a steady diet for the whole country is obviously not in the public interest. We all know that people would more often prefer to be entertained than stimulated or informed. But your obligations are not satisfied if you look only to popularity as a test of what to broadcast. You are not only in show business; you are free to communicate ideas as well as relaxation. You must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more alternatives. It is not enough to cater to the nation's whims－ you must also serve the nation's needs. . . . Let me address myself now to my role, not as a viewer but as chairman of the FCC. . . . I want to make clear some of the fundamental principles which guide me. First, the people own the air. They own it as much in prime evening time as they do at 6 o'clock Sunday morning. For every hour that the people give you, you owe them something. I intend to see that your debt is paid with service. Second, I think it would be foolish and wasteful for us to continue any worn-out wrangle over the problems of payola, rigged quiz shows, and other mistakes of the past. . . . Third, I believe in the free enterprise system. I want to see broadcasting improved and I want you to do the job. . . . Fourth, I will do all I can to help educational television. There are still not enough educational stations, and major centers of the country still lack usable educational channels. . . . Fifth, I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There will be no suppression of programming which does not meet with bureaucratic tastes. Censorship strikes at the taproot of our free society. Sixth, I did not come to Washington to idly observe the squandering of the public's airwaves. The squandering of our airwaves is no less important than the lavish waste of any precious natural resource.... What you gentlemen broadcast through the people's air affects the people's taste, their knowledge, their opinions, their understanding of themselves and of their world. And their future. The power of instantaneous sight and sound is without precedent in mankind's history. This is an awesome power. It has limitless capabilities for good－ and for evil. And it carries with it awesome responsibilities－ responsibilities which you and I cannot escape. . . . |