Class Matters (part 3) - on T.V. ? Not Always.

In its series on 'Class' the N.Y. Times had a chapter on culture... well, actually it was on television. One of their major points is to say that whereas TV 'used to be fascinated' with ‘blue collar life’, it now shows us a world of 'cops, doctors and lawyers'.
It seems to me that the word ‘fascinated’ is a somewhat an exaggeration. Yes there were shows like "The Honeymooners," "All in the Family," "Sanford and Son" and "Roseanne," but those were the exceptions rather than the rule. Besides, I don’t know why TV should necessarily reflect reality. Both television and cinema are forms of entertainment and people want to dream their everyday lives away when they go to the movies or watch a fiction. They want to be entertained. That is why the musicals were so popular during the depression. It takes excellent writing and cast to make a ‘blue collar’ show (or any show about the ‘guy next door’ for that matter) really entertaining. Life and routine can be a bore on TV. Look at ‘Desperate Housewives’ which is supposed to be about a regular upper-middle class neighborhood… well, hardly your regular everyday life. Look at a good show like ‘Lost’ - do you often see a plane crash with so many (mostly good looking) people coming out of it without a scratch? No! But frankly, who cares? It’s a very good show anyway.

However, I’d agree with the N.Y.Times that ‘reality television’ is a twist of the American dream for wealth and fame (although mostly fame) are instantaneous and not the result of hard work. It presents a very unrealistic way of rising in class. But there too, maybe the NYT reads too much into it. Those shows are mere entertainment. I’m not sure people are really fooled into taking them seriously – and if they are, well, then it won’t change anything and they probably deserve to be. After all, there will always be some form of ‘opium for the masses’.