Viewfinder : Lack of variety on TV is a disservice to viewers
Updated 05:17am (Mla time) Aug 24, 2004
By Nestor Torre
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A28 of the August 24, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
IT'S generally believed that "variety is the spice," but local TV practice has been nay-saying that truism with its increasing preference for the predictable.
This is happening not because our TV people are becoming less creative, but because the intensified ratings war "to the death" between the two top networks now dictates that they match each and every one of their programming gambits with similar, hopefully "neutralizing" formats.
Thus, if a show biz talk show clicks on Network A, Network B feels compelled to quickly whip up its own show biz talk show in pretty much the same timeslot.
As media observer Paul R. Mortel notes: "I think Channels 2 and 7 are not being fair to their viewers because they offer practically the same types of shows: 'EK Channel' competes with 'Star Talk,' 'Nginiig' vs 'Kakabakaba,' 'Star in a Million' against `Pinoy Pop Superstar,' 'CD-Pirated' competes with 'Bitoy's Funniest Videos,' 'Magandang Gabi Bayan' is up against 'Imbestigador,' 'TV Patrol' vs '24 Oras,' 'Victim' against 'Extra Challenge,' 'Maala-ala Mo Kaya' vs 'Magpakailanman,' 'Rated K' competes with 'Mel & Joey'-etc.!
"If they don't end this 'battle royale' of similar shows, they may wake up one day to find out that Channel 5 is already on top of them."
Even if the situation doesn't go that far, this lack of variety is a disservice to viewers, because our TV networks have pledged to give them balanced programming, a promise that has been kept more in the breach than the observance.
The loss of variety also robs viewers of their freedom of choice, which is supposed to be a cherished hallmark of "free" television.
This is reprehensible because, in some instances, both competing shows are worth viewing but, since they're in the same timeslot, viewers can view only one of them in full.
It's time that viewers reassert their right to variety and greater choice in televiewing. We should stop meekly accepting the networks' excessively practical and expedient programming ploys, many of which are made at our expense.
The way some TV people look at viewers, they're faceless numbers on a ratings sheet that can be manipulated every which way just to generate the highest viewership figures to defeat the competition.
We understand the TV medium's commercial component and its major role in the vicious network wars, but we should refuse to be treated like mindless, choiceless pawns.
Viewers should remind our TV people that they're supposed to be making shows for our enjoyment, not just to use us to boost their dreams of video supremacy.
"Kapamilya"? "Kapuso"? Those blithe slogans can only be truly vivified when the networks restore their focus on our viewing preferences, and variety once again becomes the spice of local television.