Fergus Cassidy

Drug of the nation

I HAVE always loved the the "watering hole" notion when describing a pub. In some pubs the beer might have tasted like that, but the phrase conjured up an oasis where people gathered to quench their thirst. Most definitely liquid, but not exclusively.

Pubs, no matter how many style changes and makeovers, are still public houses. Relaxing, easy-going places. "Taking care of all your worries, sure would help a lot", as the Cheers theme song goes.

Maybe this is at the heart of the continuing unease over the smoking ban. What started on the top deck of buses, then cinemas, theatres and restaurants, has now come to the last bastion. Public houses.

The question of people's rights has cropped up, but pubs are the last places in the world to look for a Custer-like stand on rights.

It's not all that long ago when women were banned from pubs in Ireland. When women were eventually 'let in', they were shepherded into snugs. Twenty-five years ago I was refused two pints of beer in a bar in Cork. "Glasses only for women", I was stoutly informed. We made our excuses and left.

As those dreadful times passed away (for many travellers is still hasn't), pubs settled down and busied themselves with providing entertainment. Games were big - darts, rings and dominoes started the ball rolling and were followed by the era of pool. Those tables were eventually cleared to make way for disco, in turn ushering in the last days of the karaoke empire.

All was swept away and the pubs became much calmer places for a while. Until satellite television arrived. Screens were everywhere. Every nook and cranny in a pub was filled with them, until they got too big and had to be hung from the ceiling.

Televisions was the last time the noise level went up on what happens in pubs. It wasn't in the same league at all as the smoking ban, but it had fair wind for a while.

I mention it because there is a link between the two. Many of the arguments, for or against, apply to both. Needless to say, there's a massive difference in the degree of harm caused by smoking from that of television. But our attitude to both is now showing a remarkable separation.

The ban on smoking in pubs is entirely based on our universal understanding of the harm it does to others. What may have been an inclination in previous generations against tobacco smoke, is now under no doubt. Science has seen to that.

Information and knowledge on the harmful effects of toxic substances like tobacco is incontrovertible. Nobody seriously questions otherwise. But the ability of science to illuminate certain aspects of human behaviour is brand, spanking new and trust in it is still fragile.

Science is okay when it's about machines and stuff, but when it delves into human behaviour there is understandable resistance.

But we can't face both ways for much longer. Accepting and trusting only certain bits of scientific knowledge and throwing poo at others. Some sacred cows will go the same way as the last pub ashtray. In time.

There was something valid about the row over televisions in pubs. But perhaps that argument lacked traction in the same way that smoking once did: we didn't really fully understand the harm until science's evidence became overwhelming.

As the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland announced proposed guidelines for children's advertising on television last week, there is the implicit understanding that such advertising may be the cause of harm to children.

That's a good first step but the smoking issue has provided an excellent model for probing further. Why are children in danger from TV advertising? What exactly is the threat? How serious is the danger? We can go fully into this or we can look for compromises from the get go.

The proposed guidelines on children's advertising are mostly concerned with cultural implications for children and their parents: role models, honesty and dietary habits. But science has much more to say on the matter if we're prepared to embrace it.

On this the 50th anniversary of colour television, the medium has evolved and changed beyond all recognition. The explosion of channels and choice has meant that technology is increasingly being used to capture and hold viewers. These tricks of the trade have as much to do with technology than with what Pauleen Fowler does next.

The tools - cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises - are a core part of what scientists in the US have studied. Television's tricks "derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement... . It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique". [1]

One look at satellite pop music stations provides a clear idea where television is heading. The sole purpose is to capture and hold attention.

And science is increasingly pointing to the possibility that some of that attention is beyond an adult's control, never mind a child.

That should be enough to set off the alarm bells and apply the same rigor of analysis to the effects of television as has been applied to smoking.

Unlike previous generations when it came to smoking, we won't have the excuse that we didn't know how harmful it really was.

[1] From 'Effects of Program Context on the Processing of Television Commercials' by Michael L Rothschild, Esther Thorson, Byron Reeves, Judith E Hirsch and Robert Goldstein (1986).

Reproduced in Scientific American (23 Feb 2002) in article titled 'Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor' by Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

(c) Fergus Cassidy