第三篇

        TV Could Nourish Minds and Hearts



(1)  Despite questions of the motivation behind them, the attacks by the President and the Vice President on the moral content of television entertainment have found an echo in the chambers of the American soul. Many who reject the ______ still accept the message. They do not like the moral tone of American TV. In our society only the human family surpasses television in its capacity to communicate values, provide role models, form con-sciences and motivate human behavior. Few educators, church leaders or politicians possess the moral influence of those who create the nation’s entertainment.



(2)  Every good story will not only captivate its viewers but also give them some insight into what it means to be a human being. By so doing, it can help them grow into the deeply centered, sovereignty free, joyously lov-ing human beings God made them to be. Meaning, freedom and love — the supreme human values. And this is the kind of human enrichment the American viewing public has a right to expect from those who make its en-tertainment.



(3)  It is not a question of entertainment or enrichment. These are complementary concerns and presuppose each other. The story that entertains without enriching is superficial and escapist. The story that enriches with-out entertaining is simply dull. The story that does both is a delight.



(4)  Is that what the American viewing public is getting? Perhaps 10% of prime-time network programming is a happy combination of entertainment and enrichment. I think immediately of dramas like I’ll Fly Away and Life Goes On or comedies like Brooklyn Bridge and The Wonder Years. There used to be television movies rich in human values, but they have now become an endangered species. Sleaze and mayhem`. Murder off the front page. The woman in jeopardy`. Is there too much sex on American TV? Not necessarily. Sex is a beautiful, even holy, part of human life, a unique way for husband and wife to express their love. No doubt there is too much dishonest sex on TV. How often do we see the aching emptiness, the joyless despair that so often follows sex without commitment? And certainly there is too much violence. It desensitizes its viewers to the horrors of ac-tual violence and implies that it is an effective way to resolve conflict. I seldom see the dehumanization that violence produces, not only in its victims, but also in its criminals. And I never see the nonviolent alternative — the way of dialogue and love — explored. Jesus has much to teach us here. So do Gandhi and Martin Lu-ther King. Ninety-four percent of the American people believe in God; 41% go to church on any given Sunday. But you’d never know it by watching American TV. We seldom see TV characters reach for God or fight with Him, despite the theatricality latent in their doing so. Why is that? I find television too much concerned with what people have and too little concerned with who they are, very concerned with taking care of No. 1 and not at all concerned with sharing themselves with other people. All too often it tells us the half truth we want to hear rather than the whole truth we need to hear.



(5)  Why is television not more fully realizing its ______ potential? Is the creative community at fault? Par-tially. But not primarily. I have lived and worked in that community for 32 years, as both priest and producer. As a group, these people are not the sex-crazed egomaniacs of popular legend. Most of them love their spouses, dote on` their children and hunger after God. They have values. In fact, in Hollywood in recent months, audi-ence enrichment has become the in thing. ABC, CBS and NBC have all held workshops on it for their pro-gramming executives. A coalition of media companies has endowed` the Humanitas Prize so that it can recog-nize and celebrate those who accomplish it. And during the school year, an average of 50 writers spend a Satur-day a month in a church basement discussing the best way to accomplish it All before the Vice President’s mis-guided lambasting of Murphy Brown.



(6)  The problem with American TV is not the lack of storytellers of conscience but the commercial system within which they have to operate. Television in the U.S. is a business. In the past, the business side has been balanced by a commitment to public service. But in recent years the fragmentation of the mass audience, huge interest payments and skyrocketing production costs have combined with the FCC’s resignation of its responsi-bility to protect the common good to produce an almost total preoccupation with the bottom line. The networks are struggling to survive. And like most business in that situation, they make only what they feel the public will buy. And that, the statistics seem to indicate, is mindless, heartless, escapist fare. If we are dissatisfied with the moral content of what we are invited to watch, I think we should begin by examining our own consciences. When we tune in, are we ready to plunge into reality, so as to extract its meaning, or are we hoping to escape into a sedated world of illusion? And if church leaders want to elevate the quality of the country’s entertainment, they should forget about boycotts, production codes and censorship`. They should work at educating their peo-ple in media literacy and at mobilizing them to support quality shows in huge numbers.



(7)  That is the only sure way to improve the moral content of America’s entertainment.









【参考译文】电视可以滋养思想与心灵

（作者凯瑟神父是电视节目《洞察》与《罗米洛》的制作人，也是“人道奖”机构负责人）



(1)虽然他们的动机受到质疑，可是总统、副总统对电视娱乐节目的道德内涵所做的攻击，已在美国人灵魂的殿堂中引起回响。许多人对发言者并不认同，可是仍然认同他们的讯息。他们都不喜欢美国电视节目的道德腔调。在我们的社会中，论及传达价值观、提供角色典范、形成良知与启发行为等方面，电视的影响力大概只有家庭能出其右。教育家、宗教领袖或政治领袖当中也很少有人的道德影响力能超过那些创造娱乐节目的人。



(2)凡是好节目，不仅能牢牢抓住观众，也要能启发观众了解做人的意义。这样的节目可以帮助人们成长，成为上帝创造人的本来面目：沉稳、独立自由、充满喜乐与爱。意义、自由与爱——这些就是最高的人性价值。美国观众有权要求娱乐节目的制作者提供这种人性的养料。



(3) 问题不在于娱乐与教化之间的抉择。这两样是互补的，单独都无法成立。只有娱乐而没有教化的故事太肤浅，而且逃避现实。只有教化而没有娱乐的故事就是枯燥乏味。两者兼具的故事会让人惊喜。



(4) 美国观众看到的是这样的故事吗？各大电视网黄金时段的节目大概有10%是娱乐与教化的巧妙结合。我脑中想到的是像这些戏：《我要高飞》、《人生还要继续》，还有一些喜剧，像《布鲁克林大桥》和《奇迹年代》。从前的电视影片有些是富有人性价值的，可是现在都成了稀有品种了。庸俗与暴力、头条新闻的谋杀案、妇女遇险。美国电视是否色情泛滥？也不一定。性是人生中美丽的，甚至神圣的一部分，是夫妇之间示爱的一种独特方式。电视上无疑的有太多不诚实的性。没有精神承诺的性，事后痛苦的空虚、无味的绝望，这方面的描述在电视上见到得太少了。电视上的暴力诚然是太多了。暴力镜头让观众对真实暴力的恐怖产生了麻痹，而且它暗示暴力是解决冲突的有效途径。我很少看到电视节目描写暴力的非人化结果：不只是对受害者，更是对施暴者而言。而且从来看不到探讨非暴力的选择——像是对话与爱。这方面耶稣可以引导我们的地方很多。甘地和马丁"路德" 金博士亦然。美国有94% 的人信仰神，每个礼拜天也有41%的人上教堂，可是看美国电视节目绝对猜不到。我们很少看到电视剧中的人物尝试与神沟通或和神奋斗，虽然这方面的主题有很大的戏剧性潜藏其中。为什么？我觉得电视节目太关切人们拥有的，太不关心人的本质；相当关切人如何照顾自己，完全不关心如何将自我与别人分享。电视往往告诉我们的是我们要听的那一半的真理，而不是我们该听的全部的真理。



(5)  电视为什么不能更完整地实现它促进人性的潜力？是否该归咎于创作电视节目的这圈子？有一部分是的，但不是主要的部分。我在这个圈子生活、工作有32年了，我既是神父也是制作人。这个圈子的人整体来说并不是一般人传说的那种纵欲过度的自大狂。其中大部分都爱配偶、疼小孩、内心渴求上帝。他们是有人生价值的一批人。事实上，这几个月来，好莱坞正在流行如何教化观众。美国、哥伦比亚与国家这三大电视网都举办研讨会，召集节目部主管来谈这个问题。一些媒体公司也集合起来出资损助“人道奖”，以褒扬、奖励达到教化观众目标的节目。本学年中，每个月有一个星期六，平均有50位作家聚集在一个教堂的地下室，讨论如何达成这个目标。这一切都在副总统对《风云女郎》节目的无妄抨击之前。



(6) 美国电视的问题不是在于缺乏有良心的节目工作者，而是在于他们不得不在其中工作的商业体系。美国的电视是一门生意。从前的生意面还有公共服务这方面的承诺来加以平衡。近年来，大众传播的听众群被瓜分、利息支出庞大、制作成本高涨，再加上联邦通讯委员会放弃了维护公益的职责，于是造成电视节目几乎完全以盈亏为依归。各大电视网在挣扎求生。和一般商家处于危机时一样，他们也只愿生产他们认为有人买的东西。而从统计数字上看，观众要的似乎是没有大脑、没有良心、逃避现实的节目。如果我们对电视公司招待我们观赏的节目，不满它的道德内涵，我想我们首先该反省一下自己的内心。我们打开电视，是打算投入现实，以粹取其意义，还是希望逃避到一个加了镇定剂的虚幻世界？如果宗教领袖想要提升美国娱乐的品质，不要再搞抵制、制作准则或电检制度，应该致力于教育人民了解媒体基础知识，并动员他们大批地出来支持高品质的节目。



(7)要改进美国娱乐节目的道德内涵，这是唯一可靠的办法。