home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
032194
/
03219937.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-02-24
|
5KB
|
113 lines
<text id=94TT0334>
<title>
Mar. 21, 1994: The Arts & Media:Television
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
Mar. 21, 1994 Hard Times For Hillary
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
THE ARTS & MEDIA, Page 77
Television
Manson Family Values
</hdr>
<body>
<p>Diane Sawyer revisits the notorious mass-murder case as the
network prime-time news shows go crazy for crime
</p>
<p>By Richard Zoglin
</p>
<p> Charles Manson was, as usual, a satanic spellbinder, giving
enigmatic nonanswers and snarling at interviewer Diane Sawyer:
"I'm a gangster, woman!" Two former members of his "family,"
Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, were, by contrast,
rational and remorseful. "I stabbed him with a fork repeatedly
and eventually left the fork in him," said Krenwinkel, describing
her part in the Tate-La Bianca murders. "I don't believe any
of us had any concept of really what we were doing."
</p>
<p> Even for the increasingly sensational network magazine shows,
the ghoulish display last week was something of a milestone.
In addition to the Manson hour--the first weekly episode of
ABC's new Turning Point series--serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer
and his father were brought together for a session on Dateline
NBC. CBS's 48 Hours spent another hour exploring the case of
Russell Obremski, convicted of two Oregon murders in 1969 and
recently freed on parole. And NBC's Now served up its own creepy
sociopath: a man in prison for kidnapping untold numbers of
children from their bed and doing "unspeakable things" to them.
</p>
<p> Unspeakable is how some were describing the state of network
news. TV reviewers were righteously appalled that ABC would
dredge up the Manson horrors once again. Producers at all three
networks were privately embarrassed at the confluence of crime
stories. The warden at the Columbia Correctional Institution
in Wisconsin was fed up; he banned future interviews for Dahmer,
who has already talked to Inside Edition and ABC's Day One and
had Sally Jessy Raphael next in line.
</p>
<p> Not that it deterred viewers. The Manson show drew a smashing
18.1 rating (meaning 18.1% of all U.S. TV homes were tuned in),
which will probably land it in the weekly Top 10. The Dahmer
episode of Dateline (which also included a teary Nancy Kerrigan
interview) got a 15.3 rating, the show's highest ever. Undoubtedly,
the crime wave will continue--and network news producers will
continue to grit their teeth and hope their old journalism-school
teachers aren't watching.
</p>
<p> The Manson show seemed to crystallize the dilemma. At a press
conference, ABC News president Roone Arledge described the in-house
debate over whether to launch Turning Point with the Manson
show or with another, softer program about a couple who gave
birth to sextuplets. Picking Manson, said Arledge with unusual
candor, was a matter of "pragmatism"--a way to draw immediate
attention to the new series.
</p>
<p> ABC executives defended the Manson show, pointing out that Krenwinkel
and Van Houten had not been interviewed since their murder convictions
in 1971. "If TIME magazine or the New York Times had a chance
to do the first interview in 25 years with the Manson girls,
would they turn it down?" asked ABC News vice president Joanna
Bistany. Probably not. But at a time when the network newsmagazines
are close to being overrun by tabloid sensationalism, introducing
a new show by recycling the most notorious murder case of the
past 30 years is hardly a reassuring sign.
</p>
<p> The problem, of course, is that prime-time news shows must compete
for ratings just as Home Improvement and L.A. Law do. "We could
do an hour on Whitewater, but we wouldn't survive," says Now
executive producer Jeff Zucker. "If I don't do at least some
of these true-crime stories, I won't be doing anything." Andrew
Heyward, executive producer of CBS's Eye to Eye, is worried
that the similar impulses of these shows will ultimately turn
viewers off. "To the degree that we all chase the same surefire
stories," he says, "we'll stand out less and less."
</p>
<p> To be sure, these shows are more objectionable in the mass than
individually. Sawyer's interview with the Manson women, despite
a couple of squishy moments ("The homecoming princess who sang
in the church choir--remember her?"), was relatively restrained
and undeniably compelling. Stone Phillips was less circumspect
with Dahmer ("Was it the killing that excited you, or is it
what happened after the killing?") but didn't pander needlessly.
</p>
<p> Both shows recognized that viewers are fascinated with these
stories less for the gory crime details than for the peek they
provide into the extremes of human psychology. We watch to be
reassured these people are monsters, not at all like you and
me. And to face the fear that in some basic ways they are exactly
like you and me. Krenwinkel and Van Houten today could be mistaken
for high-school English teachers. Even Manson had a rare moment
of recognizable humanity. Shown a videotape of Krenwinkel, whom
he had not seen in nearly 25 years, he turned from the screen
and offered one sincere, poignant response. "She got old on
me," he said.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>