Working 30 years as a mediamonger (visual rhetorician), I could never passively watch television.  Today however, I also try to look through it and to speak with it.   And, since most all of visual media continues to be sold off the bodies of women; I often re-function TV’s content to address media production.  I do not particularly choose these kinds of constructions - rather they seem to be choosing me, every time I turn on my TV.  

Last Wednesday, the Action Channel aired a program: 

Rad Girls, on my basic cable TV subscription, at 9:30pm.

Question: Are programs like Rad Girls the wonder (or the curse) of television that David Sarnoff promised to us?  

Paradoxically, television began as a sole-proprietorship; but, it too was soon ripped off, corporatized, and exploited by Sarnoff and others while simultaneously extolling TV for its public virtues.  One hand giveth, the other taketh away.  This is what for-profit-industrialization often does to us and to its makers.  A logical conclusion to this endless TV exploitation looks little different from the physical desecration of our planet we witness today. 

Mediamongers ravage our Earth too, raping its natural resources for toxic purposes - with little honor or concern.  

Television is a medium environment, a viable living environment yet it is polluted today at every turn; and and then we instruct TV to spew back its waste products 24/7 for human consumption.  Rad Girls is but one example.  Eventually, these media practices will come back to haunt us.  How?  Watch TV today.  Look through it and see for yourself.  How should we respond to this kind of programming?  The story of television is a tale of extreme visual exploitation.  To women.  To the environment.  To us all.

The Century of PeePukePoop   2008  (9:15)

“The first blow against monolithic accumulation of traditional film conventions is to free the look of the camera...and the look of the audience into dialectics, passionate detachment.  There is no doubt that this distresses the satisfaction, pleasure and privilege of the ‘invisible guest’, and highlights how film has depended on voyeuristic active/passive mechanisms.”