I want to say that really and truly, after these incredible speeches and ideas that are being spread, I am in the awkward position of being here to talk to you today about television. So most everyone watches TV. We like it. We like some parts of it. Here in America, people actually love TV. The average American watches TV for almost 5 hours a day. Okay? Now I happen to make my living these days in television, so for me, that's a good thing. But a lot of people don't love it so much. They, in fact, berate it. They call it stupid, and worse, believe me. My mother, growing up, she called it the "idiot box."
Želim da kažem da sam zaista i iskreno, nakon ovih neverovatnih govora i ideja koje su proširene, u nezgodnoj situaciji da sam danas ovde kako bih vam pričala o televiziji. Skoro svi gledaju televiziju. Volimo je. Volimo neke određene delove. Ovde u Americi, ljudi naprosto obožavaju televiziju. Prosečan amerikanac gleda televiziju oko pet sati svakog dana. U redu? Dogodilo se da ja sada zarađujem za život na televiziji, pa je to za mene dobra stvar. Ali mnogi ljudi je ne vole toliko. U stvari, oni je kritikuju. Zovu je glupom, i još gore, verujte mi. Dok sam odrastala, moja majka ju je zvala "kutija za idiote".
But my idea today is not to debate whether there's such a thing as good TV or bad TV; my idea today is to tell you that I believe television has a conscience. So why I believe that television has a conscience is that I actually believe that television directly reflects the moral, political, social and emotional need states of our nation -- that television is how we actually disseminate our entire value system. So all these things are uniquely human, and they all add up to our idea of conscience.
Ali moja ideja danas nije da diskutujem o tome da li postoji dobra ili loša televizija; moja ideja danas je da vam kažem da verujem da televizija ima savest. Dakle, ja verujem da televizija ima savest zato što zaista verujem da televizija direktno odražava moralne, političke, društvene i emocionalne potrebe naše nacije - da televizija u stvari pokazuje kako mi raspršujemo naš celokupni vrednosni sistem. Dakle, sve ove stvari su jedinstvene ljudima, i sve čine celinu naše ideje o savesti.
Now today, we're not talking about good and bad TV. We're talking about popular TV. We're talking about top-10 Nielsen-rated shows over the course of 50 years. How do these Nielsen ratings reflect not just what you've heard about, which is the idea of our social, collective unconscious, but how do these top-10 Nielsen-rated shows over 50 years reflect the idea of our social conscience? How does television evolve over time, and what does this say about our society?
Danas ne govorimo o lošoj ili dobroj televiziji. Govorimo o popularnoj televiziji. Govorimo o prvih deset rangiranih emisija od strane Nielsen-a u periodu od pedeset godina. Kako ove Nielsen ocene odražavaju ne samo ono što smo čuli, a što je ideja našeg društvenog, kolektivnog nesvesnog, već kako ovih top deset Nielsen rangiranih emisija, tokom pedeset godina odražavaju ideju naše društvene savesti? Kako televizija evoluira tokom vremena, i šta to govori o našem društvu?
Now speaking of evolution, from basic biology, you probably remember that the animal kingdom, including humans, have four basic primal instincts. You have hunger; you have sex; you have power; and you have the urge for acquisitiveness. As humans, what's important to remember is that we've developed, we've evolved over time to temper, or tame, these basic animal instincts. We have the capacity to laugh and cry. We feel awe, we feel pity. That is separate and apart from the animal kingdom. The other thing about human beings is that we love to be entertained. We love to watch TV. This is something that clearly separates us from the animal kingdom. Animals might love to play, but they don't love to watch.
Govoreći o evoluciji, iz osnova biologije, verovatno se sećate da životinjsko carstvo, uključujući i ljude, ima četiri osnovna instinkta. Imate glad, imate seks, imate moć, imate nagon za posedovanjem. Kao ljudi, ono što je važno da zapamtimo je da smo se mi vremenom razvijali, da smo evoluirali tokom vremena da ublažimo, da obuzdamo ova četiri osnovna instinkta. Mi imamo sposobnost da se smejemo i plačemo. Osećamo strahopoštovanje, osećamo sažaljenje. To je odvojeno i udaljeno od životinjskog carstva. Druga stvar kod ljudskih bića je da mi volimo kada nas zabavljaju. Mi volimo da gledamo televiziju. Ovo je nešto što nas očigledno razdvaja od životinjskog carstva. Životinje možda vole da se igraju, ali ne vole da gledaju.
So I had an ambition to discover what could be understood from this uniquely human relationship between television programs and the human conscious. Why has television entertainment evolved the way it has? I kind of think of it as this cartoon devil or angel sitting on our shoulders. Is television literally functioning as our conscience, tempting us and rewarding us at the same time?
Zato sam imala ambiciju, da otkrijem šta bi se moglo razumeti iz ove jedinstvene ljudske veze između TV programa i ljudske savesti. Zašto je zabava na televiziji evoluirala na način na koji jeste? Nekako razmišljam o tome kao da ovaj crtani đavo ili anđeo koji sede na našim ramenima. Da li televizija bukvalno funkcioniše kao naša savest, stavljajući nas na iskušenje i nagrađujući nas u isto vreme?
So to begin to answer these questions, we did a research study. We went back 50 years to the 1959/1960 television season. We surveyed the top-20 Nielsen shows every year for 50 years -- a thousand shows. We talked to over 3,000 individuals -- almost 3,600 -- aged 18 to 70, and we asked them how they felt emotionally. How did you feel watching every single one of these shows? Did you feel a sense of moral ambiguity? Did you feel outrage? Did you laugh? What did this mean for you? So to our global TED audiences, I want to say that this was a U.S. sample. But as you can see, these emotional need states are truly universal. And on a factual basis, over 80 percent of the U.S.'s most popular shows are exported around the world. So I really hope our global audiences can relate.
Kako bismo počeli da odgovaramo na ova pitanja, uradili smo istraživanje. Vratili smo se 50 godina unazad u 1959/1960 televizijsku sezonu. Ispitali smo prvih 20 emisija sa Nielsen liste tokom svake godine u poslednjih pedest godina - hiljadu emisija. Pričali smo sa preko 3000 osoba - oko 3600 između 18 - 70 godina i pitali ih kako su se osećali. Kako ste se osećali gledajući svaku od ovih emisija? Da li ste imali osećaj moralne dvosmislenosti? Da li ste osećali bes? Da li ste se smejali? Šta je to značilo za vas? Globalnoj TED publici, želim da kažem da je uzorak bio iz SAD -a. Ali kao što možete videti, ova stanja emocionalnih potreba su istinski univerzalna. Ali i gledajući činjenično stanje, preko osamdeset procenata američkih popularnih emisija bude izvezeno širom sveta. Dakle, zaista se nadam da se i globalna publika može poistovetiti.
Two acknowledgments before our first data slide: For inspiring me to even think about the idea of conscience and the tricks that conscience can play on us on a daily basis, I thank legendary rabbi, Jack Stern. And for the way in which I'm going to present the data, I want to thank TED community superstar Hans Rosling, who you may have just seen.
Dva priznanja zasluga pre našeg prvog slajda sa podacima: Za inspiraciju da uopšte pomislim na ideju savesti i trikove koje savest igra sa nama svakodnevno zahvaljujem se legendarnom rabinu Džeku Sternu. Dok za način na koji ću prezentovati svoje podatke, želim da se zahvalim zvezdi TED zajednice, Hansu Roslingu, koga ste mogli upravo da vidite.
Okay, here we go. So here you see, from 1960 to 2010, the 50 years of our study. Two things we're going to start with -- the inspiration state and the moral ambiguity state, which, for this purpose, we defined inspiration as television shows that uplift me, that make me feel much more positive about the world. Moral ambiguity are televisions shows in which I don't understand the difference between right and wrong. As we start, you see in 1960 inspiration is holding steady. That's what we're watching TV for. Moral ambiguity starts to climb. Right at the end of the 60s, moral ambiguity is going up, inspiration is kind of on the wane. Why? The Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK is shot, the Civil Rights movement, race riots, the Vietnam War, MLK is shot, Bobby Kennedy is shot, Watergate. Look what happens. In 1970, inspiration plummets. Moral ambiguity takes off. They cross, but Ronald Reagan, a telegenic president, is in office. It's trying to recover. But look, it can't: AIDS, Iran-Contra, the Challenger disaster, Chernobyl. Moral ambiguity becomes the dominant meme in television from 1990 for the next 20 years.
U redu, krećemo. Dakle, ovde vidite od 1960. do 2010., oko pedeset godina istraživanja. Dve stvari sa kojima ćemo početi - stanje inspirisanosti i stanje moralne dvosmislenosti koja, za ovu svrhu, mi definišemo inspirisanost kao televizijske emisije koje su me podigle, koje su učinile da pozitivno gledam na svet. Moralna dvosmislenost su televizijske emisije u kojima ja ne razumem razliku između dobrog i lošeg. Kako počinjemo, vidite da u 1960. inspirisanost stabilna. To je razlog zašto gledamo televiziju. Moralna dvosmislenost počinje da raste. Tačno na kraju šezdesetih moralna dvosmislenost ide gore, dok inspirisanost na neki način vene. Zašto? Kubanska kriza, ubijen je Kenedi, Pokret za ljudska prava, rasni protesti, rat u Vijetnamu, Martin Luter King je ubijen, Bobi Kenedi je ubijen, Votergej afera. Gledajte šta se događa. u 1970., inspirisanost strmoglavo pada. Moralna dvosmislenost dobija uzlet. Presecaju se, ali Ronald Regan, televizijski predsednik, je na vlasti. Pokušava da se oporavi. Ali gledajte, ne može: Sida, Iran Kontra afera, nesreća spejs šatla "Challenger", Černobilj. Moralna dvosmislenost postaje dominantna tema u televiziji od 1990. pa sledećih 20 godina.
Take a look at this. This chart is going to document a very similar trend. But in this case, we have comfort -- the bubble in red -- social commentary and irreverence in blue and green. Now this time on TV you have "Bonanza," don't forget, you have "Gunsmoke," you have "Andy Griffith," you have domestic shows all about comfort. This is rising. Comfort stays whole. Irreverence starts to rise. Social commentary is all of a sudden spiking up. You get to 1969, and look what happens. You have comfort, irreverence, and social commentary, not only battling it out in our society, but you literally have two establishment shows -- "Gunsmoke" and "Gomer Pyle" -- in 1969 are the number-two- and number-three-rated television shows. What's number one? The socially irreverent hippie show, "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In." They're all living together, right. Viewers had responded dramatically.
Pogledajte ovo. Ovaj grafikon pokazuje sličan trend. Ali u ovom slučaju imamo utehu, ovaj crveni mehurić, a društveni komentar i nepoštovanje u plavom i zelenom. U to vreme na televiziji imate seriju "Bonanza", ne zaboravite, imate "Gunsmoke", imate "Andy Griffith", domaće emisije koje sve govore o utehi. Ovo raste. Uteha ostaje cela. Nepoštovanje počinje da raste. Društveni komentar iznenada počinje da raste. Stižemo do 1969. i pogledajte šta se dešava. Imate utehu, nepoštovanje i društveni komentar, koji se ne samo bore u našem društvu, ali bukvalno imate dve službene emisije Gunsmoke i "Gomer Pyle" koje su u 1969. rangirane na drugom i trećem mestu. Ko je na prvom mestu? Hipi emisija koja ne poštuje društvo. "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In". Oni svi žive zajedno, je l' tako. Gledaoci su dramatično odgovorili na to.
Look at this green spike in 1966 to a bellwether show. When you guys hear this industry term, a breakout hit, what does that mean? It means in the 1966 television season, The "Smothers Brothers" came out of nowhere. This was the first show that allowed viewers to say, "My God, I can comment on how I feel about the Vietnam War, about the presidency, through television?" That's what we mean by a breakout show.
Pogledajte ovaj zeleni vrh u 1966. o emisiji o predvodniku. Kada čujete taj industrijski termin, hit, šta to znači? To znači da su u televizijskoj sezoni 1966., Smoters Braća došla niotkuda. To je bila prva emisija koje je omogućavala gledaocima da kažu, "Bože, mogu da komentarišem o tome šta osećam prema ratu u Vijetnamu, prema predsedniku, putem televizije?" To je ono što podrazumevamo pod hit emisijom.
So then, just like the last chart, look what happens. In 1970, the dam bursts. The dam bursts. Comfort is no longer why we watch television. Social commentary and irreverence rise throughout the 70s. Now look at this. The 70s means who? Norman Lear. You have "All in the Family," "Sanford and Son," and the dominant show -- in the top-10 for the entire 70s -- "M<i>A</i>S*H." In the entire 50 years of television that we studied, seven of 10 shows ranked most highly for irreverence appeared on air during the Vietnam War, five of the top-10 during the Nixon administration. Only one generation, 20 years in, and we discovered, Wow! TV can do that? It can make me feel this? It can change us? So to this very, very savvy crowd, I also want to note the digital folks did not invent disruptive. Archie Bunker was shoved out of his easy chair along with the rest of us 40 years ago.
Dakle pogledajte šta se tada dešava, kao u poslednjem grafikonu. u 1970., brana popušta. Brana popušta. Uteha nije više razlog zašto gledamo televiziju. Društveni komentar i nepoštovanje rastu tokom sedamdesetih. Sada pogledajte ovo. Ko predstavlja sedamdesete? Norman Lir. Imamo "Sve u porodici", "Sanford i sinovi," i glavna emisija koja je bila u prvih deset tokom celih sedamdesetih - M.A.S.H. Tokom svih pedeset godina televizije koje smo proučili, sedam od deset emisija koje su najviše bile rangirane po nepoštovanju su se prikazivale tokom rata u Vijetnamu, pet od prvih deset tokom Niksonovog boravka na vlasti. Samo jedna generacija, dvadeset godina, i mi smo otkrili, Super! Televizija to može? Može da učini da se ovako osećam? Može nas promeniti? Dakle ovoj, veoma pametnoj publici, želim da naglasim da digitalni mediji nisu izumeli poremećaje. Arči Banker je bio izbačen iz svoje udobne stolice zajedno sa svima nama pre četrdeset godina.
This is a quick chart. Here's another attribute: fantasy and imagination, which are shows defined as, "takes me out of my everyday realm" and "makes me feel better." That's mapped against the red dot, unemployment, which is a simple Bureau of Labor Department statistic. You'll see that every time fantasy and imagination shows rise, it maps to a spike in unemployment. Do we want to see shows about people saving money and being unemployed? No. In the 70s you have the bellwether show "The Bionic Woman" that rocketed into the top-10 in 1973, followed by the "Six Million-Dollar Man" and "Charlie's Angels." Another spike in the 1980s -- another spike in shows about control and power. What were those shows? Glamorous and rich. "Dallas," "Fantasy Island." Incredible mapping of our national psyche with some hard and fast facts: unemployment.
Ovo je kratak grafikon. Evo je još jedna karakteristika: fantazija i mašta, koje predstavljaju emisije definisane kao one koje odvode iz svakidašnjeg života i "čine da se bolje osećam." To je na mapi pokazano naspram crvene tačke, nezaposlenosti, koja predstavlja podatak Nacionalnog biroa za statistiku na tržištu rada. Videćete da svaki put kada raste gledanost emisija sa fantazijom i maštanjem, istovremeno raste i nezaposlenost. Da li mi želimo da gledamo emisije o ljudima koji štede novac i nezaposleni su? Ne. U sedamdesetim imamo predvodničku emisiju "Bionička žena" koja je strmoglavo dospela u prvih 10 u 1973., i koja je bila praćena "Čovekom od šest miliona dolara" i "Čarlijevim anđelima." Još jedan nagli porast u osamdesetim imaju emisije o kontroli i moći. Koje su bile te emisije? Glamurozni i bogati. "Dalas", "Ostrvo snova." Neverovatan prikaz nacionalne psihe propraćene s nekoliko čvrstih i brzih činjenica: nezaposlenost.
So here you are, in my favorite chart, because this is our last 20 years. Whether or not you're in my business, you have surely heard or read of the decline of the thing called the three-camera sitcom and the rise of reality TV. Well, as we say in the business, X marks the spot. The 90s -- the big bubbles of humor -- we're watching "Friends," "Frasier," "Cheers" and "Seinfeld." Everything's good, low unemployment. But look: X marks the spot. In 2001, the September 2001 television season, humor succumbs to judgment once and for all. Why not? We had a 2000 presidential election decided by the Supreme Court. We had the bursting of the tech bubble. We had 9/11. Anthrax becomes part of the social lexicon. Look what happens when we keep going. At the turn of the century, the Internet takes off, reality television has taken hold. What do people want in their TV then? I would have thought revenge or nostalgia. Give me some comfort; my world is falling apart. No, they want judgment. I can vote you off the island. I can keep Sarah Palin's daughter dancing. I can choose the next American Idol. You're fired. That's all great, right?
Dakle, evo vas u mom omiljenom grafikonu, pošto on predstavlja poslednjih dvadeset godina. Bilo da ste ili niste u mojoj industriji, sigurno ste čuli ili čitali o smanjenju programa zvanih komedija sa tri kamere, i porastu realiti televizije. Pa, kako mi to nazivamo u našem poslu, X označava to mesto. Devedesete - veliki mehurići humora - gledamo "Prijatelje", "Frasier", "Cheers", "Sajnfelda". Sve je dobro, nezaposlenost je niska. Ali pogledajte: X označava mesto. u 2001., u televizijskoj sezoni u septembru 2001. humor podleže osuđivanju jednom i za svagda. Zašto da ne? Na predsedničkim izborima 2000. odlučio je Vrhovni Sud. Imali smo raspad tehnološke industrije. Imali smo jedanaesti septembar. Antraks je postao deo našeg društvenog rečnika. Pogledajte šta se dešava kako nastavljamo dalje. Na prelazu u novi vek, Internet dobija uzlet, realiti televizija učvršćuje svoju poziciju. Šta ljudi onda žele da vide na televiziji? Pomislila bih na osvetu ili nostalgiju. Dajte mi utehu; moj svet se raspada. Ne, oni žele osuđivanje. Mogu da glasam da odeš sa ostrva. Mogu da ostavim ćerku Sare Pejlin da igra. Mogu da izaberem sledećeg američkog Idola. Otpušten si. Sve je to super, zar ne?
So as dramatically different as these television shows, pure entertainment, have been over the last 50 years -- what did I start with? -- one basic instinct remains. We're animals, we need our moms. There has not been a decade of television without a definitive, dominant TV mom. The 1950s: June Cleever in the original comfort show, "Leave it to Beaver." Lucille Ball kept us laughing through the rise of social consciousness in the 60s. Maude Findlay, the epitome of the irreverent 1970s, who tackled abortion, divorce, even menopause on TV. The 1980s, our first cougar was given to us in the form of Alexis Carrington. Murphy Brown took on a vice president when she took on the idea of single parenthood. This era's mom, Bree Van de Kamp. Now I don't know if this is the devil or the angel sitting on our conscience, sitting on television's shoulders, but I do know that I absolutely love this image.
Dakle, koliko god različite da su ove televizijske emisije, čiste zabave, bile u poslednjih pedeset godina - sa čime sam započela? - ostaje jedan osnovni instinkt. Mi smo životinje, potrebne su nam naše mame. Nije protekla nijedna decenija u televiziji bez definitivne, dominantne televizijske mame. U pedesetim, Džun Kliver u prvoj emsiji utehe "Ostavi to Biveru" Lusil Bol nas je zasmejavala tokom rasta društvene savesti u šezdesetim. Mod Findli, prikaz sedamdesetih punih nepoštovanja, koje su načele teme kao što su, abortus, razvod, čak i menopauza na televiziji. Tokom osamdesetih dobili smo prvu ženu kuguara, u liku Aleksis Karington. Marfi Braun je postala potpredsednik kada je preuzela na sebe ideju samohranog roditelja. Mame ovih vremena, Bri Van de Kamp. Ne znam da li je taj koji nam sedi na savesti i na ramenima televizije đavo ili anđeo, ali znam da apsolutno obožavam ovu sliku.
So to you all, the women of TEDWomen, the men of TEDWomen, the global audiences of TEDWomen, thank you for letting me present my idea about the conscience of television. But let me also thank the incredible creators who get up everyday to put their ideas on our television screens throughout all these ages of television. They give it life on television, for sure, but it's you as viewers, through your collective social consciences, that give it life, longevity, power or not.
Dakle svima vama, ženama iz TEDWomen ili muškarcima iz TEDWomen, globalnoj publici TEDWomen, hvala što ste mi dozvolili da prezentujem ideju o savesti televizije. Dozvolite mi da se takođe zahvalim neverovatnim stvaraocima koji ustaju svaki dan kako bi stavili svoje ideje na naše televizijske ekrane tokom svih ovih godina televizije. Ovi ulivaju život na televiziji, zasigurno, ali vi, kao gledaoci, kroz svoju kolektivnu društvenu savest, njoj dajete život, dugovečnost, moć ili ne.
So thanks very much.
Mnogo se zahvaljujem.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)