Following Jamie Oliver’s latest ill though out tirade, it
really is time to call time on the giant size television thing. There are many ways to attack the poor (as
the current Westminster government has shown us) but getting in a flap about
the size of their TV sets has to be one of the stupidest.
Let’s start with a simple question: when was the last
time you saw a small television set?
These days, if you’re going to buy one at all, it’s going to be large. It is
also, most likely, going to be cheap. We are far from the days when televisions
were a luxury item. One can buy them in supermarkets now for less than some
people spend on their weekly food shop. They’re also cheap to run when compared
with the old cathode ray models, averaging about three pounds a week. That’s
pretty good for a box that keeps the kids entertained if you’re working the
long hours that most poor people do, or if you’re looking for a job.
Televisions are even cheaper second hand. They have a
very low resale value, so if you lose your job, selling your television won’t
help you much. The chances are you will have to part with your internet
connection, if you had one in the first place (many poor people still don’t) as
internet access constitutes a much larger ongoing expense. This means your
television will become your main form of access to news. There have been
rulings against bailiffs taking televisions in payment of debt, as they are
considered essential for keeping people informed about the world. If poor
people are forced to get rid of them, that’s a pretty effective way of barring
them from any engagement with public life. Losing access to information about
current affairs (bearing in mind that many avoid the expense of paying for a
daily newspaper) makes it difficult for them to exercise their democratic
rights.
To say that poor people should not have access to
television is also to say that they should not have access to entertainment. It
means their kids will experience social isolation and have difficulty fitting
in at school, with a potentially negative consequences for their education. It
means that older kids who probably also have few books or toys will have
nothing to do but hang around in the streets, and we all know the kind of
problems that can lead to. It means that those adults who cannot look for
work—who are poor due to illness or disability, or who are full time carers—are
deprived of something that can help fill their time. Bear in mind that these
are, by and large, not people with the means to buy books or musical
instruments or to make regular trips to the cinema or theatre. Television may
be all they have.
So why is the possession of a television whilst poor now
the subject of so much disapproval? It’s pretty simple: when we go inside the
poorest people’s homes, whether directly or via a camera (whose observations we
probably see on our own television sets), the TV is generally the only thing we
see that looks like it might be worth anything at all. Think about that.
There’s usually no computer, no sound system, no attractive furniture, no
sports equipment, no art. These are people with next to nothing. Picking on the
television is the only effective way to pretend that they are hanging on to
some kind of meaningful resource, thereby depriving others. It’s simple
propaganda.
Jamie Oliver, who would not be successful himself without
television, should know better than to go along with this kind of lie. How are
his crusades to change people’s eating habits going to reach their targets if
not through their TVs? Yes, it would be better if people engaged in more active
pursuits, but that’s not an option for all of them. Yes, it’s tragic that many are reduced to
living life simply as spectators, but the real problem there is lack of
opportunity—depriving them even further will not help. We should not be looking
at people in desperate situations and asking what they still have that we might
take. We should be asking what we can give, how we can increase their
opportunities, how we can help them to connect with the world more effectively
and thereby improve their own situations. We should think about the roots of
the word ‘television’ and try to see a little further ourselves.
An excellent post. I hadn't thought about this too much, apart from recoiling from Oliver's comment, but you make the point very well. I just wish there were better things to watch on it.
ReplyDeleteThis horribly reminds me of my divorce 23 yrs ago, when the all male JP, solicitors (including mine) and my ex all agreed with much laughter that he (the ex) needed some income to buy beer on a night out "a man's entitled to a social life" but that me and the children were not entitled to have enough to rent the TV which was a "luxury item"(that's how you had TV in those days folks. Sorry. Blast from a depressing past.
DeleteI believe there is also an urge to punish the poor for being poor, by not allowing them anything 'nonessential'. I've also heard things like "Well, they shouldn't be sitting around watching TV when they should be working/looking for a job". The poor must be kept ignorant and miserable.
ReplyDelete