Commercialism and the Mass Media
Responses
Frank Hackett, which was played by Robert Duvall, had displayed a management style that is first and foremost overly-conscious of the authority that his position holds. This is especially evident in the manner wherein he had terminated employees, however great their past contributions to the company may be, whenever he had perceived them as having nothing more to offer, thus earning him the moniker of The Hatchet Man. Likewise, he regarded individuals, even the top echelons such as the President of their news department, as mere objects that did not require from him to be awarded with due respect.
Diana Christensen, which was played by Faye Dunaway, had a semblance of the managerial characteristics of Hackett, especially in the manner that she had often times displayed her totalitarianism. These were accomplished either by granting sexual intimacies to those in key positions, or by aggressively vetoing for her suggestions on how programs should be run. Although superficially she seemed to be democratic on the contributions of her staff, ultimately only two factors tend to be the bases for her actions how to exact cooperation according to her design, and how to manipulate others for the advancement of her career. Likewise, her description of herself as having a masculine temperament was meant for the viewers to understand that her drive for perfecting her craft is just like that of a mans, and that she will do everything in her influence to achieve the present goal that she had set, and afterwards will just be as exuberant in her next project. It is worth noting that she had stated this during the mid-1970s, where it was still atypical for a woman to be as career-aggressive as a man. The employment of this statement was done in order to solidify to the viewer, her personality.
Max Schumacher, whose role was played by William Holden, despite of being granted a limited time to display his managerial skills, was able to exhibit a democratic style of management wherein everybody in his staff, including his superiors, were encouraged to contribute to the betterment of the entire project. Thus, it was evident in the film that he was well-loved and well-respected by his co-employees. This was especially evident in the scene wherein he, together with Howard, was recounting a humorous incident during their younger years to a group of subordinates. Likewise, he displayed the strength of not being a willing pawn to the whims of his superiors. He courageously stood for what he believed was right even at the risk of being terminated from his work.
Clarence Jensen, who was the ultimate authority in UBS and with whom Howard Beale had a meeting at the latter part of the movie, exhibited a managerial skill that is leadership based on example. This was especially evident as he himself, being the top honcho of the corporate hierarchy, knew exactly how to deal with the eccentricity of Beale by explaining step-by-step on how his show ought to relate to its audience. Likewise, Jensens insistence on keeping Beales show on air despite of the steady drop in ratings displayed his knowledge on the importance of truth to be taught to the masses, irrespective of monetary gains.
In the movie, Network, Frank Hacketts life was Union Broadcasting System itself. It encompassed his goals, aspirations, emotions, struggles, and had been the sole basis of his career decisions. His impersonal method of management was represented by how he decided on certain tasks, most evident of which were the manners that he terminated several employees and his personal instigation of the plot to kill Howard Beale. On the other hand, Diana Christensens inclination to manipulate others through sex, plus her relentless drive for professional success may be based on her private life as a divorcee whose independent living is characterized by casual sexual intimacies with whomever she deemed helpful in her careers advancement. Thus, just as she was insensitive in her private life as can be witnessed in her manner of approving to kill Beale, she too was in relegating professional decisions. In both of the cases with Hackett and Christensen, Max Schumachers personal life was the most complete. He had a wife of 25 years and two daughters whom he is proud of, and these factors made his professional decisions more humane. Likewise, this was also the reason why he, compared with the other two aforementioned, seemed to have a clear distinction between what is moral or ethical and immoral.
As the film enters the phase where Max and Diana had a romantic affair, it was apparent that the news companys ethical standards suffered even deeper. Perhaps it was due to the fact that Max was no longer with them to counter propositions of this kind, thus making it easier for them to plot terminations and to exploit certain situations and individuals for the good of the stations ratings.
This kind of professional environment necessitates for a person to consistently remind himself of the highly-esteemed principles surrounding journalism, whether it is in print, radio, TV, or other mediums of the craft. He must adhere to these teachings and learn from the courage of those who stood against such overwhelming inducements to abandon these tenets and focus entirely on ratings, such as Max Schumacher.
Contemporary Significance
When news departments of TV stations place too much emphasis on ratings that it becomes a more significant tenet than that of fair and fearless reporting, it then takes on a form of an entertainment program, where agendas are custom-fitted to the desires of the masses. In addition, several modifications had to be implemented that may result in the alteration of truth in order for the said news program to be among the top raters. One example of this unfortunate practice is the manner that Fox News Channel handles their programs, specifically that of Bill OReillys The OReilly Factor. It has been a well-known fact how controversies were created by the said program during the 911 attack that involved disproportioning of Red Cross funds just to create a stir, and on how his labeling of a physician as a Killer eventually resulted in his assassination.
However, compared with OReillys, there is still much truth to the gospels preached by Beale. It was particularly evident that the statements made by him were of such gravity that the powers-that-be necessitated for his death in order to preserve their authority over their corporate kingdom. Three of these prove to be eternal truths. First is his statement, The tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break Presidents, Popes, Prime Ministers. This tube is the most awesome God-damn force in the whole God less world (Gottfried, 1976). Another is, What is finishedIts the individual thats finishedThis is no longer a nation of independent individuals. Its a nation of two hundred odd, transistorized, deodorizedas replaceable as piston rods (Gottfried, 1976). Last is The whole worlds people is becoming mass-produced, programmed. The whole world has become humanoid, creatures that look humans but odd (Gottfried, 1976). These parables tell of the truth that had prevailed prior to his coming, likewise during his career, and has lingered until this present age, almost four decades after they were written.
Paddy Chayefsky
Paddy Chayefskys Network has been considered as a masterpiece primarily because of two important reasons it has exposed to the world the existing conditions that are prevailing in the network industry, and it widened our perception on the vagueness of truth. Likewise, he was able to articulate to the viewing public the exact measures being undertaken by various companies in order to assure themselves of high ratings, often times even willing to forego with the principles of responsible journalism for their own self-serving goals.
Chayefsky, through the portrayal of Beales character, was able to present arguments pertaining to the truth that mass media offers. First of these is the line, Well tell you anything but the truth (Gottfried, 1976). This signifies the reality that media companies will never present to their viewers any form of truth that they perceive will be too harsh for the public to accept. Thus, everything that they present will be edited, shaped, and molded in such a way that it would be possessing of less damaging effects than what it truly is. Another is the line, You think were truth and your lives are unreal (Gottfried, 1976). Primarily, this is an articulation of the misconception that people seem to view what the mass media presents as the best way to live their lives, be it in fashion, political stance, beauty and health regiments, and even in religious inclinations. As it is, it is a misguided belief in medias omnipotence, and the need to standardize their lives according to these measures. Last is through the line, Everything television touches is destroyed (Gottfried, 1976). Here, because of the ill effects of commercialism and the need to always fit to the expectations set by the media, there exists a strong tendency to destroy ones self in the process of this struggle. It has been often witnessed in individuals whos image are products of media hype, such as entertainers, actors, media personalities, and the like, who seemed to be perplexed at the reality of where their private and professional lives intersect. It is disillusionment as it is a disenchantment that they believe that their commercial value is an accurate representation of who they truly are as a person.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment