You wouldn’t think so based on what the world is watching. The biggest television series ever, worldwide, was Baywatch. Broadcast in 142 countries its peak audience surpassed a billion people. House is tops today, with 82 million people watching last year in 66 countries. CSI and Desperate Housewives come in close behind.
That from an interesting Foreign Policy piece by Charles Kenny. In it he argues that Television is a Revolution in a Box. While acknowledging that “a world of couch potatoes…will have its downsides,” his thrust seems to forthrightly be that Twitter and Facebook aren’t the forces reinventing our world. No, change will come through a globe illuminated by 24 billion hours of TV a day — an average of close to four hours for each man, woman, and child on the planet.
It’s a good read. Kenny calls television “the kudzu of consumer durables” and dares to suppose its global cosmopolitanist spread is a force for good:
U.S. researchers who study violence on TV battle viciously themselves over whether it translates into more aggressive behavior in real life. But at least from a broader perspective, television might play a role in stemming the global threat of war. It isn’t that TV reporting of death and destruction necessarily reduces support for wars already begun — that’s an argument that has raged over conflicts from Vietnam to the Iraq war. It is more that, by fostering a growing global cosmopolitanism, television might make war less attractive to begin with. Indeed, the idea that communications are central to building cross-cultural goodwill is an old one. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels suggested in the 19th century that railways were vital in rapidly cementing the union of the working class: "that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years," they wrote in The Communist Manifesto. If the Amtraks of the world can have such an impact, surely the Hallmark Channel can do even better. […]
Of course, the extent to which television helps foster cosmopolitanism depends on what people are watching. People in the Middle East who only watched Arab news channels were considerably less likely to agree that the September 11 attacks were carried out by Arab terrorists than those exposed to Western media coverage, researchers Gentzkow and Shapiro found, even after taking into account other characteristics likely to shape their views such as education, language, and age. Similarly, the tone and content of coverage of the ground invasion of Iraq was notably different on Al Jazeera than it was on U.S. and British network broadcasts in the spring of 2003 — and surely this helped sustain notably different attitudes toward the war. But with the growing reach of BBC World News and CNN in the Middle East, and the growing reach of Al Jazeera in the West, there is at least a greater potential to understand how the other side thinks.