March 22, 2005

• I'm on the "as long as I've got my two tivo boxes I can turn that bugger off for a few weeks!" side! :) But, if they want to wait until bass season starts, I'll be turning that thing off most the time... it's only tv...
• No hockey playoffs this year, so what the hell do I need a TV for?
• Don't own a TV. Haven't had one in five years. It is absolutely liberating.
• hehe yeah sad but true rocket.
• I'm with HuronBob... I can shut that TV off for a week, no problem, I've got TiVo. TV is probably a destructive part of society, but that presupposes we would do something "better" with our time if it didn't exist. Before TV there was radio, before that books and conversation. There are certainly those who could argue that conversation or social gathering is more productive than watching TV, but people in groups tend to be just as dumb as people alone at home in front of a TV. TV's negative or positive influence is directly related to the type of person tuning in.
• i love TV! but it's like anything, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. moderation in all things.
• I have no problem not watching TV. I just don't like being told when to do it, or, uh, not do it.
• Including moderation in moderation!
• I need to do this. I've been watching far too much TV lately. Of course, when you have a computer you don't really miss TV anyway. I can look up all the synopses of episodes I miss. *sigh*
• How dare you all? Don't you see there's Jacko's re-enacted trial right now? : ) There are weeks when I hardly actively watch it, aside from having it on while working, with news or some music video channel on. What I feel ashamed of, is the fact all those 'discovery'-like channels I got SatTV for, and hardly ever watch them, unless there's some fool digging poisonous snakes from their lairs with his bare hands. Mh.
• I guess it really doesn't count if you turn off your TV but continue downloading episodes? I just can't wait until more new Doctor Who comes online.
• I'm only occasionally tempted to feel snotty about my (relative) lack of TV, since I spend so much time online anyway, which is just replacing one glowing, hypnotic monitor full of drama for another, innit. ;P
• In a way, net access can be much more addictive than TV; while there can be the proverbial "150 channels and nothin' on.." moment at the tube, there's always something interesting, engrossing on the net. There's always that one link, that one more message broard, than one more flash or .mpg to download, that one more group that shares the passion you thought was exclusive to you... /looks at sweaty hands, grabs mouse with white-knucked fist
• Can't live without TV. What would I play my video games on?
• TV's negative or positive influence is directly related to the type of person tuning in Nailed it, SAH. I don't find anything inherently good or bad in either having a TV or not; and what are you "liberating" yourself to do? I know lots of people who watch far too much television, or watch television passively, but for everyone one of those people, there are people who use television responsibly and find it an entertaining source of diversion, often even enjoyed in groups. The totalitarian anti-TV types really turn me off. And yeah, I'm not addicted to TV but completely addicted to the Net, which is far more insidious and dangerous, imo.
• MetaFilter: People Who Use Television Responsibly
• Blogrot...did you really think you were on metafilter?? :) personally, I like the "glowing, hypnotic monitor full of drama" tag, but didn't think it fit monkeyfilter...but...we might be able to sell it to the folks on MetaTalk ..hehe
• Well you've got the interactive element to the Internets. Wonder where them pesky statistimics are for who uses TV responsibly and who ain't.
• I really hear you, Melinika. For me, it'd be *much* more of a challenge to spend a week using the internet only for that which is necessary. I'm not and have never been hooked on tv; internet on the other hand. . . April 25th to May 1st, here I come.
• I just hope that these guys turn their attention to other bedevilling media, and follow up with the Radio-Free Long Weekend, Pitch Your Periodicals Month, and The Great American Book-Out. Sweet, sweet freedom!
• I turned my TV off (disconnected cable, seldom watch regular TV anymore) two years ago. It was like watching blue sky open up after a cloudy day. It really has been that good. Take the plunge! Turn off the toob!!! You have nothing to lose but your angst.
• there's always something interesting, engrossing on the net That's putting it mildly. ... he said as he typed with one hand You have nothing to lose but your angst. You'll get my angst when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, beatnik!
• Lately, my wife and I have spent the evenings reading to each other instead of watching whatever rerun happens to be on cable. Much more fun.
• Fine, but I'm turning it back on for Sci-Fi Friday. They'll pry my Stargate collection out of my cold, dead hands.
• Seriously, for those of you dissatisfied with TV? consider Tivo. As one of my friends put it: "There is a RIVER of content flowing by you constantly, that you've paid for, that once it gets past? You can never get back." I never miss my favorites, and now I can scan all the channels, all the movies, grabbing hither and yon all sorts of things I've always wanted - cooking shows, gawd, my favorite is on at like 3:30 in the afternoon, I never miss it now. Quality cartoons off the Learning Channel, I grab 'em and burn to DVD for my kids. Shark vs. Rhino. "Charley Varrick." "Death Race 2000." Nova. "History's Mysteries." Cinemax!!
• They have Noam Chomsky shirts?
• Another one still not chalked-up on the 'things we should have in the 21st century" list: a 24/7 Simpsons channel.
• already have in the... sorry, been so far 8 hours without watching tv and alreday gor the jitters.
• I watch a whole hell of a lot of tv and I'm not ashamed of it. Why don't they have a, "stop buying crappy celebrity magazines" week or a "stop driving your car when you live less than a mile from work" week?
• The Great American Book-Out. Fes, you stole my joke. They should print bumper stickers that say "Dont read! and "Burn your Books!" Then we could all go to parties, and when someone mentions a book by Hemingway or Joyce, look delibrately confused for about five minutes. Then, in a tone dripping with condescension, explain, "Oh is that a BOOK? You see, I dont read."
• Amen to The Simpsons channel. But can it be a pre-2000 Simpsons channel? The more of the newer seasons come into syndication, the more I have to stay away from my re-runs for months at a time.
• Amen to that, drjimmy11. My husband and I (who met because of The Simpsons) have started a Simpsons DVD collection, which will stop at around season 8 or 9. The later seasons are pretty crappy by comparison. As a matter of fact, DVDs are all we watch on tv anymore. Unless something's on Food Network or Animal Planet.
• Fourth for the Simpsons channel. But to make a point, television really is a unique medium, vastly different from any other. Mostly for technological reasons but also cultural ones that TiVo has started to fracture. Consider the classics: the JFK assasination or the first moonwalk; the cultural associations we all share (d'oh!) through a single type of culture that is much newer than anything else that shapes society. And one that has supplanted whatever we would have had without television. Books, magazines, and radio couldn't do what television did in terms of creating and shaping a culture (or cultures) so thoroughly and quickly. By comparison, the Internets is still too user-hostile to do it like TV did.
• DR. Jimmy- There are already plenty of people who don't read and are confused when books, even popular books, are mentioned in conversation. And they're rightly known as morons. As for the TiVo- Don't most Tivo owners end up watching more hours of TV per week? As for me, I'll probably wage a futile argument with my girlfriend over the elimination of TV for just a week, and then I'll go back to watching it. I remember a house in which I lived where we would spend our monthly cable money on halucinogens and watch the great outdoors instead of a screen. It was a pretty good house.
• DR. Jimmy- There are already plenty of people who don't read and are confused when books, even popular books, are mentioned in conversation. Yes, but most of them are not PROUD of it, as many of the anti-TV people seem to be. Thus my little satire.
• *jumps up and down* I don't play video games either. Never have since the real arcade version...I actually delete the ones on the computer as a waste of disc space. Actually, I consider myself lucky to be able to say I've never had the privelege of watching one, although seeing then upon occasion is impossible to escape. And I don't care if anyone has an opinion on either side of the value of television; you're all adult enough to make your own decisions... *settles in to watch the monkeypoo fly* *giggles after preview* I once went forty-eight hours without even the computer when both it and my car broke down. It was total agony.
• …in a tone dripping with condescension… Heh. I got rid of my television four years ago, and have never felt the lack. My choice to rid myself of the box comes up in conversations only when I have to explain the confused look on my face when friends/acquaintances are discussing the latest plot rehash on the tube. I politely explain -- and these are my exact words, usually -- "Oh, I don't own one." No more, no less. The utter shock people give me when they learn this is sad and disturbing to me. "You don't have a television?!" they'll gasp, and you can see the confusion and fear in their eyes. They then immediately accuse me of "dripping with condescension." And you know what? I wasn't dripping with it before, but after that, I sure am.
• Oh, I don't own a television. I don't feel like paying for the cable. That's right.
• IMMO, TV has a real power that none of our other media have, including them Interwebs. An awesome pseudo-quasi-religious type power. Ever been in a room (party, perhaps) where the tv is on, but no one is watching? I've noticed two things: (1) people get quieter during the advertising. (2) Turning it off makes people annoyed.
• dripping douggles? surely you didn't mean to leave me with that one open, did you?
• I think I'll watch more TV. Let's see if I get any stupider!
• A situation where more is less.
• I'd imagine that'd be hard to do.
• sorry
• You mean the Playstation monitor? ;) I had to decide between internet and cable when money was tight. Guess which one I picked. Money isn't tight now, but I never got back into it. But I don't have an attitude about it; I still watch TV shows on DVD, and hey, anyone who kills THIS much time on the internet really can't take the high ground on entertainment zombification, y'know? I never get attitudes back about it, either. On the rare occasion when it comes up they usually ask me what I do for background noise, I say I usually have music on, that's about the extent of it. It is kind of funny, though, that I know about a lot of the stuff on TV just from hearing it in passing on the internet. Uh... I'm not a total dork or anything, no sir.

• anyone who kills THIS much time on the internet really can't take the high ground on entertainment zombification, y'know?

  I'm not a big ol' slave to TV, but you've nailed one of the attitudes that bugs me most about so many anti-TV attitudes. How is being a passive consumer of, say, radio make one superior to being such WRT TV? If one's interaction with the 'net is to spend time at Fark, are you better off than watching the History Channel? Is reading Jackie Collins really more improving than watching Ken Burns? I'm glad you have the perspective apparently lacking in so many 8)
• dripping douggles? surely you didn't mean to leave me with that one open, did you? Heheh. Please excuse me, I have to go grab a towel.
• We're this far into the discussion and no one has posted the classic Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television? I went a decade without one. I own one now. Wouldn't go out of my way to replace the current one should it die. Haven't noticed much difference.
• You know what I miss? Those big old honkin' wood console TVs that our parents had. With the built in speakers covered in that course yarny stuff? My parents' had a lid that you could lift up on top to expose a turntable, no kidding. Nowadays, you just get a big black plastic box. Back then, you got furniture.
• Yeah, them big old wooden furniture TVs! When my Dad brought home our first colour console TV it was a major deal. My proudest achievment as a pre-pubescent nerd was, long before remote controls, wiring up a switch that sat on the coffee table so we could mute the commercials on the family TV.
• Furniture TV's were the best, unobtrusive and functional even when they were off. Current sets are big, black and scary. And they'll take all of your money.
• MonkeyFilter: Did you really think you were on Metafilter?? Heh Heh BlogRot, I'm always afraid I'll do the same typo, and then I'd have to commit death by sushi. *Begins pelting blogRot with fish.
• Don't kill your television; instead, kill your desire.
• My dad still has a "furniture TV", about as old as I am. As well as a microwave with an imitation wood case. (And three computers, so it's not entirely a museum.) Functional. It would all probably bring in a killing on eBay if he'd part with it. Before remote controls, I was the remote control. :) Also had to flip channels really fast to make the static go away - had something to do with the connections/contacts. As for the whole TV-is-inherently-evil bit, "moderation in all things" is about what I'd say - constantly and habitually doing any one thing just to fill time is dull. It's dull and a little soul-sucking that I habitually read a bunch of websites every day, usually the same ones. More to the point, the only thing that makes me sad is when people watch anything - not specific shows, but whatever's on, because it's there and there's time to kill. (Which again, I'll do with the internet. Six of one.) And even then, it's not "Haha, small-minded plebes!" so much as "I wish you had another hobby." Some people get that way when they retire, and hearing about it breaks my heart. That sounds like a problem. TV existing, not so much. Lots of TV being crappy, not really. (Sturgeon's Law. Inevitable.) But the kind of assumption/mindset that there's nothing else in life to do, that's upsetting.
• I will add this about not owning a television: people are literally stunned when I tell them that. Think about it. I have not consumed alcohol in ten years. People do not react much to that. I know people who do not own cars. Again, not too much of a reaction. No dvd player? Okay. No internet? Okay. No television? "What do you DO?" is the most common response. So perceived condescending behavior on my part is eclipsed a thousand times over by the stunned reaction on the part of others.
• Rogerd- The reason that no one mentions radio, another one-to-many one-way communication medium, is that it doesn't dominate society. Perhaps that argument would have been better made in the 1920s. The other reason is because TV is the "hottest" of mediums, it provides the most for the viewer and expects little work in return.
• During MARCH MADNESS? I've got a mac, so ncaasports.com doesn't support me with its streaming coverage of all the games, so fuck, ah say fuck dat!!!
• I dunno; does it count if I TiVO "Lost" on ABC and watch it when the week is up?
• (Thinking I should hit the link and check the dates to make sure the week in question is in March...slinking away with head low and tail betwixt legs...)
• What channel can I tune into to find out more about TV turn off week?
• bernockle, that might vary too. I get a much stranger reaction about not owning a car than not being interested in TV (god, I sound like such a hippie in this thread). People pity me, and don't understand how I continue to exist, and act like it's the height of torture to get to work every day. There's a delicate shudder implicit in the mere mention of public transit, and walking is a torment that must be endured to get from the parking lot to the door (and even that is excessive!!). It's like I'm a martyr to some exotic religion that they cannot comprehend. Meanwhile, I'm not suffering a bit; they just see it that way. It's really weird. TV, when I don't know what happened on [whatever] last night, they'll just turn and talk to whoever does know. Or the "what do you do for background noise" question comes up. And that's it. I find the car business much more irritating. It probably depends on where you are, things like that.
• Oh, I see you're from the east coast. That makes some sense then, the reactions you get. Sorry, I'm not trying to pick on the east coast. Vegans, bike supremacist and non-TVers, people wear that on their sleaves around here, or at least T-shirts.
• I'm from the east coast, and nobody blinks when I say I don't have a TV. actually, though, I'm lying. I do, I have 3 TVs, except I don't have cable, and none of the TVs thus pick up any actual TV channels (in the mountains, no tv without cable.) One has a dvd player built into it, one has a vcr built into it, and one is the center of a piece of art and has the playstation hooked up to it. God I'm horribly consumerist.
• It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that all media are the same, that getting rid of your TV is the same thing as getting rid of books. TV's an entirely passive medium that requires hardly any brain activity. Your brain's more active while sleeping than while watching TV. Not so with books, which can't be enjoyed without at least some mental effort. No, TV's not the great Satan, and it all depends on how you use it, but a lot of people (myself included) find themselves a lot more productive and mentally active when they get rid of cable and either limit or completely end their TV consumption.
• I ditched cable 7 years ago and haven't found anything compelling enough to start paying for it again. The only thing I've really felt the need to watch since then has been movies (TV serves as the face of Netflix) and news in September 2001. The internet, however, is dangerously addictive for me. I have to be really busy to not want my email. I can't afford to be snotty about not watching TV: my idiot box is a Macintosh.
• Oh, hell, I'm a web junkie too. I can zone out in front of it just as easily. Not at all "proud" of the fact that I don't have cable, just got tired of paying for it. And it's funny -- I get access to it a handful of times a year, and most of the basic cable stations are playing the exact same stuff. How many times can Comedy Central play "Fletch?" Mythbusters, though. That show kicks ass.
• The only show I'd possibly want to get cable for is The Daily Show, and that is pretty reliably torrented on btefnet (GIYF) and similar sites.
• TV's an entirely passive medium that requires hardly any brain activity. If that's how you want to watch it, fine. Some people consider it worthy of study.
• Also, from McLuhan's Understanding Media,, p. 31: "There is a basic principle that distinguishes [...] a hot medium like the movie from a cool one like TV", and "a hot medium like radio has very different effects on the user from a cool medium like the telephone".

• It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that all media are the same, that getting rid of your TV is the same thing as getting rid of books. TV's an entirely passive medium that requires hardly any brain activity.

  No, "disingenious" is calling people who watch Ken Burn's documentaries as brain-dead, while suggesting those who read only Jackie Collins are vigourously mentally stimulated.
• My bad. I should have clarified. I'm talking pound-for-pound comparisons, so that we can see the differences in the media themselves. For instance, a high-quality documentary or biopic about Churchill, versus a high-quality biography of Churchill. I'm saying that though both might be equally intellectually stimulating, the latter has the advantage of forcing your mind to supply the moving pictures through your imagination. The former creates them for you, making it a more passive experience. Likewise, the Jackie Collins novel will have a leg up on something equally crappy, say an episode of "Alf," in that you at least have to use your imagination to picture Lady Toadburger getting her freak on with the stable boy. You don't just sit there and watch it happening on the screen. The brain activity thing was a reference to a study I read so long ago that I can't remember where that compared brain activity while watching TV to other activities such as reading or sleeping. It showed TV watching as producing low activity far more consistently. I don't remember what the controls were or what the subjects were watching. At any rate, it wasn't meant as an insult to TV viewers (of which I am one, btw).
• Yes, the point is that there's al kinds of TV. The problem is when one chooses to stare, zombified, at crap. I recall several shows from my childhood; Sagan's Cosmos, Connections, with that funny japanese guy, Brideshead Revisited, Off Center... I could feel my brains' creaky gears actually move with those shows. Of course, then I got acces to Mtv and it all went down to hell...
• mct, you make an execellent point in noting that all forms of communication come invarying shades of objective worth. I read some ghastly choices when I was younger, and now patiently wait to see if my daughter ever grows out of her choices of genre. A good documentary, which is ridiculously hard to find on the television we have available here, is something I would take the time to watch. PBS used to have stimulating series when better funded.
• After all these years of despising the tube and once throwing my cowboy boot thru one* I now have become an a watcher. Oh, the shame. At first it was occasional--a PBS special here and there, maybe Antiques Roadshow as we ate dinner. Now I'm addicted to Malcom in the Middle. I even think about the fact that I'm missing it when I'm riding, but then I realize hey! I'm on a horse, life is good. I even broke down and gave Mr. BlueHorse one for Christmas two years ago. (The recliner was this year) Oddly enough, he seems to be watching less and painting more. Guess when I gave up and gave in, he decided it wasn't as much fun if he couldn't aggravate me by having it on. *no regrets, could be my finest hour. Too bad the in-laws thought we were 'deprived' and gave us their old one several years later.
• I have heard that "passive medium" argument for years and I'm not sure there is even the slightest bit of validity to it. 1: Who's to say that picturing characters and settings, rather than seeing them portrayed visually, is stimulating in the least? TV and books both tell us stories- maybe by seeing those elements visually, our brain can concentrate on analyzing deeper layers of the story? 2: if this was true, then shouldnt we throw away books and just make up our own stories from scratch- wouldnt that be the least "passive?" 3: video games are the most interactive form of media imaginiable, yet they are constantly derided as "brain-rotting..." (I could go on all night but there's some TV I have to watch.)
• ps can anyone here define the "brain activity" we're referring to scientifically, and why more of it is necessarily a good thing? Just for one example, the goal of meditation is usually to reduce brain activity, yet it is rarely seen as a frivilious or "brain rotting activity."

• the goal of meditation is usually to reduce brain activity

  That might be true of certain kinds of meditation, but the type I'm familiar with teaches concentration of an extreme form. I've tried it a few times, and it is pretty tiring — similar to solving a difficult mathematical puzzle. It's almost certainly incorrect to glibly call it a "reduction" in brain activity. My layman's view is that meditation teaches you how to increase the signal-to-noise ratio in your brain. In that sense it is the opposite of "reducing" brain activity. In the opposite extreme, a heroin overdose can cause severe electronic storms in one's brain. In the seconds before one's spasming death, one will have activated (and fried) areas of one's brain that one has rarely or never used in one's life. Surely we can all agree that a heroin addiction is not a productive way to pass one's time.
• Dr. Jimmy- Here's a good start: TV releases reinforcing opiods, This mentions the famous Mulholland experiment (though I haven't been able to find any direct links to the study, since it was conducted B.I.— before internet). And I was wrong to mention McLuhan above, because I think he's fundementally wrong about his view of hot and cold media (though, from his framework, we'd have a hard time denying that television is a "hot" medium today, and it's certainly much "hotter" than when he proposed his model. But he also seems to think participation in a media is dangerous...) As far as all the gripers go: Why not try turning your TV off for a week? Are these shows really all that important to you? If so, why? Is a consumption of entertainment role inherent in your identities? And as for the question about whether it would be better to write a book than read one: sure. Go for it. Take the week off of TV and write a book.
• I went a decade without one. I own one now. Wouldn't go out of my way to replace the current one should it die. Haven't noticed much difference. Bragging how few brain receptors still work? Hokay. I got rid of mine 3 years ago and noticed a huge difference. Did I mention that I no longer have a TV? No more inane electronic chatter whenever the stupid thing is on. Now I do all my inane 'lectonic chatter right here on mofi.
• Why not try turning your TV off for a week? Why not try shoving your assumptions up your arse?
• In America we don't say "assumption". It's "arseumption".
• Oh, Wolof. You've coined one of the greats. MonkeyFilter: Why not try shoving your assumptions up your arse. *blows kiss
• Wolof- Wow. You can stop anytime you want, right? You don't have a problem, no sir, especially not a problem that would make you feel defensive and antagonistic towards strangers on the internet... Not at all...
• Wow js, impressive diagnostic skills there. Where'd you get your MD in psychiatry from? Was Dr. Bill Frist your mentor?
• Before we descend into the inferno (again), might I suggest a TV Dante?
• I'll quit tomorrow, yes I will I'll quit tomorrow or I'll be damned to hell I'll never watch TV no more (Appy polly loggies to Tex and the Horseheads)
• Fuyu- Then why the antagonism? What's wrong with going without TV for one week? Aside from things needed for life functions (i.e. breathing) there's very little that can't be given up for a week, or that would get such strong reactions.
• Masterbation js?
• Some people need to give up being sanctimonious for a week.
• *clutches self to self* My precious it is. /Because someone had to make that joke. Eh, television doesn't need to be killed. If people are happy with it on leave it on. Same with off. There is no benefit in depriving yourself of what brings you joy.
• Remember kids: if you're an alcoholic, consult a physician before you stop cold turkey. It could kill you. I'm dead serious.
• Tempest- I'll give up jerking off for a week if any of the pro-TV whiners here will give up the tube. Boobs for tube, we'll call the swap (I suppose everyone will be on the honor system).
• js, you seem inclined to think that anyone who watches tv at all watches it all the time. Not true. Some watch it more than others, and some not much. In either case, some watch it interactively with others, and some watch it alone. What's the big deal? You're speaking to grown up people - some will give it up and some won't - but you're taking on the unattactive aspect of a tv nanny. If you want a cause, there are a lot out there that are much more important. I don't watch much tv, but I would never try to impose my habits on the rest of the monkeys. And, I felt kind of oogly saying that I don't watch much since it might sound that I think I have the higher moral ground, and that's not where I'm coming from.
• Cockalorum.
• I'm hesitant to jump into the fray here, but I think there's a few things that have gone unsaid that are worth mentioning. I've personally given up TV - I try not to get on my high horse about it, lord knows I waste enough time on the internet. However, I think that there is one thing that separates TV from a lot of other media, and that is who is paying for it. With the exception of PBS and those premium channels like HBO, etc, TV stations get the majority of their funds from advertising. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems to me that it is a system totally driven by people trying to sell us shit. Is it any wonder that the major news channels are all going conservative? It's businesses that's bankrolling them, through advertising - and he who has the buck determines the content. Yeah, there's the Nielson ratings and all, but when it comes down to it it's the advertising dollars that are the bottom line. I think that this is the core behind the Adbuster's campaign, too. Adbuster's is an anti-capitalist/anti-consumer-society publication, and I think that's what they're trying to call attention to with their TV Turnoff Week. No, TV doesn't cause all the worlds problems, but the system of which it is an extension certainly contributes to a lot of them. I mean, all of the above could also be said about radio, but then again, the only radio I listen to is NPR. It's easy for me, though - I'm enough of a pretentious asshole that watching too much TV makes me want to jump out a window, anyway.
• OH YESSSSSSSSS! MonkeyFilter: Lord knows I waste enough time on the internet. Roach, you are da BUG! This is one fine thread. But HuronBob, this is just beautiful: MonkeyFilter: Replacing one glowing, hypnotic monitor full of drama for another. and all the rest: MonkeyFilter: ... he said as he typed with one hand MonkeyFilter: I wasn't dripping with it before, but after that, I sure am. MonkeyFilter: Heheh. Please excuse me, I have to go grab a towel. MonkeyFilter: A situation where more is less MonkeyFilter: Uh... I'm not a total dork or anything, no sir. MonkeyFilter: I'm glad you have the perspective apparently lacking in so many. MonkeyFilter: It's like I'm a martyr to some exotic religion that they cannot comprehend. MonkeyFilter: Of course, then I got access to Mtv and it all went down to hell... MonkeyFilter: You can stop anytime you want, right? MonkeyFilter: Some people need to give up being sanctimonious for a week. MonkeyFilter: I'm enough of a pretentious asshole .... MonkeyFilter: Cockalorum. *takes deep breath Was that as good for you as it was for me?
• The Roach: Advertising also funds radio, newspapers, and magazines. And there's nothing bad about advertising...I get free information or entertainment and all I have to do in return is watch a few 30-second commercials? Count me in! That's a great system! I don't even have to buy the crap they're pitching. There's no obligation on my part whatsoever. Excuse me if I don't see the evil in this arrangement. Oh, and the major news channels aren't going conservative (except for Fox)...they're going impotent. The bottom line is that anyone who thinks TV is mindless or evil is free to ignore it. But spare the rest of us your zealotry and stop trying to convert us to your cause. It's annoying.
• hmmm, if advertising were that innocuous, it wouldn't generate the billions of dollars worth of revenue. But I'll let someone else with more expertise on the subject deal with that one. Besides that, though, my point had less to do with the commercials and more to do with the fact that the advertisers end up controling the content, not the viewers. You don't vote with your wallet like you do with some other forms of media (newspapers and magazines have advertising costs mediated with subscriptions - i mentioned radio in my above post) - so the control of the content comes from somewhere else. Amongst other problems, i just think that system produces utter crap in terms of content But I'm not mandating what you do or don't do. Watch away.
• But if no-one watched whatever show, the advertising would go away, as well as the program. So, we're talking about people making decisions to watch programs that they like, and maybe they listen to the advertising. Gotta tell you though, the the couple of sponsered programs I watch could be "presented" by the Nigerian spammers, for all I know, 'cause I pay no attention to the ads. Same with the ads on internet sites. In fact, there's a rumor that gmail has ads, but they've never impinged on my awareness. I can't think I'm the only one. So selling is, what? Evil? Making income is terrible? Why? I'm sure that some people may be tempted by infomercials, and some may shop with QVC (assuming it's still on), and some may find commercials for cars or whatever worth paying attention to. Isn't that their choice? Does a company which makes a product, or several pay you to work for them? If they couldn't sell their product, would you still have a job? If they couldn't market their product, would they make any income? If there was a superior and cheaper product among the alternatives out there for something you wanted to buy, and you didn't hear about it because you were to pure to check out the players via ads, how would you benefit? Or, would you maybe check out some ads to see what the choices are? And then analyse the data from competing offers and make your own decision? The watchword is "caveat emptor." It's up to the buyer to make the best decision. Yeah, it's a lot of responsibility, but I think we can do it.
• Can we do it, path? I'd say we've done a remarkably bad job. I mean, we buy Nike shoes despite them being made with sweatshop labor halfway around the world - kids being paid subistence wages or less (and in conditions that were outlawed in the US one hundred years ago). We have the meatpacking industry, arguably the worst working conditions left in the US, running full-steam ahead because we gobble down McDonalds and Burger King. Yeah, fast food is cheap (but Nike sure isn't), but advertising also plays a HUGE factor in keeping those things the way they are. Ads DO NOT help me scope out the competition for a product - they're designed to sell stuff to me, not to give me accurate information to make informed decisions. If I wanted that kind of information, I'd look at things like consumer reports, trade journals, etc, or just rely on word of mouth. If you want to make informed decisions, you have to educate yourself - relying on ads, which too many people do, does NOT constitute education. I'm not "anti-income" - I'm for paying directly for the things you want rather than having this bizarrely circuitous system. I mean, this is anecdotal and subjective - I don't watch HBO that much, but from what little I've seen the quality of the original programming is slightly above the rest of what's on the tube. Why? Because they have to answer directly to the subscribers. An interesting book i read along these lines a few years back was Affluenza. Ironically, the book is based on/a follow up to a program that ran on PBS by the same name. It touches on some of these issues, as well as a few others. It's a fun read, at least. I mean, maybe a full systematic switch would be impossible, or be even worse than what we have now. I don't know. I would LOVE to see schools start adopting media literacy programs or something of the sort - if the buyer is gonna make the best decision, they really should be able to make those decisions intelligently.
• All that said, I think Adbusters as a publication has some serious problems. Their heart is in the right place, but they have a habit of spewing vitrol without giving any evidence to back up their claims. Kind of like what I just did, except I'm not a widely read publication. I'm just some shmoe on the internet.
• Roach, I'm beginning to fall in love: MonkeyFilter: I'm just some shmoe on the internet. And then there's the others: MonkeyFilter: I don't even have to buy the crap they're pitching. MonkeyFilter: Spare the rest of us your zealotry and stop trying to convert us to your cause. I love it when this stuff is out of context.
• Path- I'm not sure how you got to me being a nanny. I think that it's good to give up things every now and then, if for no other reason than to remind yourself that you can live without them. I'm not seeking to impose my values by some sort of horrible coersion— I am trying to convince people. If you wouldn't ever feel convincing someone on Monkeyfilter of something, well, I'm not sure why you comment... Rocket- How many places can you go now that are devoid of advertising? How many public places? Few to none. Oh, and if you don't like people trying to convert you, there's always the option of leaving the thread. Unless your shrill sanctimony is more valuable than ours...
• js: Gee! Isn't it ironic that Ive always thought that the reason for the threads was to discuss (or make fun of) the issues? Now that you've explained to me that the purpose is to convert the participants I see the light! I bet I'll be hell on wheels in the conversion game. Snap to, all you monkeys - I plan to have you thinking like an old lady within the week. And to kick it off, js, I'll give up my shrill sactimony for a week if you'll give up yours.
• MonkeyFilter: your shrill sanctimony is more valuable than ours... Don't make me keep doing this, kids.
• MonkeyFilter: don't make me keep doing this, kids
• Great another floating head overlord. We obey thee. Now hush.
• Another Zardoz fan on the line? Too cool!
• .
• Definitely more valuable than yours, js.
• I'd forgotten all about that movie. Thanks for the reminder, Wolof. Must see Zardoz again! *dives into Netflix queue*
• My work here is done.
• Can you kids in here keep it down? I can't hear the TV...
• Give up TV for a week? That's it I'm out of here. You monkeys are too extreme for me. No T.V. for a week? Filterheads, what dumbkofvs.
• Well, now my week* here is done. don't hate me because I pun
• You're forgiven, granma, 'cause you're fun. I hate any kind of advertising too. It must be a generational thing. *still laughing at all of you*
• *Puts on red kepi, dances to the theme from The Rockford Files, and flings a bit a poo to keep dxlifer laughing.*
• I was just hoping maybe I could be the last person to comment on this stupid thread, it has gotten way too much attention.
• *ducks* Could you not find something else to throw, path? I promise to keep laughing. /goes to find red toque and purple scarf. ...sorry, Lucifurby, television, or the lack of it, can spur the most divergent issues for discussion....
• Path: Forgive me if this is overly socratic, but what's the goal of discussing an issue? For me, it's to get many views on an issue (both agreement and disagreement), and in having those views, make an attempt to reconcile the arguments put forth. Sometimes I end up on another side, sometimes the other side ends up agreeing with me. Sometimes there's a stalemate. But if your goal in discussion isn't to put forth a point of view for agreement or disagreement, then what is it? You're interacting here but... your intent is to have your views rejected? Mocked? Rocket: Boy, you sure pwned me. What a zinger!
• js: Sorry...I was drunk when I posted that. I don't even know what it means. I've had a chance to browse through the original linked site, and I can't figure out what agenda they're pushing with this TV-free week. Some of their anti-tv arguments come from a pro-reading standpoint (I don't find the two mutually exclusive), and in others they link TV watching with obesity. If TV makes you fat from inactivity, what does reading do? There seem to be undertones of anti-capitalism/anti-consumerism in there, too. I wish they would just state their biases up front, and provide a coherent argument as to why I should turn my TV off, and how it would benefit me or society in general.
• Monkeyfilter: I was drunk when I posted that. Consider it a vacation, BlueHorse
• Really, dx, is that going to happen sometime soon?
• Thanks, Nick
• Rocket- I can agree with that. As someone who spends my working life and a fair amount of my entertainment life in front of the ol' cathode, I can't argue from a position of a healthy lifestyle. I suspect that I'm more active, mentally and physically, typing than I am watching, but I'd also guess that the margin isn't tremendous. And I'll cop to watching a fair amount of television (though I have to read a lot too, at least for my classes). And I do think that the site could benefit from a big redesign. I do think that there can be all sorts of reasons to give up TV for a week, from the simple "To get outside more often," to wanting to explore unmediated experiences. As a writer, I hope that people will use their time to read more, and buy magazines that I have pieces in, and write to the editor, telling them how great those pieces are... But that's a bit of a stretch... I don't feel like there's any great risk in giving up TV for a week. Even if it's just to see what life's like without one for a bit, or to examine why the TV has such a draw in our culture. I'm not trying to condemn people. Rather, I'm trying to figure out why there's such a defensive reaction against giving up something that I see as fairly peripheral in the human experience, and only for a week at that. The strident refusal to do so seems to me to be a an odd bit of a refusal to examine one's life fully. While doubtless, most people can make a pretty educated survey of their life even with a TV blaring, there's that fairly heavy bit of social connectivity (or passive entertainment or whatever) that people seem unwilling to examine. I know that I've felt odd at certain points when I've gone without email for a week or so, but that gave me an opportunity to think about it. I'd see TV the same way, and I'm confused as to the hostility that I've seen in this thread regarding that idea.
• js, if the purpose of discussion is... to get many views on an issue (both agreement and disagreement), and in having those views, make an attempt to reconcile the arguments put forth... What is the need for a public consensus or stalement or continuing disagreement? As opposed to any public flogging* of others for the sake of their changing or not changing. *isn't it Easter? *drops pondersome mood and grins*
• The strident refusal to do so seems to me to be a an odd bit of a refusal to examine one's life fully. I have spent years without a television set. I have spent months on end on small boats without television sets shuttling between islands where there's no TV anyway, at least not any that I could understand. The long and short of it is that you did not know these things yet steamed ahead on the good ship prejudice anyway. This is precisely what excites my hostility. Blah blah passive entertainment blah blah unexamined life blah blah blah. Still confused?
• When I was a kid, we'd spend a few weeks every summer at our little camp on an island in Maine, where we had no electricity. We had a tiny b&w TV with a power cord that could plug into a car's cigarette lighter socket. I remember we watched Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone's vault. What a colossal waste of time that was. The best part of the evening was the moth with the 7" wingspan that clung to the outside of the window. I think he wanted to see Al Capone's vault too. He seemed pretty disappointed that there was nothing in it, flapping his wings, cursing. Where was I going with this story? Oh yeah, stay outta my booze!
• js - Why do you think you're the one to "reconcile" the views of a community of (mostly) mature, intelligent people who can make their own decisions. unaided, about most things in life? Especially whether they want to give up tv for a time. If you want to give it up, fine, but your challenges to the rest of us seemed to imply that those who don't agree with you are weak and somehow deficient. That's not a persuasive argument. A number of opinions were posited above, and everyone was fine with the varying views, until you came along. Discussion is not "conversion." Discussion is sharing viewpoints and respecting the opinions of others. And, by the way, "socratic" means you asked a question? "Socratic" should mean you have something to teach me, and I don't think you do. Also, you didn't even last a day in my challenge about giving up shrill sanctimony. Let me ask you straight out. Are you a troll? I didn't grow up on the internet, so I tend to think that you're just a self-important twerp, but I could be wrong. To the rest of the community: mea culpa.
• Saint js the evangelist: regarding your epistle As to the strange addictive poison power of TV: It pains that I really do not give one hoot nor whistle As to what you may conclude of dear ol' wolof, path or me. It seems you've tuned your mental TV set to have displayed Just squared-eyed, dribbling fellows who are staked out on the couch Your arguments move oddly, like some Kant in retrograde: "What's good for me, is good for all!" - that's how I hear you grouch. Yet if TV stinks for just one week, for fifty-two it's rank: Thus surely constant moderation's taken when we will! And do you suppose our wolof - who learnt film on the left bank - Is just some mindless eyeball who's bereft of critical skill? Your conclusions are as dull as clod - have you buried your head cthonic? Such assumptions dig past insult and descend to realms moronic.
• Wolof, Path, Quid- Y'know, I was going to get more antagonistic in my replies, because I think that what you've put forward is a fundemental misrepresentation of my views (such as asking Wolof why he doesn't want to give up TV and having his reply be "Shove your assumptions up your ass). But it really does me no good. I'll just remember that Path thinks that I have nothing to offer, Quid thinks I'm a moron, and that Wolof and I have had a couple of clashes over fairly silly things. To Rocket- Thanks for engaging me in a decent discussion. Shame I couldn't find similar elsewhere here.
• js, I'll talk to you, always. Honest, I will. I'll even still take you on if you want to give up all video games and stuff, as well. And we can have a decent discussion about it. C'mon, do you wanna talk? By the way, Wolof, which islands and what were you doing and best of all, how did you maintain current with current affairs? Newspapers at ports? Boardband? Broadmouth or did things not really matter in that state of existence? / waits, patiently to here about this tale. *smiles even more, with anticipation now* path, you're the only one who'll talk to me. It must be a generational thing again. Or maybe it's menopausal, I never know...
• I was up in Indonesia, Flores, Sumbawa, that sort of joint. BBC World Service did the trick.
• Here in Mexico we have something similar to a "turn off your radio" hour. It's called "La Hora Nacional" and it's basicaly a underfunded comunist-like, nationalist propaganda show made by the government and forced by law to be broadcasted by all stations at the same time every sunday at 10 o'clock. Of course, nobody listens to it. I like to call it the "Aww, crap!" hour. Maybe something similar would work for TV.
• dx - ah, that's a surprise. In my mind you're a valuable monkey who's in the mix here. On the other hand, people don't always respond to my posts/comments, but I always assume that's because they have nothing to complain about:) So, I go on my way with a light heart. Your profile tells me that you're much like me, but better grounded than I was ten years ago or so. And, by the way, any poo flung by me in my silly comment above was not sent in your direction. Cheers, my dear.
• Wow, I took a week or so off from this thread and that's an assload of comments. I did think of something interesting, though, which I should've thought of sooner, being a screenwriter and all: there's at least one way in which TV and film require more thought on the part of the audience than a book: In print, the author can simply say "as he typed on Monkeyfilter, Ryan thought X" In film/TV (barring a chessy voiceover) the rule is "show dont tell," that is, the viewer must observe Ryan's actions and deduce what he's thinking or feeling.
• And I guess my overall point in all my comments is that I distrust easy answers that "sound good." This reminds me of those experiemnts where scientists "prove" listening to Beethoven makes you smart, or something like that. it's more about cultural facism than any kind of real science...
• MonkeyFilter: Maybe it's menopausal, I never know. Hey!
• Quid thinks I'm a moron Aw! No I don't mate. It was just a fun rhyme. I'm certain there are many opinions I hold that you would think are banal, idiotic or intolerable. Besides, surely it's not every day someone writes a sonnet about you, big guy.
• due to the lack of penis humor or ceiling-crawling in the last post, I declare it unauthentic and demand a new one. and soon I plan on reading this thread.
• I kneel at your absence of feet, Lord Floating Head.
• *sigh* I'm busy for a few days and just look at this. granma, you are bad, but then I suspect that you may know the joys of... wolof, are we going to hear stories about the high seas, someday? Such a dream trip, and sponsered, no less. I suppose the BBC liked their people to be up on their current affairs and kept you informed. Otherwise, one has to pay for it on the television, don't they? It's ok, path, I was simply worried that, at your age, your aim might be poor and I'd get in the line of fire. quid's being nice...leaves one wondering. I suppose I'm still the only one who hasn't watched any form of tube.(the moniter is LCD) Now tonight I'm on a train for 48 hours and will have no computer either. When I'm back I'll be in Winnipeg for a month. On dial-up. *shudders*
• We shall miss you Dxlifer, my friend! Don't worry, when you're in Winnipeg, we'll type r e a l s l o w.
• Guess I'm going to have to stop playing the age card.
• tv makes you smarter. somehow. maybe. (NYT, reg. req.) Riling up the blue at the moment.
• Whoop - it starts today! Totally missed that except for the train-wreck-wannabe over at MeFi. Bring back radio!
• They have commercials on the radio, too. I'll keep playing video games, reading the internet, and not pretending I'm better than everyone else because of my entertainment choices. Sorry.
• Houston, we have trainwreck. pretending I'm better than everyone else because of my entertainment choices this seems to be the central point of said wreck today too. I'm a litte puzzled by it and I'll tell ya why . . . *small children groan* Because to me it's an academic argument to be made. The pros and cons of a very large (if not all-consuming) television culture are fascinating, no matter which side you come down on. Last year i remembered it getting close to discussing the cultural aspects albeit with some "don't tell me what to do" comments, but this year seems to be straight to the shoving. Also interesting as it speaks to the point that TV is so ingrained in our (respective) cultures and/or ourselves that reaction to not having it is that strong. "No Twinkies Week" pales in comparison. (Admittedly the subtext is some variation of 'political correctness' but the root cause is still No TV Week)
• It's 7:27am and I haven't turned on the TV yet! I forgot it was this week and I'm a day ahead of you sods, so technically I lose/win.
• It's the assumption that people who watch TV all literally cannot read and don't know how to manage their time ("you can do other things!!") that gets under my skin. People are aware that they can do other things. They are aware that they can stop watching TV / eating junk food / whatever. They choose not to, for whatever reason. The assumption that general-you are "educating" the unwashed masses on something they don't know grates on my nerves. Do you seriously expect people to say "Really!??!?! I can go outside?!? Thank you, I would never have guessed!!!" I mean, really. ...however, an internet-turnoff week would be truly impressive with a crowd like Mefi's. Call me when they pull that off. ;)
• Also, this refers more to the original movement and to Mefi than the crowd here, which is quite laid-back in comparison.
• But isn't it fascinating that the mere suggestion gets people so riled? I messaged a friend about "TV Turnoff week" and the immediate reply was, "If anyone touches my Dish, they will die" ?! Seriously, aren't these kind of reactions proof themselves that TV is far too pervasive/powerful/other as a force in (a)our lives (b)society? Won't someone (a)Stop the Insanity (b)Think of the Children (c)Stop paying too much for that muffler?!
• I gave up TV for a few weeks a couple of years ago. I do watch now, although much less than I did before those few weeks. It think the most important thing I learned from the experience is that Friends blows so much fucking ass, and that I shouldn't give up TV, but should instead just give up crappy TV.
• Since I moved last year, I watch about 1/3 less TV. Oddly enough, it is because the TV is on the second floor and I am too lazy to walk up there and turn it on. Seriously.
• Pudges. Pudges? Damn that's crappy writing.
• I thought Pudge was more of a role model, actually.
• Dunno, petebest, but I think that what made people here twitch (and, probably on Mefi) is the attitude that the proponents here of "kill your tv" evince. What they seem to be saying is "we know what you're doing, and you're sitting entranced in front of the idiot box every possible moment." But, they don't know any of us, and can't monitor our viewing habits, so their assumptions are pretty annoying. As are their assumptions that they know better than we individuals what we should be doing with out time. This is probably not a tv-addicted audience, for the most part. And, even those who watch a lot get to make their own decisions about how they spend their time. Folks who suspect that they watch too much will turn it off for a week, or cut back. Folks who don't think that's true won't stop watching.It's their choice. The FPP link itself was ok-ish, but the "if you don't stop watching tv you're a dumb shit" (I'm not directing that at you) stuff doesn't give any of us credit for our ability to manage our own spare time.
• What Path said. Also, I don't have a fucking TV.
• I can appreciate that path (that's more or less where Ms. Best got to within 10 seconds of my broaching the topic), but I think there's a much, much bigger issue here. Let's try this one: TV is a religion. religion: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. TV beliefs: Seinfeld is a show about nothing. Calgon takes you away. Star Trek boldly goes where no man one has gone before. TV values (A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable): Interstellar crews should be racially and ethnically (and sexually) mixed. Homosexuals are funny. The media should be distrusted. Weather is bad when the words on the bottom of the screen say "The National Weather Service has issued . . ." TV practices: get home from work (or finish dinner), turn on the TV. Turn off the TV when going to bed. Switch channels when one is not interested in the current content. Turn the sound down during commercials (or not). TV spiritual leader: well, TV. "What is it saying now?"
• . . . and one adheres to that religion the same way that a adheres to teachings. Which is to say more-or-less. That would explain the quick and overwhelming reaction against a "Turn off your religion" week.
• Stop watching TV for a week. Stop eating meat for a week. Stop drinking alcoholic beverages for a week. Stop drinking coffee for a week. Stop masturbating for a week. All will get a similar reaction from people who like to do these things. There's nothing special about TV...it's just that adults have an aversion to being told what to do by others.
• Stop watching TV for a week. Stop eating meat for a week. Stop drinking alcoholic beverages for a week. Stop drinking coffee for a week. Stop masturbating for a week. All will get a similar reaction from people who like to do these things. There's nothing special about TV...it's just that adults have an aversion to being told what to do by others.
• I disagree - regardless of what amount television affects people, it's still unique. Eating meat doesn't affect the thought process or worldview as much as television does. Same goes for coffee & masturbation (two words I don't think I've seen together often . . ) A stronger case could be made for alcohol - it probably comes closest to affecting thought process and worldview as much as television, but it's still not on par - by a lot. Point taken that adults have an aversion to being told what to do by others - but let's move beyond that in the discussion. Both threads, here and on the blue, have focused almost exclusively on that. Does watching television affect the thought process (for example)? I say yes. That question alone is fascinating. There's a lot of interesting discussion to be had RE: life with / without TV.
• Arguably, there is something to be gained from abstaining from anything habitual for a week. (Well, maybe not breathing.) So, hey, if you haven't ever lived without Electro-cyclops droning on in the background, give it a shot.
• I suppose TV "affects your thought process" in the sense that everything and everyone you interact with "affects your thought process." But I dont believe it exerts some weird, hypnotic control over me any more than I believe having my picture taken steals my soul. as I said about 0.36 KM up this thread, I dont see any hard evidence to single out TV- it's a nice easy target and its easy to work people into a frenzy about, but scientifically and rationally, there's nothing there.
• I just don't think MoFi and Mefi are appropriate venues to discuss the ill-effects of TV watching. I should think that the members of both places are more inclined to be active, rather than passive, TV watchers, which implies you're using your television as not just an entertainment medium but a mechanism to make you think about...whatever: current events, pop culture, etc. I imagine this is something that's becoming more consistent for all TV viewers, but maybe that's wishful thinking. It seems like most people I know are more inclined to think about what's in front of them than just suck it in while slouched slack-jawed on the sofa.
• I suppose TV "affects your thought process" in the sense that everything and everyone you interact with "affects your thought process." Not really - consider watching someone talking with you face-to-face. You're engaged on whatever level with them. Now consider looking in the refrigerator for something to eat. You're engaged with that on some level also. Now contrast that with watching a program on television. It's not real time (it's edited), it's not real-sound (sound effects / processing), and all of it is specifically designed to do something to you, whether it's sell you something or make you feel happy, sad, afraid, turned-on, etc by the story. And all of that happens because you process it as something that's literally happening in front of you. You know full well that it's not, but you don't watch tv that way (try it), you have to suspend your belief in reality to enjoy it. Otherwise you'd be so distracted by the edits, the sound effects, etc. Babies don't know how to watch television instinctively, but they learn quick. The person conversing with you and the tuna sandwich in the 'fridge don't affect you that way. It's a different thought process.
• I don't much care for the prosetlyzing, sanctimonious tone of the TvTurnoff organization, so I chose to ignore it. There is much worthwhile fare on the tube and, if done in moderation, TV watching is not inherently degenerative. It depends what you watch and how you watch it. I think that the influence of TV is actually waning as it faces competion from the intarwebby etc. The medium, I feel, is no longer the message. *goes back to sucking it in while slouched slack-jawed on the couch*
• Also, Dr. Who is on tonight.
• I don't much care for the prosetlyzing, sanctimonious tone of the TvTurnoff organization Heh, yeah that does seem to be the vastly overwhelming opinion of the threads. Be that as it may, however, it's not the same thing as talking about what television does. (Or, conversely, what it doesn't do)
• "Otherwise you'd be so distracted by the edits, the sound effects, etc." That's exactly what I get when I watch TV. Can't stand most of it, except non-fiction. Also, that makes enjoying pr0n impossible.
• maybe you're just not applying yourself ;)
• not turning it off during baseball season.
• *high-fives patita, gets beer*
• petebest: are you channeling js? Tv may be what you claim in your last few comments, but does that really relate to the people you're talking, here? Sorry if that sounds elitist, but my guess is that most Monkeys are perfectly capable of deciding whether and what to watch. I'm torn between saying "I watch a bit, but not much, and here's what I watch", and thinking that it's none of your business. Maybe you're trying to save our souls from the tv devil, but how do you know we need saving? The term "evangelical" occurs to me, and I would never before have connected it with you. So, what do you watch? Pax vobiscum.
• Dr Who rocks my world. Chris Eccelston is brilliant, and the writers are brillianter. Though, perhaps ironically, it isn't television which gives me my Dr Who fix, since I am currently living in the US. But it might be the sole reason we get a TV license when we live in the UK next year. But if someone tries to take my coffee away from me for a week, they will bleed. Yes, I'm addicted - didn't you notice the shakes?
• By the way, since this is the end of a thread, I'm hijacking it. I saw Howl's Moving Castle last night! It's great. I was feeling a bit ill, so maybe didn't get all of it, but the people I went with were estatic. But it's great, and the whole audience cheered - I'm going out to buy the novel now.
• I get what you're saying, pete, but I don't think it applies only to television. In many ways reading can be as passive as watching TV (no interaction, one way flow of information, etc...), and for that matter so is watcing live theatre or watching a sporting event live. Old-time radio plays were just books being read to you by other people...and television shows are just live theatre you can watch from your living room sofa. If some people are brain-dead TV watchers, it probably has more to do with what shows they're watching than the medium itself. After all...you can't blame the medium of radio for Howard Stern fans.
• I can't keep up with the schedule, so TV is secondary to the other things in my life. I have to know there's something specific I want to see, real time, otherwise I don't bother. It's just an electronic pacifier, and the joke's on you if you don't have control.
• path: I dunno, js hasn't told me yet. Err no I mean regardless of the "Tv Turnoff week" (which, for the record, I don't think applies to anyone in particular - except you MCT . . seriously, your mother and I are worried about how much TV you watch . . ;) . . . is not what I'm most interested in regarding the event. I'm much much more interested in talking about what tv is/does than turning it off for a week. rocket: but here's a main difference between books and TV: with books you have to (a)interpret the signal, (b)create the scene (c)animate the scene - whereas TV does most of that for you. I'd argue that's analagous to having a DOS-based program and a flash-enabled site. (I'd also argue that's a crappy analogy, but you know what i mean) Radio plays would be "one up" from that, i guess. Maybe you're trying to save our souls from the tv devil Save from, no. Identify - yes. Part of the interest is that "talking about TV" is so irrationally difficult. It's like "dancing about architecture", to butcher a perfectly servable phrase (alternately attributed to David Byrne, Elvis Costello, and Laurie Anderson).
• BUT THEY CAME OUT WITH ANOTHER LAW AND ORDER SERIES, DAMMIT!!! WHAT DO I DO?!?!?!?!?!
• Pete, my dear, talking about tv seems pretty simple to me. "Well you've got the interactive element to the Internets. Wonder where them pesky statistimics are for who uses TV responsibly and who ain't." Not everyone who watches tv does it alone, or without interacting - in fact, some of us actually interact with people who are actually in the room while we watch. I think that's a lot more immediate than internet interaction. And, I don't know understand what "watching tv responsibly" means. Not watching it while you're driving? "But to make a point, television really is a unique medium, vastly different from any other." I disagree. Having grown up with radio, I can tell you that it was as captivating as tv. And, without the visuals, people tended to interact less while it was on - it seemed to take much more concentration since it was all talk. But, it was the same sort of entertainment in your home. And, I would also posit that poeple were at least as determined to listen to the latest favorite program as they are to watch the same now. And books strike as as being the more unique medium. and the least interactive. "Books, magazines, and radio couldn't do what television did in terms of creating and shaping a culture (or cultures) so thoroughly and quickly. By comparison, the Internets is still too user-hostile to do it like TV did." Each of those, in its time, shaped culture, and the speed depended on the technology of the time. Take magazines, for example - "Life" was a magazine which had enourmous influence - the photos stopped you dead in your tracks, and made you consider issues you hadn't thought about. And, they were major issues, and could make you change your mind - no flash, no sound-track, just emotion in black and white. It came out once a week, which was pretty speedy in its day. One could spend a good hour going over it, as one could spend an hour absorbing the information like "Nature", or whatever. Sorry, there's a front going though, and I'm in serious pain, but if you're willing to go on with this tomorrow, I'll be here.
• #2 and I are pretty sedentary people. Once Monkey Jr. goes to bed at 7pm, we blob out. It's coincidental that we watch TV while we do that; we also do interwebby stuff, read, or #2 does some convoluted thing involving building Lego robots while I do something crafty. Maybe the larger concern is that sort of sedentariness, not what you're doing while being sedentary. Meh, I dunno. Lost is on tonight.
• Ah my good path, thou art correct of course. However, I posit that television is unique and unknown before as a medium due to the fantastic speed and depth with which it absorbed and changed the culture and socieity it was unleashed on. A whirled-wide phenomenon as it were. To your point, books did that too - but not with such great speed, and the changes that print made on culture & society were different, specific to that medium. (The Marshall McLuhan post on MeFi yesterday had some .mp3s where he spoke to that directly) Can one interact with others while watching television? Of course. But any interaction is in the very distinct minority of time spent. The vast majority of time the mind is processing signal, but not manipulating it very much. (Unless one has the TV on for background noise, i.e. taking a nap) Radio allows you to join in (as books do) by creating the images for yourself. You can also let radio just wash over you (as I do during the baseball game for example), but it's much "better" for your mind if all we're going on is how much processing one does while engaged with a particular medium. Don't trust them Infernets none tho - thems got dirty pick-a-tures on 'em. Debbil wimmen y'know.