Average is just that: Average.

Consider this the prequel to the two posts about Republican art, movies and Middle America. It originally appeared on my blog last year.

Democracy had to pay the price of popular sovereignty in art as well as in politics. The taste of innumerable average men became the guide of the manufacturer, the dramatist, the scenario writer, the novelist, at last of the painter, the sculptor, and the architect; cost and size became norms of value, and a bizarre novelty replaced beauty and workmanship as the goals of art.
- Will Durant

If you watch the Food Network, then you've noticed promotional advertisements for a contest the channel is sponsoring. Starting in June, the network will select – with the help of you, the loyal audience – the "Next Food Network Star." Just like you or me (only with, presumably, a cooking show), this average American will have surpassed seven of his or her peers, advancing to the finals based on videotaped submissions. So, alongside bona fide food celebrities, trained chefs and restaurant owners like Alton Brown, Ina Garten and Paula Deen will be someone like you!

Color me elitist, but that's bullshit.

In the last 25 years, America has drifted from a nation of experts to a nation of amateurs. We've gone from the best and the brightest to the so-so and the mediocre. We've traded our admiration for intelligence for a love of the lowest common denominator. And it should stop as soon as possible, or else our once-great nation's slide toward irrelevance will proceed unabated.

I understand the desire for average, salt-of-the-earth Americans (full disclosure: myself included) to see – either through themselves or vicariously – their name in lights. We all want a brush with celebrity, notoriety or true power. It's human nature, coupled with thoughts of the American Dream, to want more. And that's harmless. But when we desire to replace the smartest people in the room with "people like us," it's truly dangerous.

Examples like the "Next Food Network Star," "American Idol" and "The Real World" are, to be sure, light; however, they are indicative of a greater trend.

When I watch the Food Network, I don't watch it to see food prepared by people like me. I make sandwiches. I make toast. I make so-so chicken burritos. I don't endeavor to create gourmet dishes, but when I take guidance from people like Brown, Garten and Deen, I do so knowing that they know a hell of a lot more about cooking than I do. And that's how I want it.

A music industry saturated with "American Idol" winners and also-rans is a music industry as you see it today: Bloated, lame and fit to be put out of its misery. You have to strain to find the good acts and, when you do, you love them even more for standing out from the talentless crowd.

And I know what reality is like: I'm living it. I have no desire to have my life taped or to find out what it's like when things stop being polite, and start getting real. I can see, however, why television producers keep feeding us reality television: It's cheap, it's entertaining and it appeals to what we love – the lowest common denominator. I would rather see real shows, with real writing and real acting done by real actors, not something I could see if I knocked on the door of the apartments across the street.

Think of far more important examples. How about the presidency? Why should it make us feel better when we see candidates flipping pancakes, going hunting or throwing a football? Sure, it makes them look human, but what does that mean? Isn't it a tad insane that we care more about whether we can have a beer with our president than whether we think he can save us from a fucking disaster or actually knows the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to foreign policy? If I wanted a president with whom I could drink a few beers, I'd vote for my friends. But they're not 35 yet. We used to have presidents like FDR. Now, we'd be lucky if President Bush could spell FDR, even if you spotted him the "F" an the "R."

So, before we spend our time looking for the next this or the next that among our peer group, perhaps we should think about the effect that it's having on America. It's time to look past what we know we can do and try to discover what we think we could do. We used to challenge people to work to bring about a brighter future. Now, all we ask them to do is be themselves. That's a mistake.

One of the most popular shows in the nation, Survivor doesn't reward you for being the best "survivor". No, the people who excel at real survival skills on the show get kicked off by their peers because they're threatening to them. The winner of Survivor is the person who is not bad at things, but not very good either.

I think it's a quite disturbing message that this show presents: "Don't distinguish yourself. Don't excel. And don't allow others to distinguish themselves or excel either."

Mediocrity is good. Conform. Consume.

I've never watched Survivor or any of the others, so I could be totally wrong about this, but I thought Survivor was about dirty dealings, machinations, who could outwit the others, etc. It really wasn't about surviving against the odds; it was more surviving against each other.

But the victors are typically the ones who make themselves as innocuous as possible.

the idea people are entertained by such garbage is sickening

That's probably why it continues to win the Emmy every year in the "reality show" category.

In CBS's Amazing Race, 11 teams of two (who can have any kind of relationship, as long as it's lasted at least three years...so you can have gay couples, siblings, best friends, etc.) travel around the world completing different locally-flavored tasks and using only their brains and stamina to stay in the game. You learn a LOT about geography, about this world's different people and customs (I now know I MUST visit Ethiopia before I die, and I also know I should forget about ever finding a cab in Beijing, China), and the dynamics of the game are oriented around the individual couples themselves rather than their interactions with each other. There is very little backstabbing and mischief; in fact, backstabbing and mischief tend NOT to be very good strategies in the long run.

The show is very fast-paced. There is none of that BORING cross-cutting from Joe/Jerry/Jane/Jill/Donald Trump's face as she thinks about how she's going to help/hurt/destroy/eliminate/fire Shirley/Jim/Jack/Josie--nonsense that goes on through TWO commercial breaks and even into NEXT WEEK. You almost are forced to sit through an entire episode of the Amazing Race. If you get up to just grab a soft drink, it's guaranteed you'll miss something.

Finally, the host of the Amazing Race is the most unobtrusive and least obnoxious host of ANY reality show. He pretty much just explains the game and graciously eliminates those who come in last on any given week, and that's about all he does.

And so I won't broad-brush ALL reality shows. There is at least one decent show out there. But Survivor is garbage, plain and simple.

:thumbsup:

Thank you for posting it here.

And I abolutely love this part of your statement:

Isn't it a tad insane that we care more about whether we can have a beer with our president than whether we think he can save us from a fucking disaster or actually knows the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to foreign policy? If I wanted a president with whom I could drink a few beers, I'd vote for my friends. But they're not 35 yet. We used to have presidents like FDR. Now, we'd be lucky if President Bush could spell FDR, even if you spotted him the "F" an the "R."

This country really needs to "wake the f*ck up!"

He didn't talk down to the voters. This is the biggest problem the dems have, we are too smart. America has been so dumbed down, that it takes a great deal of effort to listen to political speeches. The could understand Bush, he spoke simply. Gore was great, except he was not the communicator Clinton was, and people got turned off by him.....same for Kerry.

If OUR politicians don't start simplifying their speech, we're in big trouble. We have to win to make changes. In some ways I want to go back to the 50's, people seemed to be smarter, or at least wanted to be. Dad always came home and read the newspaper before dinner. Things were always discussed over the dinner table. News reporters did their jobs. Kids heroes were not sports figures, but politicians, scientists, even teachers.

Now, is different. We have to change the picture, but it won't be with a magic wand and it won't be in 2 years. It took a long time to get to this point, and it will be a long climb back up.

zalinda

on the CBS Evening News. I'll bet it would be shocking to see how he actually just reports what is happening in the world with no editorial "spin" whatsoever, and at a level of detail and literacy that would make today's audience's heads spin.

That is what we EXPECTED from our media forty years ago.

As the manufacturing sector has declined and we have entered the "service economy" if one isn't in the health professions or financial services, there is a good likelihood they are in the hospitality or food service sector, especially in my part of the country.

A lot of qualified professionals in technical professions are out of work because of the export of manufacturing and high tech industries. The myth is that if you can't find opportunity in our country, odds are you aren't educated or highly skilled. This is complete disinformation by the corporate media.

In the food service sector, as in other career fields there are numerous barriers to entry and advancement. There are many people in the industry and at home (unemployed or underemployed) who take pride in their excellent food service skills and believe that they can compete, even though they can't afford to attend a culinary institute or get the capital to start their own business. However, many do, some succeed and most fail, because costs are prohibitive and there are too many people trying to do the same thing.

Corporate media are trying to convince Americans to settle for less and accept mediocrity. How else are they going to hang onto their unethical policies, tax cuts, outsourcing, H1-B visas and so on? (start wars and create a police state?)

What about the popularity of gambling and lotteries?

Lotteries are another iconic substitute for meaningful opportunity. All these television shows, Joes versus Pros or whatever, involve the substitution of imagery for lack of social and economic opportunity.

Anyway, I liked your piece, very thoughtful.

Just blogrolled you on my site.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

that the concept of excellence is being dismissed so easily.

Somehow the move toward an egalitarian society has perverted itself to where we have lost the simple knowledge that some people are actually better at some things than others, and now we beat them up rather than learn from them.