I'm torn on Brooker, honestly. On some level he makes valid points, but on others he seems to delight in being smarter than the audience when his points are mostly empty contrarianism. He has a cutting wit, but the show seems to be a solution in search of a problem that has resolved itself in the last few years. Does TV have as much power as it did in the past?
No. Brooker uses Harlan Ellison's 'Glass Teat' mentality, that television is an overpowering force that makes you watch it and adapt your life to it. But this hasn't been true for a while. The great migration of people from free TV to cable in the '90s and then finally the Internet a few years after shows that people were weaning away from the passivity of normal TV watching. While we're still staring at a black screen, the idea of choice has changed and diluted that power. The Glass Teat is no longer an everpresent menace, but now has been degraded through people just getting sick of it that they're willing to do anything else, even if that's going to a more interactive medium like the Internet or simply not bothering at all and choosing to marathon shows without commercial interruption so the story becomes the point instead of 'it's a TV, we're memorized to watch it.'
I suppose Brooker suffers from being a man whose rage has become something that has past. There's plenty to be said about technology and surveillance and social engineering. But to pretend that TV is still this everpresent force in a world full of adblockers and interactive worldwide communication and video is quite another. In fact, I would say we're heading in the opposite direction: instead of real life being taken over by fantasy, we are seeing parts of real life that have existed just underneath the surface and are now bubbling up and taking form thanks to uncensored content and a certain degree of anonymity. But Brooker seems to think that we're locked into a pattern of influence via commercials and sitcoms when the reality is that we're swinging the other way.
reply
share