The Discovery Channel: Exploring the World Through the Cathode Ray Tube

John Muir Kumpf

December 18, 1995

Project Paper for 21F830

Tunnel vision

Through the Discovery Channel viewers seek to understand the world. Marketed as a learning channel for children and adults it seeks to satisfy the curiosity of the American mind. However the channel does not sell itself as raw science. The video- articles published through this channel are for non-technical people. The channel offers a look at the world, but it is a gaze which is air-brushed to suit children and adults. One cannot be to critical of the channel because it is simply catering to its audience, and the viewers want to be entertained. The audience seeks realistic escapism packaged as education. And it is the audience of the Discovery Channel which pays for the channel, if not directly, then by responding to the advertisements. If their is a source of this escapist desire, it comes from the audience, not the Discovery Channel.

The motto of the channel is "Explore your World". They personalize the world and shrink it down so that the viewer can understand it, but this is a two sided process. In doing so, the world is simplified so the viewer can understand it. But more than simplifying material, the station fabricates the status of the world to fit what the viewers want to see. It is not the only journalistic organization to do this. The channel while being interesting and exposing minds to diverse material falls trap to the National Geographic mentality of portraying the culture or situation as one with either no problems or no solutions. National Geographic magazine has been criticized, primarily by Lutz and Collins, as a magazine which,

"helped white, upwardly mobile Americans to locate themselves in a changing world, to come to terms with their whiteness and relative privilege, and to deal with anxieties about their class position, both national and international."

Both National Geographic and the Discovery Channel must cater to their audience, and most criticism of this media can be directed at the viewers, not the publishers. However, the publishers are at fault for being so brazen as to market their shows and magazines as an objective views of the world. Few people realize the pains which the editors and journalists go through to turn the everyday reality of the world into a piece of journalistic entertainment. By analyzing some shows of the Discovery Channel, one can follow a trend of reporting. During one day of the Discovery Channel several shows were watched and analyzed. By critically analyzing the shows one finds a pattern of praise of the predominantly American audience along with a form of voyeuristic fantasizing, like the kind found in National Geographic magazine.

The first piece was one about the miners of the Colombian emerald mines . Its seemed amazing to discover a piece so single sided. The only person interviewed is the owner of the mine, and all the miners and the scavengers, who live below the mine picking through the debris, are journalistically manipulated to be hard workers who have no problems, and seem to be happy living in utter poverty. The point of view of the show is from the owner of the mine, or of an overly optimistic tourist, who is watching the happy poor people of the mine. The story is primarily about one emerald mine. There is seemingly endless footage of miners chiseling away at the rock and finding gems. The only person interviewed is the emerald mine owner, Don Vito, who is now also a rancher. He gained control of many emerald mines through the warfare of the eighties. The narrator eventually explains:

"today things are relatively peaceful... Peace brought huge rewards. The mines could begin to be exploited systematically with the most sophisticated methods." These sophisticated methods are turning the rivers into sludge and destroying the vegetation around the mine. The slums that spring up around the mine are where miners families and so call Juaqueros live, those who go through the sludge the mines throw into the river. The narrator calls them "Free lance miners" or "self employed." Such euphemisms for poverty stricken people are insulting. We are told that they have a unity and care for each other because of their poverty. Which is why there are so many hand guns carried by mine workers we assume. The lack of critical analysis feeds into a desire for the audience to escape to lands where there are no troubles. The camera works with the journalist to turn a slum into a sight of nostalgia. The video article focus' on the vegetables and people at the outdoor market on Saturday and we're told how the market is a place of commerce and meeting of friends. We go to church with only a few members of the village for a mass. We are told that the all miners are deeply religious and the narrator ignores the fact that there are only twenty or so people at mass, out of an estimated thousand living at the village. The show's narration, is complete fiction. It tries to tell us how wonderful the emerald mines are. The show is called "Treasure Hunters", implying that the miners are adventuring and enjoying what they do. The avoidance of conflict on the channel is interesting especially because the same day there is a show about another group of South Americans, who are being hurt very much by miners much like Don Vito.

The next show, Tribal Journeys, takes us into the Brazilian rain forest to meet natives who as the voice over explains, need to be contacted and warned because the Brazilians are chopping down their habitat. This is only the pretense of the show. It quickly becomes obvious that the cameramen are never going to help these indigenous people. We are looking for excitement, and when the first group of natives, the Alaguaja, prove too boorish, the cameramen move on to find more interesting natives, the Poturu. These natives have a large stick-piercing through their mouths. This new group is a thousand miles, and a few weeks away from the first group and little explanation is made for the sudden jump in subject matter. It is important for us to feel like we are exploring, and the voice over explains and reassures us that this is the first time we ( meaning any civilized people ) have filmed the natives. The voice over goes further suggesting that these Indians are like the ones Columbus must have met when he came over five hundred years ago, a naive statement suggesting that all primitive peoples are the same. We never get to know any single native, nor do we gain much insight into their lives. The threat of the land seeking Brazilians is often mentioned, but we don't meet them, nor are any pro- active measures for remedying the situation explored. The economic situation of Brazil is simplified and discussed briefly and then forgotten. The film focus' on the primitives, building them into people living in a paradise. We keep seeing images of primitives, who we are told live without stress or anger, but who remain entirely alien to us. Is this alienation on purpose? The avoidance of politics is so universal in this style of ethnography that one would assume it to be the desire of the film makers. But, at first, the alienation of the primitives would not seem to be one of the desires of the film makers. However the natives seem to be made distant on purpose. Two traits of the film which keep us from getting to know the people in the film are below:

1. The man with in the voice-over is fixated on the laws of the village. When he focuses on the discovery of something "forbidden" he uses heavy speech and a heavy handed statement. Likewise, the ways of the village aren't shown to us or explained by natives through a translator. Rather, the narrator tells us how these people live. Without the narrator, this story wouldn't exist. The natives really are there just to look at. The narrator's information can't be questioned, nor are we allowed to explore and figure out for ourselves what the rules of the community might be.

2. The film never lets us get to know any of the people. While names are given to people, the show doesn't let these people ever establish themselves anything more than a face.

While the narrator explains the rules of life among the natives as a list of facts, we are treated to a host of images of primitives. The people are something to gaze at and imagine what they are like. We do not know whether these people are really happy. But we are told that they are by the narrator. The story of these people as happy, lazy, primitives is important because we are seeking a fantasy. We don't want to know the difficulties this society has, rather we want to live our own fantasies through these people. And this is the reason these people are kept distant from us. Because, while the film makers seek to construct a story of the happy primitives, if they let us get close to the primitives and know them, we might discover some of their problems. Instead we are treated to a display of the exotic, along with a fantasy of living in paradise. How does the story let us read a fantasy into it? One way is by having them break our social taboos and social constraints, and letting us fantasize about being them.

The film never shies away from the bodies of the men and women. And while the appearance of naked bodies is certainly explainable as a pragmatic state for these people, the lingering gaze of the camera and the titillation of naked peoples cannot be overlooked. The reasons that the nakedness of the people is so important is because it is one of the few things we know about them. The people filmed are kept at a distance because we never get to talk to any of them or get to know any of them for longer than ten seconds at a length. And secondly, the heavier sexed members of our own society, women, are shown later in the show. While the film continues on what seems a chronological track, it is too convenient that we are anticipating the women to appear naked on screen for seven minutes in case of the Alaguaja and then another four when we go to meet the Poturu One of the likely reasons we left the Alaguaja, was that there were only two women, a grand mother and a mother, who weren't sexy enough. The Poturu have women and men of all ages; naked, beautiful and sexy. The showing of natives is about the titillation of watching others who break our social taboos, not the scientific drudgery it is trumpeted as. By doing so, we start to journey into a fantasy world, where we imagine what it would be like to live as a primitive. We live our dreams vicariously by gazing at primitives and imaging how good it would be to throw away our social burdens and run amuck. The native must be happy, because we need to live our fantasies through him or her. Repeated over and over again is the notion that they are stress free, and cruelty free. The narrator explains:

"The Alaguaja share much in common with isolated tribes found in other parts of the world, things like ambition or wanting something for it own sake are totally unknown. They do not know what it means to be cruel to each other or to animals. They take from nature only what they really need. But this is a vanishing type of human being. The Alaguaja way of life is on its way to extinction."

This is partly true. Unfortunately it is not the whole story. The life of the primitive is often romanticized and turned into an escapist fantasy for the western world. The camera pans past primitives who aren't smiling, and concentrates on those who are smiling. Western "magic" like Polaroid photographs are often used to illicit a laughing and jovial atmosphere. Presents are usually given to make temporary friends among the natives. When journalists encounter natives they are already seeking a story. It is a story which the future audience of the documentary or show will find enjoyable. This is especially true for popular anthropology. Where the need to cater to the audience is at a maximum. Some television seeks to cater to these needs, but the Discovery Channel and National Geographic both go one step farther. They claim to be scientifically objective. No bias is ever reported on or mentioned on the station. Its one thing to offer a romantic narrative about primitive people. But its quite another for people to believe it as a real thing. The belief in shows such as these could be conceptualized as a kind of scientific determinism. It is the belief that science can accumulate knowledge objectively and determine truth from falsehood and good from bad. The style of the shows comes from that of the ethnography, a kind of anthropological documentary. The film makers are hidden from view and the subjects of the ethnography are supposed act as though the camera isn't there. A narrator often explains to the viewers what is happening on screen. This style of film is recognizable to a large segment of the American population, having seen films like these in high school and college. By using this style, the film makers can make their own scientific movies and market them as educational.

Part of the style of ethnographic film making, and science in general is to avoid mentioning political bias', motive, or struggles in scientific work. To mention political motives brings into question the objectivity of the scientific work itself. In the end this style of argument weakens its own ability to defend itself from one who doesn't believe in scientific determinism. If one does believe in the objectivity of science, then false documentaries like this one fool those who don't look carefully to discover that it is a not so clever masquerade for a simple narrative of paradise.

It is a mistake to blame the Discovery Channel alone for this depolitization or avoidance of the difficult aspect of life. They reflect the audience's desire to be informed but not involved. The audience looks to explore the world not modify it. And its difficult to avoid being involved, at every step, one must come up with reasons to ignore the world. Either one constructs a narrative ignoring problems, or one constructs a narrative about the hopelessness of the problem.

It is a mistake to assume that the Discovery Channel portrays all things rosy, it does have its criticisms. The show Justice Files, actually a recast of a CBS show, was an editorial piece on the state of US. prisons and jails. Since the topic is clearly political, its interesting how the article managed to avoid criticizing any actual political party, law, person or decision with one exception, the Governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards. The report billed as a balanced report falls victim to the same rules that the documentaries did above. The report tries to keep the people informed but avoids political talk. The problems of the prison system are mentioned. But no mention of how to fix the problems nor how the problems have changed in recent history can be mentioned because the report would become filled with political names, laws and the details of economics and budgets. The convict, Wilbert Rideau, celebrated for his service to society after being sent to prison for murder was featured and Edwin Edwards criticized for making a promise to the daughter of the woman Wilbert Rideau killed. The massive number of mentally ill patients are shown as pathetic people who need to be helped. The keeping of them in prisons is criticized, but advocating spending money to fix this is not undertaken by the show. No history of how effective half-way house are or other such programs is mentioned either. The notions of rehabilitation versus punishment are only mentioned by Arthur Miller Ph.D. The report concludes, having drawn attention to a massive problem without offering any solutions. By offering solutions, one turns the report into an activist editorial and this would detract from the so called objectivity of the report. In the end the reporters, no matter what their intentions are, can not give us anything but a sob story.

Lutz criticizes the editors of National Geographic. However the similarities of the techniques with the Discovery Channel, and ABC news suggest that these publishers are following the will of the audience, not dictating a way of thinking. It was National Geographic policy to publish nice things:

"Only what is of a kindly nature is printed about any country or people, everything unpleasant or unduly critical being avoided."

The need to publish nice things is only one side of the coin though. Since the work is billed as education it needs to sounds true, so a scientific style is used throughout the articles.

The audience realizes that political arguments are controversial, and suspect the truth of what one says if they sound political. What many also believe is the common existence of the objective reporting, of science or of social issues. If the reporter frames the issue in a scientific style they gain credibility, however they cannot actually say much unless the focus of the article is a scientific one. In a society obsess with the technological marvels of scientific accomplishments, it is often difficult to construct a political argument without a host of scientific sounding data behind the argument. The desire to construct a scientific argument is only one of the factors behind the traits of the most of the shows on the Discovery Channel. The Justice Files is an example of only the desire to sound scientific. Both the need to sound scientific and the need to entertain people make the articles problematic. The actual desire for educational material of this kind can be traced back to the 1950's, where the need to escape to a world beyond the that of the suburban home, is a desire pin pointed by Lutz and Collins:

"upward mobility was linked to the possession of what Bourdieu calls educational and cultural capital. Parents of the postwar "baby-boom" generation who desired advancement for their children struggled to provide them with good books, enriching travel experiences, and a college education."

During this time the sales of National Geographic surged. The Discovery Channel seeks the same upwardly mobile customers that National Geographic obtained in the 50's and 60's. The channel knows that one can easily sell education, but consumer knowledge of the effectiveness of the education is something hard to find. What is much easier for parents and children to realize is how captivating a particular show or article is. But the level of captivation is not proportional to its educational effectiveness.

The Discovery Channel, and many others, not as successful as they are, provide edutainment. It is entertainment with a little education thrown in. And while the shows may educate somewhat they also seek to attract audiences with fantasies and false scientific fronts. By using these two tools to attract people to watch and believe their shows, they cannot provide actual informative programming. The discovery channel provides an air brushed view of the world. One where the problems are unfixable, or non existent. It feeds the minds of people who escape to utopic worlds, but think they are learning and increasing their educational capital. When some of these people realize that the world is confusing, complicated and filled with compromises of the lesser evil; when they learn that their is no utopia, they are not prepared to make the choices and accept the lesser evils. Instead they escape to fantasy worlds where people live in harmony.

Bibliography

Fortune Hunters, The Discovery Channel, December 16, 1995

Tribal Journeys, The Discovery Channel, December 16, 1995

The Justice Files, The Discovery Channel, December 16, 1995, ABC News

Lutz and Collins, "Reading National Geographic", University of Chicago Press, Chicago