The lowest common denominator at work

On FB, I found an unlikely posting on the revelations tracking the mauling of a lunchtime show host. It came from an expert-academic friend whose account usually engages his friends about political and social concerns.

His comments reflect a level of interest in the story. Or at the very least, it shows himself being in the know, keeping up with what has captured the chattering circles of Manila.

I recalled a phrase from the past, a term used in seventies in the literature of mass media and the ongoing critique of television. The “lowest common denominator” was a factor that shaped the thrust of the electronic medium and its impact on mass communication and society. In a similar vein, but at a later stage, the discourse came up with “idiot box” and “info-tainment.”

TV programming seeks this “lowest common denominator”—the sum or part of what attracts the largest number of viewers—the masses—based broadly on a calculation of the “like” that masses share. Some may disagree, it’s not really a like, it’s simply curious. Whatever, programs on mass media bear this factor in mind. Don’t be too serious. Don’t use certain words. People do not understand or appreciate and they tune out.

News conventions even in the more high-minded newsrooms formulated this shared interest as based on certain elements: personality, prominence, the out-of-ordinary, conflict and color—meaning these things were of some level of relevance to all. The “tabloids” codified these elements more crudely: “sex, scandal and crime.”

In its earliest stages, television entertainment, restrained by certain unspoken taboos, did not touch on anything that might offend common standards of decency and good taste. So TV drama and even the news were guided by these considerations. The development of cable allowed greater freedom than what networks would allow. The criticism of TV in the sixties and the seventies focused on the lack of provocative material and the failure to make people think. Thus, social realities such as racism and gender inequality were ignored. TV was criticized for being banal, with programs crafted for those who wanted to turn off and not think. US cable and other forms of new media have broken down the resistance to certain subjects. Technology has allowed the creation of different kinds of audiences.

But this lowest common denominator still determines much of the news agenda. The common wisdom about mass media is that people will not read or listen unless it is made interesting. Thus the success of gadgets that allow surfing or even recording only what one wants to watch.

However, ratings still rule the business. For the longest time, product advertisements were dominated by “soap, soup, shampoo” and, up till these were prohibited, cigarettes—products that everyone needs and uses. Ratings embedded commercialization into the core of the business model; and pretty soon, news programs which used to be sequestered from such considerations were enveloped in the same ratings culture, elevating the lowest common denominator to a force.

So news or entertainment, TV programs are still tailored to attract as many viewers as possible, employing all kinds of gimmickry to further “dumb down” the audience.

Journalism popularizes news. But it cannot follow the popular lead to the detriment of its other obligation: “making interesting that which is truly relevant.” Unfortunately, TV has also applied its power to the manufacture of celebrity, that phenomenon of being known only because media makes them known. It has done so to the neglect of its other obligation, which is to make interesting what citizens need to know, to make popular what is truly relevant to people’s lives.

Why do I bring this up?

CMFR’s monitor of TV news coverage showed major news programs on January 27 dominated by the stories on the mauling of Vhong Navarro and its handling by the police, presented even as a lead story in one channel. With time allotments ranging from 43 to 65 percent of program airtime, it was given more importance than the signing of the fifth annex in the accord between between the government and the MILF and Congress deliberations on FOI, among others.

Many years ago, another incident which involved an actress beauty pageant queen in an some kind of awards-grabbing received the same kind of media hype. I remember a dinner with government, business and civic leaders and the talk could not but take up the same incident that was the same subject of talk, of jokes and earnest debate among the so-called masa. Facebook takes the place of the increasingly rare dinner conversation and it shows up how the lowest common denominator still operates.

If I remember right, a daily newspaper gave the incident of the pageant queen scandal front page space complete with a photo. I checked and was glad to see the Vhong Navarro story only in the inside pages.

So, cheers to print media for this judicious balance. Slowly, slowly, maybe we are making progress.