p.82
Many television dramatists now write episodes for serials or series more often than they write single plays. They then usually find themselves writing within an established formation of situation and leading characters, in what can be described as a collective but is more often a corporate dramatic enterprise. Certain formulas on which the continuity depends are then the limiting conventions within which they must work. (Williams 1975:60)
[My] concern is to deepen our grasp of ideological structure by moving beyond fiction as something meaningful through purporting to be pictorial representation, to a grasp of narrative as stories which are tellable. In the latter sense ideology is not a distorted report but certain limiting presuppositions on how to report. (Chancy 1979:12)
In the following chapter I view soap storytelling as a corporate activity. I demonstrate how the story creation and selection process is (1) influenced by the perception and measurements of success in reaching the ideal audience with a distinctive appealing product in competition with other programs, (2) concerned with reducing uncertainty about the audience will be entertained--literally held by the story, and (3) designed to minimize the risk of offending viewers who might not only avoid the program, but also bring legal or political pressure to bear. These factors are intertwined with economic considerations important in all cases. The problem for the storytellers is one of creating sellable and tellable tales in the competition for audiences.
It is conventional to think of authorship entailing a creative individual working alone or a few authors working
******
p.83
together in the case of mass media. This reflects the ideology surrounding artistic production and the tendency to focus on individuals and personalize what is a social process. Storytelling easily becomes a linear, chronological process beginning with the storyteller. Soap storytelling can be viewed as not only a collective activity or process (Becker 1974) but also as Williams suggests, a corporate dramatic enterprise. While it may seem strange to think of a corporation telling a story, corporations provide the resources and approve the selection and realization of stories. Guiding Light has been on the air since 1937, and, whereas it was once the property of its creator, Irna Phillips, it is now owned by Procter and Gamble. Writers come and go, but the storytelling continues.
One series of events clearly revealed the corporate character of the creation process. The headwaiter for Guiding Light during the period I carried out my research left the program in September of 1982. He was replaced by the same headwaiter who had replaced him when he left General Hospital, which he had written previously. Writers not only come and go, but they can write stories that compete with each other and from where each leaves off, writing the same Story.
The collective (and corporate) nature of the storytelling is also reflected in the importance of standardized conventions and formulas for the communication process.
While standardization is not highly valued in modern artistic ideologies, it is, in important ways, the essence of all literature. Standard conventions establish a common ground between writers and audiences. Without at least some forms of standardization, artistic communication would not be possible. But well-established conventional structures are particularly essential to the creation of formula literature and reflect the interests of audiences, creators and distributors. (Cawelti 1976:9)
Cawelti notes the importance of shared resources or agreements for any communication process, even though we tend to emphasize uniqueness and originality in discussions of literature and other forms of expressive communication. In soap production, there are many pressures to rely on conventions. On the one hand, they provide a common ground and establish patterns of expectation and response. On the other hand, they are necessary for a rapid production pro-
******
p.84
cess involving many people who quickly and continuously generate a great quantity of material. The conventions, therefore, have a major impact on costs and profit. Conventions refer to social practices that generate a particular structure of images and sounds, as well as to the interpretive strategies or subjective reading of the visual and aura signs. Communicators produce potential forms of experience that the audience makes sense of through its engagement in the process.
Conventions make it possible for a large number of people to progressively realize what are lengthy episodes (scripts). Five days a week, a 75 page script is turned into more than 40 minutes of dramatic performance. I discuss the work process at greater length in the following chapter, but it is important to emphasize the degree to which shared understandings are at work. The headwaiter for Guiding Light prepares a lengthy outline of each episode. The outline is turned into a script, largely through the creation of dialogue by subwriters. Each subwriter works on one script a week. The scripts, which provide minimal instruction, are turned into performances by a large number of performers--between 15 and 30 for an episode--with limited interaction between director, performers, and producer, There is not enough time. Formulas make it possible to turn out enough material rapidly, and they make the production process more economical and thereby potentially increase profits.
On the one hand, the storytelling entails hierarchically organized collective practices. On the other hand, the performances have to be engaging and meaningful to audiences. The corporate, public nature of the storytelling in pursuit of profit shapes the stories that are deemed tellable, as this chapter is designed to explore. The focus is not only on what stories are not tellable, but, in a more positive sense, on how and why the stories that are told take the shape they do.
MAKING A COMPETITIVE PRODUCT
The ultimate consideration in creating and selecting stories is that they garner and keep a sufficiently large and demographically appropriate audience. For Guiding Light the ideal audience was a younger, female audience. The competitive context found Guiding Light pitted against the most successful daytime show, General Hospital, which provided the model to be emulated in the quest for a younger, larger audience. One CBS executive provided a succinct characteri-
******
p.85
zation of the new direction that CBS desired and which to some extent was gradually being realized.
On Guiding Light we've asked for a number of things. Traditionally, it is like most P & G shows which are very talky and very slow moving and very character oriented. We've asked for faster paced shows with a lot more plot, focusing on less stories. It's carrying eight or nine stories now and it's very hard to follow the show. We've asked for less dialogue in the scenes. They are very overwritten. People tend to talk about what they are doing rather than doing anything. We've asked for more humor. By humor I mean funny things. I mean jokes.
One of the strategies adopted to capture a younger audience was to introduce a larger percentage of younger characters. [10] A number of older characters disappeared rather quickly from the show in the fall of 1981. The executive quoted above estimated that in 1978 more than 75 percent of the characters were over 40, whereas more than two-thirds of the characters were under 30 by 1982.
The ages of the characters had clearly changed, but the stories told and how they were told seemed not to have changed enough. The younger characters still acted as older characters traditionally did.
Now the problem is to tell stories that are right for those ages. Now you watch Guiding Light and Morgan acts like she's 40, Kelly is geriatric. That's a real problem. A party scene, Nola walks in and everybody hates Nola. Everybody sits there very quietly and calmly go, "I can't believe she is here." At a real party a 17 year old would have picked up a handful of pretzels and chucked them across the room. . . . That's how a 17 year old acts. They get drunk, have a good time and say what's on their minds. Ours talk in complete sentences, massive paragraphs and are very, very boring.
CBS research also helped shape
the perception of what the program makers thought the (younger)
audience would like and supported the drive to change the formula
of Guiding
******
p.86
Light. The same executive noted
how the research influenced
his approach to the programming.
They [younger viewers] also have a different attitude toward watching television. The older viewer will sit--do her housework, pick up the kids and watch T.V., just for an hour. The younger viewers will say, "Oh, yeah, I turn this on, and yeah, I'll turn that on." They are a much less committed viewer, I think, and you have to do more to grab her.
Given the importance of ratings, and the recent emphasis on upbeat stories, there is also a general tendency to avoid stories which are downers or upsetting to the audience. [11] Stories involving homosexuality, incest (where a brother and sister unknowingly fall in love), wife-beating and child-beating have been told, but they have been used infrequently. All such themes appear to tear too deeply at the fabric of domestic relations. Modleski makes a similar observation. "An issue like homosexuality, which, perhaps, threatens to explode the family structure rather than temporarily disrupt it is simply ignored" (1979 :15) . The exploration of everyday like is constrained by the pursuit of ratings, but also by the dominant ideological emphasis on a romanticized domestic world.
Many factors associated with the look of the show broadly summarized the new direction or changes in the program. Guiding Light had to be made more appealing and engaging by emphasizing and fulfilling audience expectations. A competitive product, Guiding Light was to become a unique product with a distinctive identity. Establishing a look was important for promoting the programming as uniquely filling a need.
M.I.: The concern for the look of the show, is it for the audience to distinguish it from other shows as something different, special, or better?
Producer: So that we are different from other shows, so we do something that says Guiding Light is intrinsically unique. That is like you buy a product . . . [interruption] if a product is marketed to you as a consumer you have to be convinced, and the product is usually created because there is a need for
******
p.87
it, you have to be convinced . . . we have to convince you whether you are an old viewer or new viewer. We have to convince you that we are somehow important to you. We fulfill a need you have--romance, mystery, action--our show has to have an identity, and that identity is--bang--the image that you saw.
Many factors are perceived as potentially important in reaching viewers. The general configuration is a show that is spectacular, glamorous, larger than life, vibrant, and alive but involving characters that people care about.
M.I.: One term you hear is the look of the show. What is it a shorthand of?
Producer: You think of an image, a picture. What is the dominant take-away image you have? It might be our costumes, which we have put a great deal of interest in and emphasis on. It might be our new logo; it might be something as specific as that. The look of the show might be something more amorphous--the contrast between the Reardons and the Bauers, if that is a clear image to you. When you are dealing with the look of the show you are dealing with a specific take away. We want the show to look different. It does look different because our people dress somewhat out of the range of normal. Vanessa is abnormal in her dress, Tony in his dress . . . the costuming is carefully constructed so people match, so that their material is coordinated, so that their clothing when you look at it on the air--that they are designed. The image is that these people are not totally real. They're a heightened reality, and the clothing reflects that. That's the look show that you work for. A young look in fashion, the new logo, the beat, the drive through, quick cut. This is all part of the elements that make us have a young look, attract attention, trying to say to the audience, tune in, this is vibrant and alive. Other elements have to do with the way the characters are viewed; you look at the Reardon family, and what you get is a composite, you take away an image of
******
p.88
caring people. Part of what makes the show what it is this caring dimension. . . . The look is also going out on remote. In that way the show leaps out.
Increased investment in sets and costuming, casting of performers, and changes in the storytelling conventions were all justified by a concern for the look of the show. When a veteran performer left the show, one of the reasons given for the non-renewal of his contract and a recast of his part was that he did not fit the projected look of the show. In: the casting of a major part, a performer who was limited in her acting ability was chosen because she had the right look. The issue of the show's look reflected, I think, a pressure toward a concern for form over content and a view of the audience as consumer of a dramatic presentation. Put differently, a basic consideration was product differentiation, a term usually applied to advertisements designed to convince consumers a particular commodity is unique ant special.
The competition for audiences, and the measurement of how successful a program is in reaching large and demo-; graphically appropriate audiences, affects soap storytelling directly. Stories were written to appeal to younger viewers, but they were structured in such a way that the program ideally garners the younger audience at the beginning of the summer. This helps the ratings, which typically go down in the summer, but they also, again, ideally capture the younger audience and carry the audience into the fall when they return to school. Stories are written involving more of the younger characters, and the stories are designed to peak ate the time students return to school, as a producer stated:
I think all year you try to have something for everybody. Then in the spring, actually maybe before that . . . anytime there is a vacation, when the kids are home from school, I think you push the people you are going to tell summer story with, so they get a glimpse of them. I think we have moved toward that. You have to address the fact that the audience demographics shift in the summer. You are talking of a three or four month change in audience.
Another consideration is the measurement of program success. Ratings, which reflect a national profile of the
******
p.89
audience, are compiled each week. Sweeps, which are important for establishing local ratings and, ultimately, local advertising rates, also occur. Sweeps weeks occur in February, May, July, and November. One producer provided an example of how the ratings measurement period affected the programming.
You just try to bring one of the peaks together of the story at that point. We are in one now. We are throwing in this big Busby Berkeley thing, and we are hoping CBS is going to go overboard giving us promotion. We think it is a different look, something that hasn't been attempted on daytime before. Little gimmicks like that.
The competition for a segment of the audience, the means used to measure success, viewing patterns, and the aim of product differentiation combine to strongly influence the storytelling. These are only a few of the considerations affecting the decision making.
REDUCING UNCERTAINTY
One characteristic of the production process is the development of strategies to reduce uncertainty.
The task of those who produce commercial television is, of course, to generate programming which can hold an audience for advertisers hour after hour, day after day, week after week. This is no easy task, due first to the difficulty of predicting the behavior of both the viewing public and competitors and, second, to the relatively non-routine nature of the production process itself. (Pekurny 1982:131)
As a number of people have noted, a basic characteristic of production for large mass markets is the uncertainty of whether what is produced will be purchased (McQuail 1969; Hirsch 1972; Elliott 1979; Pekurny 1982). In Elliott's words, uncertainty "is particularly characteristic of cultural production because there is no way of knowing which creative item will appeal to the audience and which, if selected for production and distribution, will be the greatest economic success" (1979:160).
******
p.90
The commercial and competitive nature of television broadcasting and the high costs, as well as the potential or actual large rewards, make the risks in creating television fare considerable. This is the case because, despite past or present patterns of program acceptance, it is impossible to know in advance what viewers will accept (Gans 1980:71). As a result, communicators making soap operas, like others who produce fare for the public, tend to develop and rely on strategies to reduce uncertainty. Some of the strategies are embodied in work routines and occupational and professional ideologies (McQuail 1969; Tuchman 1969; Elliott 1979; Murdock and Halloran 1979), which come to play an important role in program making. But despite the strategies, the choices remain problematic and pressing. Changes in the competitive context, changes in technology, changes in degree of market control and success, and changes in the patterns of audience taste and choices combine to create a situation fraught with uncertainty.
A number of techniques or strategies are used to reduce uncertainty. One major strategy, common for virtually all types of entertainment, is to rely on people, whether producers, writers, or actors, who have a proven track record. The use of big-name stars is one way Hollywood film or prime-time television has employed this strategy. With soaps, however, a star system recently gradually developed, although it appeared unlikely that daytime status could automatically turn into prime-time or film success and status. The pattern of relying on popular soap performers, however, was illustrated by the luring of an actor from one soap to another competing one (from General Hospital to Texas), with hopes of luring the audience away also. The effect was minimal, apparently. Stars from other media recently were used for "cameo" appearances to attract viewers. Elizabeth Taylor, for example, appeared on General Hospital, and Guiding Light made use of contemporary singers and groups such as Judy Collins and the B-52's.
Many performers were hired who had appeared on other soaps. For example, out of 32 contract players on Guiding Light in March 1982, 15 had previous work experience on soaps and 15 were new to soaps. Most of the new performers were young and reflected the new emphasis on younger characters. Two other performers had appeared only on Guiding Light--one for 31 years, the other for ten years. The dependence on familiar performers was reflected in the choice to fill the role of Doctor Ed Bauer when the part was recast. An actor was chosen who had appeared on two other Procter and Gamble shows. One producer commented on the ten-
******
p.91
dency to hire familiar performers, and at the same time, illustrated the role of a look for the programming.
Producer: Ideally, you try to go for new faces.
M.I.: But it seems to get weighted for the known quantities because you see them all the time.
p: Yes, but only because you know what you are buying. With a Jennifer Cook you do know what you are buying. She looks right. We hope she'll improve over the audition, so we go with that.
The writer for Guiding Light similarly had a good deal of experience. He was once a performer on soaps and had written for three other shows before coming to Guiding Light. He had helped General Hospital in its rise to success, writing for younger characters. As with performers, writers often moved from soap to soap. [l2] This was true, even if the program that particular writer was associated with was not very successful. To some degree, this reflects the limited number of well-known and experienced writers of soaps. Elliott's observation that "media culture is the product of a continual interchange of people and products between the various cultural production and media systems" (1979:161) is supported by the movement of people from one soap to another, their promotion through magazines and talk shows, and projected television series on soaps. [13]
Another major strategy to reduce uncertainty is for communicators to rely upon what they perceive as successful formulas. This may mean repeating what they feel has led to success in the past and/or copying what they see as leading to the success of a competing program. Repetition and imitation result.
[Formulas] help the industry cope with the problem of generating new material much as the use of track records do--what has worked in the past may work again. (Pekurny 1982: 139)
At times a ritualism can result as a means of reducing uncertainty. One writer I spoke with gave an example of the tendency of network executives to resort to ritualism.
******
p.92
Gloria Monty on General Hospital had started a system called the 49 steps, and it was simply 1, 2, the whole plot. Now we have to have 49 steps through which the story moves. . . . It's all security. . . . They have them so they can see where the show is going to be on June 18. . . . They pay you so much. You can respect the sincerity with which they attack their jobs.
A CBS executive noted a similar tendency when he explained the decline in the popularity of the Procter and Gamble soaps. He noted that many of the people responsible for the successful ABC shows had formerly worked for Procter and Gamble.
Somewhere along the line those key creative people left. What people imitated was the style and not the substance. Sometimes you look at a show and try to figure out why it is great and you say, "OK, there is a guy with curly hair and they make a lot of jokes." All of a sudden you see a lot of guys with curly hair, or couples, and they make a lot of jokes. And that is not what the show is about.
A number of strategies were combined in the introduction of one program by Procter and Gamble. Texas was developed as a spin-off of Another World and scheduled immediately after that program. The aim was to capitalize on audience identification with characters on Another World, and, in effect, keep the audience by using an already familiar set of characters and through scheduling the new program after the familiar one. The program attempted to imitate the successful prime-time melodrama, Dallas, and also stole a performer from General Hospital, which aired at the same time as Texas, hoping to attract some of the fans of the performer.
Past experience, an internalized sense of what works, is also important.
It isn't just focus (audience research) groups, it's past experience. We know we are on solid ground, we are not going to offend anyone if we tell a truly romantic love story. The letters constantly harp back on Alan and Hope, when they went down on the plane and had the island (to themselves). We
******
p.93
knew that was going to work. You can't go wrong.They are two people who can't stand each other, (we) force them to be together on a deserted island and watch their coming together . . . they can't miss.That kind of thing we are sure of. We try to do that kind of thing again and again with variations, throw in different kinds of complications . . . that's a known and we are on solid ground when we do that.With Kelly and Morgan, we did it another way--their coming together and having Nola in there to be the monkey wrench in the works. But finally they come together. Now we have to invent ways to bring them apart.
The same producer also indicated that a basic challenge of soap storytelling was finding new ways to tell the same story, with enough variation and novelty to keep the audience. Interestingly, many people working on soap opera production recognize the limited and repetitive nature of the storytelling. One of their justifications for what they do is that "there are only seven basic plots" although when asked to identify them they could not do so.
Research is also used to reduce uncertainty. Focus research entails observing a group of typical female audience members discussing their views, values, and other concerns in relation to the storylines and characters on various soaps. A discussion leader elicits opinions on a wide range of subjects while the interaction is watched, with the knowledge of those observed, through a one-way mirror. Viewers of other shows, in addition to Guiding Light, are observed and interviewed to determine their likes and dislikes. There are limits to the usefulness of focus research, as noted by a producer.
In the first place, you are dealing with women familiar with our shows. When you find some of our opinions echoed in their voices you tend to think all is right with the world. We have to remind ourselves that there may be eight or ten or twelve women sitting around a table talking and the information is as valuable as the number of people that day.
******
p.94
One writer of an ABC soap I interviewed particularly emphasized the importance of audience research to network executives.
We get incredible, unreadable ten page things. . . . We have groups of women in about every three months. One group will meet who watch the show. Another group will meet who don't like it. Another group is the other soaps they like. We get full reports from that. It's interesting, but that's it. They drag them out of supermarkets on Long Island, drag them in for a luncheon and to talk. People love to respond. They are desperately honest, but it is a small thing. It mostly seems to give the network executives satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. They want every kind of research they can have. The audience is so enormous. The rules are constantly changing. . . .The networks seem to feel the next step will reveal the great mystical secret and no one will ever have to do anything again. [Emphasis mine]
The problems of sampling and representativeness and necessarily affect just how helpful the research is. While much research confirms what producers already believe, it can provide the justification for change. One of the ways focus groups were particularly important to Procter and Gamble was in finding out how women would respond to younger characters and storylines and controversial stories. But however extensive the research, it still cannot predict or guarantee success and is ultimately limited in its usefulness. Herbert Gans makes the point well:
[Much] media research seems geared to certifying audience support for the familiar and thus fails the need of content suppliers who want an answer to an admittedly difficult question: What will the audience accept next time? (1980:71)
Ultimately, past experience and research cannot answer the question of what will work next time. One producer summarized the problematic nature and challenge of the decision making.
******
p.95
All of these things will tell you what has worked, but I have seen the show's stories that have been repeated on the premise they worked once so let's do it again. Bringing back Roger Thorpe was a good example. He was killed once. Suddenly, bingo, here he comes back again. That particular one worked. . . . I'm trying to think of another character that was killed off and brought back again. On As the World Turns it didn't work. Why not? The same story, the same actor, same writer, the same show with the same people and the same audience watching it. Why didn't it generate better [ratings]? . . Because it rained Tuesday. Who knows? That's what makes the job so interesting, dramatic. It's a non-quantifiable sort of thing.
As I noted, what is perceived as contributing to programming success leads to the creation of a formula or set of storytelling conventions. In the case of soaps, the formula has also entailed telling realistic stories, dealing with everyday life, set in the present, concerned with topical contemporary issues. A fundamental tenet is that characters must be believable so that viewers can care about them.
The aim of having the audience take the program as real life involving real people was reflected in a number of practices that were only changed recently. In the past, Procter and Gamble avoided having performers appear out of character and avoided using a crawl (the moving credits at the end of a program) since both might lead viewers to distance themselves from the show and see the show as a show and not as real life. One performer, who had been on Guiding Light for more than 12 years, commented on his experiences on doing publicity in the past.
There was a time when I first came on the show, for example, that Procter and Gamble in general, and the networks in general, were afraid that if their actor playing a given role were publicized in the print media, specials on television, interviews, whatever, it would take away from the audience's identification with the character. Absolutely, no doubt about it.
******
p.96
I'll give you a perfect example. Only four or five years ago I did a star weekend thing in Atlanta for CBS with all the nighttime stars for CBS shows and as it turned out, only two daytime stars went down to Atlanta to be available to the local affiliates from all over the country. [The actors] would say things by way of the promotions so each local affiliate would have a promo where the actor would give the call letters of the local station. The copy, none of which was checked with the actors, would read--only in the case of daytime--"Hi, this is Ed Bauer inviting you to watch Guiding Light. . . .However, George Kennedy, who was doing a nighttime detective show would say, "Hi, this is George Kennedy. . . .I finally said, "I'm not going to do the promo that way. I'm going to say, 'Hi, I'm Mart Hulawit and I play Ed Bauer on Guiding Light. . . . "' They said, "But nobody knows who you are." I said, "I do." "Yes, but they don't care about who you are, they care about the character you play. . . . " I finally told a lady from an affiliate, "Look, if Yul Brynner were doing a promo for his show, The King and I, would you say it made sense for him to say, 'I'm the King of Siam?"' Then she began to get an inkling of what I meant.
He credited his action with contributing to the adoption of a policy whereby daytime actors would identify themselves as actors. This performer felt that the producers gradually abandoned a position that "the character identification would be diminished by knowing that it was an actor playing a role. . . . "
The aim of having the audience take the performers as real people and the show as real life is also reflected in the remarks of one producer about the recently changed practice .
P & G used to feel very strongly about that. They downgraded the performers. They didn't want people to use the performer's name. They used to feel very strongly about that. They were saying to the audience, "These are real people in real life situations and we
******
p.97
want them to know them (the actors) as their characters." They used to resent the crawl, because they had to do the crawl . . . that was tending to remind the audience that this is only a show. . . . That is all changing now.
The fear of losing the audience by undercutting the purported realism helps to account for another traditional characteristic of soaps, their lack of humor. Writing humor is difficult; problems of continuity may arise; the dialogue for individual episodes may be written by different writers; and actors vary in their ability to handle humor. But humor also may threaten the hold of the drama. As one producer noted, the past formula of soaps filled with 'minute incidents of great calamity was now changing. What conventionally was designed to create such an atmosphere might have lost its salience if humor rendered the dilemmas and world, in general, less threatening.
A related consideration is that the performances articulate with reality, particularly contemporary reality. Persuasiveness, the authority of a construction, is linked to the sense that this is the way the world is now. Contemporaneity contributes to the dramatic power of performances.
Programming tends to adopt or use stories that articulate with what viewers have learned is current in society (which partially derives from other dramatic programming). Rape as an issue had been recently widely discussed in the news and, in turn, was used for dramatic interest and topicality on not only Guiding Light but other soaps. News often resonates with drama as they both partake of or contribute to contemporary "reality trends.'']
At times, the relationship between fictional presentations and real world occurrences can be quite complex. One of the risks is that in art copying life in pursuit of contemporary themes, coincidences might make a story untellable. At Edge of Night a story about a manipulative, exploitative cult leader of a group of younger people was being told when the Jonestown tragedy occurred. Over 900 people who were followers of the cult leader, Jim Jones, committed suicide or were killed. According to the head writer for Edge of Night:
It was sheer coincidence, but in a way it wasn't a coincidence in that you always look for contemporary stories about contemporary social phenomena involving young people. . . .
******
p.98
When the story broke it would appear to some people--so the network thought--that we were trying to take advantage of the situation, trying to make capital out of a tragedy. It was nothing of the kind. The story had started months before, and I had never heard of Jim Jones. Nevertheless, we had to truncate the story. We cut if off very, very quickly. [Emphasis mine]
The network was most concerned. Some people in the audience thought we shouldn't be doing this at this time. There was some ill feeling toward the story. We do have flexibility--we exercised that flexibility by making the story shorter.
Understandably, one of the constraints on how quickly the story could be killed was the amount of programming already taped. Changes can be made more quickly and at less cost if material is not taped too far ahead of its air date. Not taping far in advance has another advantage. interesting, fortuitous, real-life events can be written into the show, thus exploiting the vent's newsworthiness. Topics that might otherwise be considered too risky thus acquire legitimacy, by virtue of the original event as precedent, and contribute to the sense of realism as the fictionalized event and the actual event are linked.
An example of art copying life occurred in a story in which a woman sued her husband for rape. National news had recently reported a case in Oregon where a woman had sued her husband for rape, and the story was seen as tellable given the history of the program characters. Given past character development, a husband's rape of his wife was motivated as was her lawsuit. It is doubtful the story would have taken that course if the national news had not carried the Oregon rape trial story.
The tension between, on the one hand, being seen as exploitative or, on the other, as topical and contemporary is probably minimal. However, I think the dynamic is important. How and why occurrences are chosen and built into performances would provide greater insight into how society as source works its way into storytelling and performance. I would assume that much of the awareness of the people involved in story creation and selection would come from the media, so their experience of the media culture would influence their work. Using Tuchman's perspective that news involves the use of occurrences to construct news, so soaps and other fictional fare make use of occurrences that are
******
p.99
part of the public arena constructed by news. News imparts to occurrences their public character as it transforms mere happenings into publicly discussible events (Tuchman 1979:3)- A private event such as a woman bringing rape charges against her husband is transformed into a public event and becomes part of the resources of people in society exposed to such accounts.
Another factor that contributes to the believability and authority (realism) of the presentations is technical accuracy and the use of experts. Elliott suggests that one of the ways fictional programming, particularly a realistic series, would tend to keep creative imagination within realistic bounds would be through the use of advisors:
The term realistic series is intended to include programs based on known communities or occupations. Such series are often equipped with an expert advisor whose task is to keep creative imagination within realistic bounds. Moreover, the community or occupation concerned is likely to take an interest in how it is portrayed in the programs. Its success in influencing the production personnel and the television organizations will depend on a variety of factors such as the strength of any representative organizations and the social standing of the group concerned. (Elliott 1972:157)
The most striking example of the importance of the advisory process at Guiding Light is the reliance upon outside technical experts, chiefly doctors, lawyers, and psychiatrists. For instance, the writer dealt with the theme of alcoholism among teenagers and consulted a major organization concerned with the prevention and treatment of alcoholism. The production organization also has a number of experts it consults, again primarily in medicine and law. Advisors were consulted for the depiction of the medical treatment of two people injured in a car crash and for courtroom trial scenes. Accuracy in verifiable details plays a part in making the programming appear realistic and believable. At the same time, the presentations need to be dramatic, so compromise occurs in the form of dramatic license.
But some matters are too important to forego expert consultation. In technical matters regarding powerful occupations and legitimated routines, a greater concern for accuracy in the depiction of the technical work activities
******
p.100
of doctors and lawyers, while characterizing their social relationships on the job and off in extremely romantic or idealized fashion. Again, the technical is handled carefully, while the social is shaped to the symbolic world.
The reliance on consultants contributes to story creation and legitimacy. Accuracy helps make stories believable and lends them an air of authority, and it minimizes the errors and the risks involved in dealing with serious issues and powerful professions. There are also built-in procedures for dealing with accountability, a topic discussed later in this chapter.
Making a character's actions believable also entails considering the audience's past experiences of the program. The communicators must consider how the audience perceives, or how they think the audience perceives, particular characters and what they know or remember of past story. A major constraint is this historicity. The dilemma for soap producers is the potential conflict between new and exciting story versus past character history as the embodiment of past story. Changes in character to fit story direction are ideally made very carefully.
The question of audience identification with character is discussed anytime that you bring in a new character or anytime that you are using a character in an unforetold way. For example, were we to take a Vanessa and turn her into a romantic lead, the immediate question, although put in very simplistic terms, is "Will the audience buy it?" Will the audience believe that the character can turn in such a way. And the answer is always, it depends on how you do it, and yes, they will probably believe it if it is done in a manner
that is acceptable. The first premise is that it is gradual and that it is well motivated. . . .
If we tried [to turn Vanessa into a romantic lead], it would take a long period of time, it would have to be very well motivated, and there would have to be several serious incidents which would lead us toward having sympathy with the character, making the character human. I hate to use the word, making the character believable, but that's what it all comes down to. What can happen to the character to undergo the metamorphosis to a new person.
******
p. 101
The continuing demand for a dramatically engaging novel story is often discussed in terms of the conflict between plot and character. The traditional emphasis on character in Procter and Gamble soaps is largely credited for past programming successes. The importance of a character as someone the audience can care about, find believable, and/or can identify with is cited as an explanation of the appeals of soaps but also as a characteristic that distinguishes daytime programming from nighttime (prime-time) offerings. Soaps are viewed as superior by people working in or viewing daytime television because they emphasize character over plot, although if a soap plot is compressed, plots are clearly incredible. But plot has traditionally been associated with prime-time television because of the emphasis on action, sex, and violence in such programming. "Formula" often used pejoratively by people working in term connotes an artificial structure created an audience.
Again, the changing competitive context emphasis. A question about the importance of characters people care about prompted a producer's response that reflected changing perceptions and approaches.
M.I.: Would you say that in daytime, characters that people care about is a basic ingredient?
Producer: Yes, it is the basic ingredient. I think that the General Hospital phenomena has changed that to some degree; plot is more important now than it used to be. If you don't have a strong plot your audience will rebel. The character relationships are the most important. The old style soap, I say that in the context of pre-General Hospital Luke and Laura--that concentrated development through "minute incidents of great calamity" --everything was important to them, I think, everything is overblown. My perception of General Hospital right now is that things are not that terrible, life goes on, they have a different fix on what is and is not important to the individual as he marches through Port Charles or wherever. The fix that says everything is important, dwells more on character development and the interpersonal relationship. Most of our shows tend to do that. One Life To Live, All My Children, General Hospi-
******
p. 102
tal, tend to be playing around in a pleasant manner with plot.
The considerations identified so far are related to the dominant concerns of entertainment and competition. The perceptions of the audience, the measurement of success, targeted audience, perceptions of past and present successes, and the strategies to reduce uncertainty and produce enough material quickly and cheaply enough are all involved. However, there are other important factors if the audience is viewed as a politicized being.
MINIMIZING RISK
Viewers can bring pressure to bear on program makers when they are offended by the programming or consider it harmful. Organizations such as Action for Children's Television and the Gray Panthers represent groups that initiate legal actions and prompt congressional or legislative action. Audience concerns can also be registered through actual or threatened boycotts, thereby directly affecting profits. But the economic strategy follows from the offense or perceived threat the programming creates. From this perspective the dilemma for the communicator is one of telling tellable tales that minimize risk.
Organizational vulnerabilities are important for understanding risk avoidance. Procter and Gamble has worked to create and maintain a corporate image as a maker of wholesome and helpful products for the home. Their continued production of soap operas has meant control over the environment in which their commercials are placed. A corporate ethos has influenced the process of production and affected what stories have been considered tellable. Procter and Gamble is clearly identified or associated with soap programming and is very careful not to offend viewers with the programming it sponsors (and produces).
The tendency for Procter and Gamble soaps to shy away from socially conscious topics was reflected in a statement by a writer who had been interviewed by Procter and Gamble.
I had a meeting with P & G about five years ago. One of the things they wanted to know was if I would insist on doing what they called "Agnes Nixon stories." I said what are they? They said, "They are stories about these troubled times and using socially conscious themes. We don't like messages in our shows."
******
p. 103
Interestingly, it was Agnes Nixon's writing and supervision that contributed greatly to the rise to prominence of the ABC soaps. She was associated with the success of both All My Children and One Life To Live on ABC
Another vulnerability concerns the nature of the products Procter and Gamble manufactures and markets.
Food and drug companies dependent on constant and rapid flow of products via supermarket shelves, have generally been most afraid of antagonizing anyone; the thought of protests or boycotts has easily terrified them--as in the blacklist period. Their fears translate themselves into policy timidity, along with stress on ratings and demographics. Thus, Procter and Gamble, in a memorandum on broadcast policies, decreed: "There will be no material that may give offense, either directly or by inference, to any commercial organization of any sort." (Barnouw 1979:112)
One indication of this vulnerability was the early reaction of Procter and Gamble to the warnings of the Moral Majority that they were considering a product boycott. The chairman of the board of the company delivered a statement that Procter and Gamble was withdrawing or avoiding sponsorship from 50 prime-time programs because of excessive violence. There was, however, no mention of daytime programming.
CBS's organizational concerns are also significant. They want to avoid concentrated criticism of their programming and do not want to lose any affiliates. Pressure on local level distributors (stations) can be transmitted back to the network. Also, CBS has attempted to maintain a corporate image as a broadcaster of tasteful entertainment and quality programming.
One editor at CBS's Program Practices, which monitors program content, related her role to these corporate concerns. She stated that editors "must have a feel for company policy," have an idea of the image the company wants to project, have an overall picture of what the picture of CBS should be, and know where the line is drawn of what is acceptable and in good taste.
One institutionalized process for minimizing risks entails the use of censors or editors. Censorship has to do with the network's conscious monitoring and control over program content. At the CBS Television Network, Program Practices is responsible for the "standards of material
******
p. 104
broadcast"; at ABC it is the Department of Broadcast Standards and Practices. The practices of Program Practices itself, ironically, clearly reveal the factors influencing programming.
At CBS there were two editors, and now one, assigned to Guiding Light from Program Practices. One editor is assigned to Edge of Night at ABC. Story projections, and the breakdowns that are used as the basis of specific episodes, are read by the editor at ABC who conveys her concerns to the Programming Department. At CBS it appears that the long-term story is not monitored in the same way, although the producer of the show may offer advice about issues, scenes, and language that might be controversial. At times, the editors perceive that there may be something sensitive in the future "from where the story is going." In both cases, the editors receive a copy of the script the week before taping, about one week before the program will be aired. The scripts alert the editors to issues they may discuss with the producer, and on occasion they will request that changes be made. Also, the scripts are used to pin-point scenes, issues, and language whose acceptability will depend on how they are performed and shot. At CBS, Program Practices could monitor the rehearsals and taping from their offices since they had a direct feed from the taping studio. The ABC editor submitted a written statement approving the script or indicated changes
that had to be made. She would also view the dress rehearsal or final taping of the show. In both cases, if there was a need, tapes of the programs were available for viewing.
The relationship between the departments and programs was such that at both Guiding Light and Edge of Night, people in the control room or studio wondered aloud what specific editors would do about a particular scene or bit of language. "I wonder what -- would think" at Edge of Night, or "I wonder if -- is watching" at Guiding Light. In fact, one producer of Guiding Light would often ask the technical director to have the monitors that fed into the control room "go black" to avoid disruptive calls. They were concerned that what was seen during rehearsal or in preparation for the rehearsal of scenes would be taken as the ultimate performance. They could avoid annoying phone calls by turning off the monitors.
People at both production companies felt different standards were applied to daytime and prime-time programming. They felt decisions were arbitrary and difficult to predict. Most of these complaints came from people directly involved in the production process, often in the control room. One producer complained that "nothing was written on
******
p. 105
paper and that you are at the mercy of the person." Program Practices, however, does not see the decisions as arbitrary. At the network level they are concerned with purported different audiences watching programs at different times of the day. What seems arbitrary at the production level, where the show is made, does not seem arbitrary at the network level.
At times the joking about the rules took the form of wondering aloud about what the current rules were. For example, in one lunchtime discussion at Guiding Light it was decided a current rule was the program was allowed to show a couple in bed after sex without straps on the woman only if they were married. Another rule was that you could not lead up to a couple having intercourse, but you could come out of a scene that implied intercourse. One scene that was allowed, for example, involved Floyd and Nola. Nola was seducing Floyd so that she would become pregnant and then contend Kelly made her pregnant and force him to marry her. The scene was allowed since (l) when she started to undress she had a blouse on under her coat, (2) when she was in bed after intercourse she had a shirt on, and (3) it was "shot tight" (only the tops of her shoulders and head were shown) as she dressed and, although no straps were evident, she was away from the bed.
At times there was amusement and amazement as well as frustration expressed. One example of Program Practices' intervention at Guiding Light was cited by production personnel as representative of the editor "seeing something that wasn't there." In one scene in which Amanda is in bed thinking about Ben's attractiveness to her, Program Practices insisted both of Amanda's hands be on top of the bed covers.
Both departments are concerned with the efficacy of "standards of material broadcast" in identifying and resolving potential problems. The list of rewards and negative sanctions regarding content and presentation is considerable, although understandable given the number of constituents or audiences involved. These sanctions and rewards must take into account legal, regulatory, or self-regulatory codes; potential or actual Congressional, pressure group, and audience actions; and concerns and demands of sponsors, producers, and affiliates. Ultimately, all have an impact on corporate image and financial well-being.
Since soap programming is fictional, the production organization is freed from some of the considerations that apply to news programming. But at the same time, the programming has to be realistic to create a sense that the presentation is a picture of society as it really is or as it
******
p. 106
really works. People are not supposed to use the programming as they potentially might a news report, yet the programming must be persuasive. Accuracy or correspondence to previous experience, particularly mediated experience, contributes to persuasiveness as a reflection of how things really are.
However, ambiguity or tension is inherent in the communication process since a fictional presentation can potentially be used as a basis for acting or justifying behavior in the real world. Something viewed on a program might be copied and carried out in real life. One example, cited by an editor at CBS, involved a fictional incident of a girl raped with a broom on a program broadcast by NBC. A similar act was carried out in real life, and part of the defense was that the defendants had seen the incident on television and it had influenced their behavior.
Even though the program is a fiction, the social basis of experience and communication requires the use of recognizable or correlative groups and activities. Viewers and organizations take fictional programming seriously, even if the program is a cartoon. Politicized viewers, for example, might consider the characterizations of the relationships between males and females in a cartoon as stereotyped, negative, and harmful. As a result, even a fictional presentation can be held accountable for social behavior and conditions; thus, there are practices that are motivated by a concern to avoid problems that might arise. The recognition (1) that by presenting a certain view of society, people may be made aware of behavior they had never considered before and (2) that some members of society might consider certain images of behavior and language objectionable constrains communicators to tell less risky stories because the audience might view the programming as concrete evidence of the communicator's point of view. What is a neutral presentation to the communicator can be viewed as advocacy by the viewer. Put differently, all realities must be persuasive and read for their intentions and purposes and assessed for potential consequences.
We are much more censored than we were then. For example, we cannot have someone go to a fortune teller. And we can't even have in a scene someone look at the other person's palm and say, "That's your lifeline." Our censors will take that out. They don't want the audience to think that we are advocating anything. [Emphasis mine]
******
p. 107
The problematic nature of avoiding risk is compounded because the programming is received by a large, heterogeneous, changing audience. The public character of the communication process, the complexity and ambiguity inherent in the interpretive process as meaning is inferred, the shifting politicization and varying attention of the audience, and the potential conflict of fictional stories versus nonfictional real world events all affect storytelling.
One of the risks is inaccuracy. This is also one of the reasons experts are consulted.
I remember once on As the World Turns we did a complete about-face because of the letters. We call it the Elaine Super Story because her name was Elaine Super. Irna Phillips went to her doctor and said she wanted to find an illness that a character could have that people would care about. She was going to kill the character off. This doctor she talked to came up with lupus. And so we played it on the air. When Bob Hughes was told his girlfriend has lupus, he said, "Oh, my God, no"' We played it that she was practically dead. Well, the phones lit up. The National Lupus Society mail came in. It seems there are many, many forms of lupus. You can live with lupus all your life.I remember one letter specifically that we got from a woman who said she hadn't heard from her daughter in England for some time. The day before she had just gotten a letter from her daughter in England saying, "Mother, I was in the hospital, but don't worry. I'm fine now. I had lupus and it's all going to be fine"' The letter from the mother said, "Do I jump on the next plane to London now that I know my daughter's going to die?" We just turned around fast and had her live. We allowed the writer to do the research instead of checking on it ourselves.
A good example of risk as an organizational concern involved a scene in an episode of Guiding Light. The CBS Program Practices unit objected to the making of a match bomb in an episode. They were worried that a viewer might make a bomb following the detailed description and visualization of the process in the episode. In this context, too much accuracy might be potentially dangerous.
******
p. 108
Risk is also minimized by avoiding mention of specific diseases or miraculous cures. Typically such a concern would be voiced at a story conference.
You have to be aware of your responsibility to the audience in terms of people who are handicapped, who have diseases which could be terminal, you are better off portraying things in general or generic terms rather than specifics. For your story reasons you decide one of your characters is going to die because of a particular disease, generalize the disease. It is a rare blood disease as opposed to leukemia, a disease of the central nervous system as opposed to cerebral palsy. . . . The idea is not to take hope away from someone who may have the disease. By the same token, if you want to save a particular individual or character from the throes of death because of some miraculous turnabout, you don't want to offer false hope among the audience who have that particular ailment. The writers may want to name specific diseases.
Accuracy also pertained to legal issues.
If you are going to get into various areas of law you better have documentation to back it up. Specifically, what is the latest ruling on a current kidnapping, or a parent kidnapping? "Snatching" is the technical term for his own child. Up until recently there were only six states that had reciprocal custody laws. I understand that it has broadened, but that is the kind of thing you have to get into if you are going to do a story along those lines. People watch these things, and there you do have a responsibility because there they are learning. If you are dealing with information you are dispersing to them as being true, they are going to believe you. You have a responsibility to make sure the information is true, is accurate.
Characterizations of disease and legal procedures--areas that are technical and reflect valued occupations and institutions --are usually carefully checked. Producers rely on accuracy
******
p. 109
and generalization to avoid legal problems. Such concerns would be checked at story conferences so that changes would not have to be made later in the production process. By catching potential problems early, production costs are lowered. The differences of opinion over the match bomb episode is an example of how misunderstandings occurred even when there had been communication between Program Practices and the production team. Corrections had to be made through editing the scene. [15]
Another risk in storytelling is potential audience reaction if they feel that immoral behavior has been condoned. Retribution for immoral acts, with evildoers punished, is one way in which the potential negative reaction can be minimized. Some of the elements that go into story creation and storytelling are apparent in this statement by the headwaiter. He is referring to the sexual involvement of Kelly and Morgan, who fall in love and have sex even though Morgan is seventeen and they are not married.
About censorship. Sometimes I'll argue violently against. We had a big problem last year with the first Morgan-Kelly sex scene. They certainly got very uptight and weren't going to let it happen. Codes and Practices got very strict and said they were not going to let them go to bed together. There is a year and a half story down the drain.Their feeling was that, since my projection had them marry a year and so many months later, wasn't I really saying to teenage girls--17- or 18-year-old girls--that if you have sex with this boy it means a happy ending? They marry a year from now. I said, No, that's not what I am saying at all. There is a lot of interim story where she suffers a great deal. What I'm telling is that you can be physically ready for sex at a lot of ages but are you ready for it emotionally, for the responsibilities that go along with a sexual relationship? I said the moral of the story was she was not. She is going to go through a lot--she is not going to marry Kelly a year from now because she had sex with him this year. That's not the story. To me, I said, there is a moral point of view and a very good lesson for a lot of teenagers.They need to know that along with physical satisfaction goes an
emotional responsibility and you have to be ready for it.
******
p. 110
M.I.: They think you are really teaching the world out there.
Headwriter: I said, if I'm teaching anything, yes, she can be in love with him, physically ready, but is she emotionally ready, is she mature enough? They said, if she gets pregnant we'll let you tell the story. I said I don't want to tell that story; it's an old boring story. That's not the story I want to tell. This is 1980 for Christ's sake.
M.I.: It's true. Everytime somebody has sex they get pregnant.
HW: Right. And not only that, it's such a chauvinist attitude. Why can the boy walk away from it and the girl pay. Why must the girl be paying for it. And the boy can walk away free. I stuck to my guns, and the head of programming for CBS was totally behind me, and we fought and won.
M.I.: Is there a conscious concern that there be retribution?
Oh, yes and much of it is dated, I think. And they are not people who watch the show every day. They are people who suddenly tune in because they got flagged on a certain incident, who can't possibly know what led up to it. They pick a story point, they pick the one point a year and a half later when they are going to get married and ignore everything in between that happens to these two people.
A complementary statement by a producer notes the role of Program Practices in story creation. Kelly and Morgan's affair has painful consequences, although pregnancy is not part of the punishment. The nature and degree of suffering does not fall equally upon both participants in the sexual relationship, nor is sex in or out of wedlock treated equally.
We were aware of the law that in some states there is a statutory rape. Also we were aware
******
p. 111
of our social obligation as pointed up by Program Practices in terms of we mustn't portray teenage promiscuity as totally rewarding, not without fault, not without problems and complications. The one major problem we were agreed upon was that many times, although physically capable of enjoying a sexual act, a 17-year-old girl may be emotionally immature and not understand what the responsibilities are. We have tried to portray Morgan as a child-woman.
There was some talk about Morgan becoming pregnant. I must say that the writer fought that. It was not the story we wanted to tell. He did not want to go back to the old Victorian ethic that if you do something morally wrong in the Moral Majority's eyes, "God's gonna get you for it." Because the kids of today know that that isn't necessarily true. It could happen, but it doesn't always happen. Because of that we wanted to deal within a more broadened scope of the responsibilities two people have toward each other.
We have to look at it from the standpoint, what has this girl been through since she slept with Kelly. Number one, she ran away to Chicago, was picked up by a pimp, almost sold into bondage and rescued by her one love, Kelly. She returned home to find out he had a liaison with another woman, as told to her by one whom she thought was her best friend. She ran away to Chicago again, went back again, with painful memories and was spotted by these desperadoes, one of whom was in prison, and she was almost killed once again. Only then to come back to Springfield to the safety of home to be kidnapped, raped, beaten, and almost burnt by this desperado. So if you want to talk about outside influences if you will, she has had it both ways. She suffered both the emotional stigma and gone through and tried to learn from it. Kelly in a roundabout way has never suffered from any physical stigmata. We have gone bask to the Victorian ethic--the scarlet letter.
******
p. 112
The issue of balance in fictional storytelling is sought by using the same strategy employed in news reporting. Both sides of the story are told. One member of Program Practices made the link between network organizational concern and programming explicit.
We haven't gotten into problems with Guiding Light. A woman could make an argument that was pro-abortion saying it was her baby. Our concern would be not to make CBS sound as if they are for abortion. We have to balance the portrayal.
A producer expressed the same concern in his statement that the program had a responsibility to be accurate in telling a story.
There again, you don't want to draw an editorial point of view. We don't want to say that the laws are right or wrong. We just want to state what the law is. That is your social responsibility. To go beyond that and make a statement regarding the law is editorialization.
What is particularly significant is that while there is no Fairness Doctrine that requires that broadcasters "must afford reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance" for fictional production, the result is much the same. Legal interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine has meant that only news or public or personal attacks on an individual are considered issues of public performance" (Cantor 1980:51). But the concern for balanced presentations leads to a similar result. Usually two viewpoints are presented or stressed, and controversial issues are avoided.
One producer made a distinction between a controversial topic and an argumentative one that also helps illuminate the thinking behind the decision making.
If, four or five years ago, you would have come to me and told me I have this great story for you, you should do on your show, Guiding Light, involving an abortion, I would have said to you, it's the wrong time. I won't touch it. That's not controversial, that has become argumentative in the community and you have polarized factions. They
******
p. 113
are not going to give on either end. Neither is willing to see the benefit of the other's argument. They have their own point of view.
What you end up with, portraying such a story with a subject such as that--the people who are pro your side of the story, you are going to alienate 50 percent of them because they are going to say you didn't tell the story strongly enough. That's number one. You immediately alienated another 50 percent of the people because they didn't like your point of view. So you have alienated 75 percent of your audience.
There is always the concern to avoid being seen as glamorizing, romanticizing, condoning what many would see as immoral or harmful behavior. The example of the problems Kelly and Morgan experienced fits this general concern. Such monitoring is reflected in the comments of one individual at CBS Program Practices who reviewed the promotional presentations. She permitted one "promo.' (as they are called) even though it touched on a problematic issue: teenage alcoholism. The particular promo showed Tim, a teenage alcoholic, drinking, but the promo did not glamorize the drinking by showing him having a good time at a party, for example. His drinking on the program, in general, was characterized as having a very negative effect on his life. Tim was lectured about the evils of drinking by a major character, who was a former alcoholic, and, thus, balance was provided.
While a purportedly realistic characterization of everyday life and, as such, a reflection of society, it is illuminating to note what is omitted. The programs are carefully crafted to avoid certain images and issues. At Edge of Night, one incident made it very evident how much the networks avoid identifying commercial products and services in a program. In some footage that was considered for use, an airplane taxis up to a passenger ramp. The director wanted to show something more than the usual interior of a plane represented by two seats and a window, or a door through which passengers would be pictured entering the airport. The network's Division of Standards and Practices forbade the use of the footage because it included the logo of American Airlines. That such conflicts are infrequent is proof of how internalized such practices become. In fact, the Program Practices representative in charge of monitoring Guiding Light praised the staff of the show for remembering to turn the whiskey bottles in a scene so that the labels were not visible.
******
p. 114
The justification for such a practice is that competitors of a manufacturer or service would consider the appearance of the logo, the presence of an identifiable name, as free advertising. If they have to pay a certain amount to advertise their product or service, why should a competitor receive free time to have its name before the audience? This practice assures that virtually no mention or visualization of the product or service of a corporation large enough to sponsor advertising on television will ever appear. The corporate structure that undergirds the system as it is becomes invisible in the world it sponsors--other than through commercials or credits.
There are occasional conflicts between the commercials and the content of a program. At Edge of Night, commercials were inserted into the actual tape of the program at the studio during the editing process. On one occasion a scene in a restaurant or coffee shop ended with a character saying, "If I have another cup of coffee, I'll be up for three weeks." The line conflicted with the commercial for Folger's coffee, which immediately followed it. As a result, an executive decision was made in the editing room, and the line was dropped. Such conflicts are rare, and, as can be seen in this example, a very brief edit of the problematic line removed the problem. The commercial message has priority over the program.
The examples demonstrate how the programming renders invisible the corporation that makes the programming possible. It is an enduring paradox that the extraordinary number of advertisements and commercials that confront us in real life are nowhere to be seen in the programming itself, and that those corporations with the greatest power and wealth are the ones most able to effect such a result.
Networks and production companies are also alert to avoid potential legal suits based on libel. For example, when Morgan goes to Chicago, the name of the club in which she appeared had to be changed because there was one with the same name in Chicago. Portraying the club in a negative way, as a setting for disreputable, immoral, or illegal acts, might have left the network open to a lawsuit.
Another risk entails the potential action of specials interest pressure groups. Risks of commission include, for example, portraying a particular group negatively, while risks of omission include failing to include a group in the programming. During the spring of 1981 , the representative of Program Practices at CBS stated she was meeting with the Gray Panthers, a group representing the elderly. She cited the character of Dr. Steve Jackson as a positive characterization of the elderly on Guiding Light. That he took Bert
******
p. 115
Bauer the matriarch of the Bauer family, dancing was cited as an indication of how old people were not shown on the shelf. Shortly after that, major casting and character changes were made to attract a younger and larger audience. One of those changes was that the actor playing Dr. Jackson was not retained on a contract and, in fact, did not appear on the show in the future. The problems and afflictions of the elderly, as well as their triumphs and satisfactions, largely conflict with the traditional concerns of soaps. The potential response of the elderly would appear not to have been a major concern, other than the general desire on the part of the Procter and Gamble to keep its traditional audience.
One group, or general social movement, that did seem to have an impact was the women's movement. I am not arguing, that by taking into account specific requests for changes from ABC Standards and Practices, that the characterization of women on Edge of Night would satisfy most politicized women and men. What did occur was a reflection of the sensitivity of Program Standards to particular women's rights concerns.
One example cited entailed a change in a story line. A woman--Emily--who was originally scripted to be killed, wound up being catatonic and at the mercy of a sadistic intern, who was in a position to victimize her sexually. There were numerous script changes that reflected a general concern not to show Emily as totally passive and a victim. Broadcast Standards and Practices suggested that Emily be portrayed as actively seducing Sharkey and not as his passive victim. Their primary concern was to avoid presenting women as passive, helpless creatures.
Other changes were requested in scenes in the psychiatric ward where Sharkey worked. These changes reflected a desire to not portray patients in mental hospitals negatively. Substitutions were made for such phrases as "funny farm," "loonies," "nutty ones," "crazy," and "nut case." Often the terms "mental patient" or "mental institution" were used instead and found acceptable by Broadcast Standards.
Approaching the story creation and selection process as a collective and corporate effort leads to the identification of a large number of factors influencing which stories are tellable. More than a matter of taboos, the same factors had implications for which stories were told and how they were told. Many of the considerations are attributable to the commercial competitive nature of the storytelling as an adjunct to marketing and to its public nature whereby performances are experienced as participation in a way of
******
p. 116
life and contribute to our vocabulary of collective consciousness. Such participation can potentially lead to boycotts of programming and products and to objections to the kind of society we participate in or are invited to participate in by the programming.
The aim of reaching the ideal
market/audience with stories that have characters people care
about, that are understandable, believable, contemporary, and
deal with real life, the need to minimize risk, reduce uncertainty,
and generate an appealing (addictive), distinctive stream of experience
largely shaped the community Guiding Light invites us into. The
dominant justifications for the programming derive from an emphasis
on entertainment and competition.
Proceed to The Work Process Section