I am interested in this tweet by media critic Sean T. Collins.
He later deleted it, and apologized in a thread that reads, in part:
There is a great deal that I found irritating about this, but I think it is notable primarily for the idea that consuming any media is “morally salutary,” particularly in reference to made-for-streaming prestige television. Since around 2013, Netflix (and presumably by this point most streaming platforms) have not only bought but also produced content largely based on analysis of viewer data. The way streaming giants make and promote media is intended to reinforce your understanding of what kind of viewer you are: “…there was not one trailer for “House of Cards,” there were many. Fans of Mr. Spacey saw trailers featuring him, women watching “Thelma and Louise” saw trailers featuring the show’s female characters and serious film buffs saw trailers that reflected Mr. Fincher’s touch.” 1
In a media production landscape that is so atomized, so cynical, it strikes me as strange to imagine that these shows are controversial for any reason other than to court controversy: generating endless cycles of reactionary outrage is a great way to make potential viewers feel like they need to consume the show to be part of the conversation. For a critic to suggest that an extremely popular genre2 is falling victim to any kind of mass movement towards censorship is either naive verging on absurd or a willful mischaracterization in order to elide criticism. He does identify a real backlash: both shows he is referencing have been criticized for their depictions of violence,3 but at the core of his frustration is a feeling that he is being attacked as a viewer. If what you watch is who you are, then watching something “morally suspect” (to borrow his term) makes you yourself immoral.
In his clarification, he attempts to have his cake and eat it too: if consuming certain media is morally good, how would it not follow that consuming other media is morally wrong? If you imagine that watching television, that vicariously consuming images of violence, is going to make you a better person, you should follow that logic through to its natural conclusion: how? What will you be doing materially differently after watching “Dahmer,” or “House of the Dragon,” or anything? Will you be more capable of providing support to the family of a murder victim? If we understand the benefit of these shows as increasing one’s capacity for empathy (and this is, in my mind, a hugely generous if), then we must assume that the capacity for empathy alone is enough to materially improve the conditions of victims of the kind of violence that we are now fully capable of understanding.
When I was looking for help after having been raped on a college campus, I can tell you that I was not thinking “thank g-d this person has seen “The Hunting Ground:” they’ll know how hard it is for me to be believed, much less get help.” I was thinking “if this person says they believe me, why is it so fucking hard for them to help.” Expressions of empathy can function extremely well as a silencing tactic if they are offered in lieu of material support. When it is constantly culturally reinforced that survivors are not supported, not heard, then it is easy to imagine yourself as a person who supports survivors by virtue of being a person who listens. If you can only understand yourself as a person who has empathy for victims of violence through watching safe, removed, constructed images of people experiencing that violence, you do not actually have empathy for victims.
It is important, too, to note that this kind of empathy discourse comes up primarily around images of violence against oppressed people. Is the suggestion, then, that these people are innately more difficult to empathize with? What does it mean if part of the aesthetic sensibility of good, serious, worthwhile television is images of human cruelty against vulnerable people, as Collins suggests. In consuming these repetitive, ubiquitous images of suffering you are not, actually, bearing witness: you are, in fact, consuming a product created to sell you the idea of yourself as the type of person who bears witness.
Media criticism cannot come from a place of moral superiority without opening itself to criticism on moral grounds. If you want to be a scolding pedant about people disliking things, to the point of accusing people who think the “Game of Thrones” spinoff might be sexist are surrendering in the face of fascism, I would encourage you to gain a sense of proportion and consider more seriously why you feel the need to consume suffering in order to improve your moral position.
I am not calling for censorship of media or for people to stop consuming violent media. But for what it’s worth, research has shown that habitual consumption of fictional representations of violence degrades your ability to empathize when actually interacting with victims.4 If you remove the sense of yourself as morally superior for liking what you like, what’s left? Are images of human cruelty compelling enough that it is worthwhile to increase your capacity to enact it?
from “Giving Viewers What They Want,” by David Carr for the New York Times, 2013.
For example: “Dahmer,” “Mindhunter,” “Conversations with a Killer,” “Catching Killers,” “Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer,” “The Raincoat Killer,” “The Confession Killer,” ad infintium— all produced by Netflix since 2019
“House of the Dragon’s Brutal Birth Obsession Isn’t Realism. It’s Cruelty.” by Kathryn VanArendonk for Vulture, 2022.
“Is Ryan Murphy’s Jeffrey Dahmer show the most exploitative TV of 2022?” by Stewart Heritage for The Guardian, 2022.
some starting points for research:
Daniel Linz’ excellent meta-analysis “Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials and Attitudes toward Rape: A Comparison of Study Results.”
“Some Effects of Thoughts on Anti- and Prosocial Influences of Media Events: A Cognitive-Neoassociation Analysis.”, Leonard Berkowitz
“Mass Media Effects on Violent Behavior.”, Richard B. Felson
“Effects of Portrayals of Female Sexuality and Violence Against Women on Perceptions of Women (Pornography)”, James B. Weaver III
and my own analysis can be found here in the sections on catharsis theory (and will be expanded in later essays)