Kill Television.
. . . For a week, anyway. This week is Turn off TV week. Are you in denial? Six steps will get you going (and it's less than 12 steps . . ) Deny your god! Turn off the idiot box!
I love television. As a medium. As a system, it's pretty freaking horrific. In America it's both created and bulldozed entire cultures in less than 50 years.
Still, every negative has a positive ostensibly.
I've done this since last week. I did watcha video (brazil on my TV tho). I would have watched it on my computer but my video capture card was acting funky.
What's television? Oh, TV, right. Yeah, that's off most of the time anyway. Not even my kids are interested in watching the thing.
If I turned off the telly, who'd tell me which of my neighbour's garbage to root through?
Yesterday, thanks to Tivo, I watched a show about how the Pyramids were built, one about how maybe Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute after all, one about the Viking civilization, and a show about the best way to cook with garlic. Also thanks to Tivo, I fast forwarded through all the commercials.
You say idiot box; I say fascinating, entertaining, and totally worth watching.
moderation is key to anything, of course. i think by NOT watching television, you're missing out on a lot of our culture both good and bad. stuff like "the apprentice," and donald trump snapping, "you're fired." love it or loathe it, it's a huge part of our society.
me? i love TV, especially sunday morning punditfests.
how maybe Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute after all
So not an idiot-box, but a heresy-box.
If you decide to watch television, then there's no choice but to accept the stream of electronic images as it comes. Since there is no way to stop the images, one merely gives over to them. More than this, one has to clear all channels of reception to allow them in more cleanly. Thinking only gets in the way.
The horror of television, is that the information goes in, but we don't react to it. It goes right into our memory pool and perhaps we react to it later but we don't know what we're reacting to. When you watch television you are training yourself not to react and so later on, you're doing things without knowing why you're doing them or where they came from.
It is the quality of the shows that are often criticized. However, this is missing the point. Television shows are not supposed to be thought provoking. You are not supposed to question the images you see on TV, only believe in their prima facie existence.
Television programs, commercials, news reports and talk shows are all designed toward blind acceptance by the viewer. Because, after all, if you see it with your own eyes, it must be true. It must be real. Flashing images on the video screen. Reality inside a box.
Television offers neither rest nor stimulation. Television inhibits your ability to think, but it does not lead to freedom of mind, relaxation or renewal. It leads to a more exhausted mind. You may have time out from prior obsessive thought patterns, but that's as far as television goes.
The mind is never empty, the mind is filled. What's worse, it is filled with someone else's obsessive thoughts and images.
Why do you think they call it programming?
probably all depends on what channel you watch, and when you watch it. fair to say that i was a much bigger fan of cartoon network when it was playing old tom'n'jerry or classic warner bros. 'toons all day. now it seems to be mostly cartoons based on trading card games - in short crappily animated half-hour advertisements. you have to wait until pretty late at night to get a decent show on. less crappy new shit, more old stuff (and new stuff worth watching - genndy tartakovsky produces some pretty damn funny stuff...)
dicsovery, TLC, etc. also have some fun shows that i like. but they keep messing with them. any time a geeky show like junkyard wars or battlebots gets popular, they have to go and add a boobie-girl co-host who adds nothing to the show. or take away the entire premise and replace it with "same teams every week" thingy, which i really don't like.
hell the minute they spent more time focusing the camera on the boobie girl than they did on the actual robots fighting, battlebots was doomed. if the geeks watching wanted to see boobies they'd flip to USA and watch baywatch reruns. we were there to see robot mayhem, and you bastards killed it!
the standard networks do have some consistently lousy shows, though. how many variations on "plastic surgery + beauty show + 'date me' contest + eating icky things while performing inane stunt" can there be? apparantly lots...
I really think it depends on what you watch. I have a nice mix between the brain candy (E! True Hollywood story, south park, etc.) and the interesting and engaging programs (Discovery channel, A&E, etc). It is absolutely not true that by definition, TV cannot elicit stimulation. I think the "no tv" camp needs a little perspective (or maybe a Tivo).
wedge:
>>Watching Donald Trump fire people on the telescreen is what passes for 'culture' nowadays?
you missed my point. the thing is, yes, for good or bad, "the apprentice" is what a good number of folks are talking about, writing about, debating, loving or despising right now.
here's a more specific example of what persons without a television miss:
i bought a bunch of clothes recently at ann taylor loft here in d.c. i was telling the clerk that after watching a few episodes of "what not to wear," i realized most of my wardrobe was not flattering to my body type. (it's pretty amazing what the right clothes can do. but i digress.)
the clerk said, "oh, i don't have a TV."
she's supposed to sell clothing. that show, which many viewers reference in terms of current fashion, wasn't even on her radar.
yes, what's on TV is a HUGE part of our culture. TV has shaped this world for decades, and will continue to do so. refusing to watch is simply denying that fact, and placing yourself far outside a valuable media loop.
and, hell, i'm a print journalist. we're supposed to hate TV. not me. i love it.
Kimberly, Tivo is totally cheating. If you can pick the source and subjects for tv you're subverting the essense of the business model of television programming. Which is cool, I grant you.
But that's not what "turn off your tv week" is about anyway. Even if you love what you watch (Trump or Discovery or Pr0n) you're still watching and not living. I watch tv at least a couple of hours a day but for one week I (shouldn't? wouldn't?) to experience life without it.
It's so integral to people's lives that even suggesting doing without gets people nervous. I have never gotten an entire roomfull of people so upset as when I turned off the tv which was background noise at a party. It was like I had wizzed on their diety.
bonus points to Wedge for the Mander reference. First relevant McLuhan quote gets an oversize novelty check or at least the text mention of it.
on preview: SideDish I think you're making the case that not watching tv means you aren't part of a programmed culture. That's more to the point of "turn off your tv week" isn't it?
Wow. I didn't know I stopped living when I turned on the tv. Interesting.
I am on month 4 without TV. My wife and I made a New Year's resolution to try 6 months without it. No problem.
Internet and email is still used quite a bit, but the TV really is no big deal. We seem to find alot of cool stuff to do now, that we didn't before.
tv absolutely sucks. it assumes you're a retard and pitches you softballs at that level. the only thing i watch is the sopranos, and i only download it on p2p.
oh, and you gotta bite the bullet to watch playoffs hockey
not living Kimberly, living! Here, try it with this pose . .
Turn off my TV????
During Hockey Playoffs????
WTF Petebest2???? (I still say the original was better)
You can have my remote when you pry it from my cold, dead hand!
Pete: Oooooh! living! I get it! ;)
I do understand the zombie affect tv has on people, and how easy it is just to turn on the tv and ignore other things that are/could be going on. In that aspect, I think this is a fine idea. However, I think it's simplistic to say that tv dumbs down people and makes them blindy accept messages. The people who blindly accept what tv tells them are the same people who blindly accept what the internet and newspapers tell them too. Not to mention the people who would participate in this probably are discerning enough to understand what is probably b.s. in the first place.
That said, it would probably be a good idea for me to, you know, pack or something instead of watching The Simpsons as I'm moving soon. Better yet, I'll pack while I'm watching The Simpsons. Eureka!!
On preview: what rocket said. * high fives *
I think it's simplistic to say that tv dumbs down people and makes them blindy accept messages.
As with any generalization, agreed. But consider not just accepting a message but ordering your reality (social or whatever) according to those messages. Accept or reject, the messages frame how you view fashion or travel or moving or packing . . did you get those cool space-vacuum-bag thingys for clothes? They rule.
rocket88 point well taken - hockey playoffs are an exception of course. :) You just have to mute the commercials and think about how weird it is to sit in silence watching Ford Motor Co. incrementally frame your driving/environmental reality.
>set blink off
Oh, and the stupid fact is that I goofed up / removed my petebest profile, and it won't let me sign in again with it. Monkeybashi said it may be on the future fix list tho.
Every year I make a conscious effort to watch more TV during no TV week just to piss off the self-righteous anti-TV people. Television isn't the problem. Vast swaths of people who are intellectually lazy, who lack any sort of critical thinking skill, and who equate dumb with cool and/or quaint are the problem. TV is just a symptom.
Vast swaths of people who are intellectually lazy, who lack any sort of critical thinking skill, and who equate dumb with cool and/or quaint are the problem.
He said, self-righteously.
Hi. My name is Kimberly. I'll be your commenter this afternoon.
One of the few interesting tidbits I pulled out of Bowling for Columbine was how the media (esp. TV) really reinforces the message that the world is something to be afraid of. Crime went down in the nineties by 15 or 20 percent, but news coverage of crime went up by 600 percent. So the news scares people and the mindless sitcoms make them forget about it and the commercials tell us how to feel better and protect ourselves by buying stuff.
So I guess upon reflection I can see why not watching tv could be a nice break if people decided to try that. If it weren't for tv, I wouldn't have wasted those miserable hours worried that killer bees were going to come and kill me.
That's why people should filter tv with Tivo. Did I mention that I have a Tivo?
those dumb people aren't independent of TV's effect though. Unless the argument is that televsion has no effect on society, the economy, the environment or anything else portrayed on television.
I guess I'm making the case that tv has a greater effect on society, etc. than society, etc. has on television as a whole.
Given that generalizations, shades-of-gray, objective/subjective, blah blah blah.
on preview: Kimberly i wish i still had the crayon drawing of my brilliant plan to thwart the killer bees . . it invovled a helicopter and lots of honey (of course)
gimme a break. just because some people can't control themselves and will watch any bit of shite on the tv 'til they zombify, doesn't mean i should miss the 5th to last episode of angel: the series.
and i defy any anti-tv git to come even remotely close to my day to day schedule of non tv activities, such as the wide variety of volunteering i do; researching teen sexuality for planned parenthood, running a community food drive, personal carer at an aids hospice, finding homes for stray cats and dogs, teaching seniors how to use the internet. not to mention i have a career, and a freaking social life, and i read at least 2 books a week for crissakes.
bah, gah, and harrumph.
>>I think you're making the case that not watching tv means you aren't part of a programmed culture.
nope, i'm making the comment that you are not part of a shared experience.
i think shared experiences -- high-brow, low-brow and in-between-brow -- are all important. everything is so micro-niche nowadays. i think TV is one of those cool things we can all do together. i get a kick out of watching the academy awards and knowing that some 80 million people out there are doing the same.
i think shared experiences are valuable to a society. and we seem to have fewer of those as media goes more into targeted marketing, etc.
i like hearing everyone talk about the superbowl or the "survivor" finale or some riveting interview on "60 minutes" the next morning at work. reminds us we're all in this together.
that's the good power of TV. it's not that evil, folks. really.
(now, having said that, i would support a "watch something different on TV week," that would be cool. don't watch the shows you usually watch, try something different. never seen the black entertainment television cable channel? give that a try. tune into the public TV station you haven't ever seen. THAT would be worthwhile, to me.)
Even if you love what you watch (Trump or Discovery or Pr0n) you're still watching and not living.
petebest2, I never understood that kind of argument, watching TV is living as much it is listening to the radio, reading a book, watching a sunset, watching opera live, observing a painting, or meditating. Granted all those activities imply more muscle movements than just watching TV (although you have never seen me how I watch TV). But inside our minds, no matter how much activity brainscans from dubious studies show, millions of thing can happen. You don't imagine the amount of reasoning that goes in my mind while I "watch" a televised debate or a science program. It's not just the wow's or awww's that most comercial programs expect from me. TV is a medium, how you use it and how much you gain from it is up to you. Those who think that "living" is interacting with the outside really undervalue the act of contemplation.
Now, if you only criticize the comercial aspect of TV that's another matter etirely. Nothing to do with living.
etirely->entirely
Watching Donald Trump fire people on the telescreen is what passes for 'culture' nowadays?
Watching people fight to the death/throwing rotten fruit at people/watching girls perform lewd songs whilst inappropriately dressed is what passed for 'culture' in those days? Well, yes, no, whatever. Define 'culture'. Define 'entertainment'.
I think what you're trying to say is:
"Culture is now in the hands of the mob; and the mob stampeded. It moves in a mass, this way or that, and all its thinking is done for it. For those who will hit the taste of the masses the reward is very large. Hence and ever-growing temptation to create shows for the herd, to broadcast for the herd, to buy for and sell to the herd. The whole nation watches to order. Television shows are, increasingly, filmed to order. Unless a whole-hearted effort is made to counteract these tendencies, the life may be squeezed out of television in a very few generations."
I've done a lot of research on this issue, which is unfortunately stuck on my work computer right now. But this article summarises it nicely, discussing the history of such complaints about TV, and the industry's business models too.
Our TV is off most of the time, unless there is something specific we want to watch or we've reached a point where we just want to vegetate. Or we're too sick to read a book. I'm only against TV as a babysitter, as a teacher, as a cultural center. TV isn't good for a whole lot, but the things it is good at are very good. I wish that networks weren't allowed, though. That's the biggest area TV fails.
Some people say stupid or offensive things!
Next week is no talking week!
Lots of books are shit!
Burn them!
... by which I meant to say, sorry for all the typos in my previous quote. Should have read:
"Literature is now in the hands of the mob; and the mob stampeded. It moves in a mass, this way or that, and all its thinking is done for it. For those who will hit the taste of the masses the reward is very large. Hence and ever-growing temptation to write for the herd, to publish for the herd, to buy for and sell to the herd... The whole nation reads to order. Books are, increasingly, written to order. Unless a whole-hearted effort is made to counteract these tendencies, the life may be squeezed out of English literature in a very few generations."
- Geoffrey Faber, A Publisher Speaking, London, Faber & Faber, 1934
Oddly, it seems we can still read. Without dribbling, too.
(oh! flashboy! that reminds me, i watched the '67 movie "farenheit 451" the other day and they had creepy things like big TV screens flat on the wall, and pills people took to stay happy and numb... it looked WAAAY too much like nowadays for me. ewwww.)
Gah, I was going to leave it at that but the whole concept of no-TV week is just so silly.
It starts with the premise that people are morons. They sit passively in front of the TV, mouth agape, unblinkingly, and unquestioningly accept everything that's put in front of them.
Bull-shit. It's an active, two way process. People watch, consume, cogitate, spit it out. People watch TV with their spouses, talk about the program they're watching, say what their opinions are. And it's not like they're being forced to watch trash against their will: if people didn't like it, they wouldn't make it. Who are these TV-Turnoff people to tell us what we're allowed to enjoy and what we're not?
Personally, I don't watch much TV, but I'll defend to the death the right of people to watch it.
Obviously, no offence meant to anyone who doesn't like TV.
("fahrenheit 451" being the movie from the short story of the same name by ray bradbury in which books are burned by the government, for those not familiar with it)
I'm with t r a c y - not a chance of my missing the last episodes of Angel. I only watch one show a week, but I will watch that show.
Of course, how much you zombify when you watch tv always depends on how much you yell back at the people on tv....not that I do this ("you stupid idiot! All fricking season it's been people telling you 'Wolfram and Hart is evil'!" "Ooohhh, the apocalypse? Is it extra apocalypsy this time?")
Actually, if I really wanted to get out and live more, I would turn off the internet for a week. Way more addictive, precisely because it is more engaging.
PS SideDish: Actually, it's a short novel - sorry to be pedantic, but it's a personal fave. I couldn't watch the film - I'm sure it's brilliant, but the design was all off compared to what I saw in my head. The setting in changed from what I saw as a very North American one, rooted in North American suburban culture (including the contrast between flat ranch houses, and older porch style (which all the good guys live in) to a European setting - makes it more like 1984 in aesthetic than Brave New World.
I want to watch less TV; I just don't want to be one of those semi-pretentious "Is that something I'd need a TV to know about?" people that think their lifestyle is better than someone else's. I would do it for my own wellbeing -- I can at least become a more discriminating viewer.
>>I think you're making the case that not watching tv means you aren't part of a programmed culture.
nope, i'm making the comment that you are not part of a shared experience.
But I would argue that "shared experience" is roughly analagous to culture, and that either way the expereince is programmed. When the limited number of companies that produce tv shows is considered, it makes it a very different situation than:
Some people say stupid or offensive things!
Next week is no talking week!
Of course most of the points to be made for/against "television" are terrifically mired in shades-of-gray so that it's difficult to pin down specifics such as what tv can and can't do to a vewier or a viewing public. (Not to mention we're trying to talk about television in a world that television has a big role in.)
(from flashboy's link:) But whereas a cultural elite could dictate the contents of the airwaves when there was extremely limited spectrum, now digital technology is shifting power dramatically to viewers.
I have/had very high hopes for exactly that regarding what used to be known as "third wave" media: camcorders, public access television stations, other d.i.y. media. I disagree that the "power" referenced in the above quote is currently anything but marginal at best. The web is a different thing entirely, but for the sake of example imagine if television had as many independently created shows or channels as the web has web pages (3 billion?). That would be a dramatic power shift.
>>When the limited number of companies that produce tv shows is considered
good heavens, nearly 100 channels of programming from all over the world isn't diverse enough? that's just what my *basic* cable package gives me. i was watching a newscast from france the other day, in french with english subtitles.
limited number of companies producing TV shows? i don't get where you're coming from on that one.
I bet out of those hundred most of them are owned/produced by three or four parent companies--International programs likely to be exceptions of course.
lookee lookee. i was just checking CJR (columbia journalism review), it has a feature called "who owns what," and look what i came across, this recent article headlined, "TV on steroids: so long to analog broadcasting and hello to digital, which may spell good news for viewers -- and plenty of it":
"A new and potentially promising day has dawned. This tectonic shift will profoundly transform the TV news service we
TV Addiction is No Mere Metaphor, 8-page PDF from Scientific American "Mind" Issue, Winter 2003
"Within moments of sitting or lying down and pushing the 'power' button, viewers report feeling more relaxed. Because the experience of relaxation occurs quickly, people are conditioned to associate watching TV with rest and lack of tension. The association is positively reinforced because they remain relaxed throughout viewing, and it is negatively reinforced via the stress and dysphoric rumination that occurs once the screen goes blank again.
"Habit-forming drugs work in similar ways. A tranquilizer that leaves the body rapidly is much more likely to cause dependence than one that leaves the body slowly, precisely because the user is more aware that the drug’s effects are wearing off. Similarly, viewers’ vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing may be a significant factor in not turning the set off. Viewing begets more viewing."
___
"What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological 'orienting response.' First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. Typical orienting reactions include dilation of the blood vessels to the brain, slowing of the heart, and constriction of blood vessels to major muscle groups. Alpha waves are blocked for a few seconds before returning to their baseline level, which is determined by the general level of mental arousal. The brain focuses its attention on gathering more information while the rest of the body quiets.
"In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of television — cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises — activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and 'derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement.... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique.'"
>>Within moments of sitting or lying down and pushing the 'power' button, viewers report feeling more relaxed
see? TV is lovely. TV is our friend. heh.
Interesting article SideDish thanks - so as i understand it, the digital broadcasting will increase the amount of content and create public access, locall-oriented channels as well. Aside from the broadcasting part, it sounds like the same way cable was percieved back when (complete with public interest vs corporate interest brouhaha).
When cable companies do provide public access studios, they're not exactly big budget items and overall can't attract viewers like big-money television can. Is this what digital broadcasting is offering? The same arrangement?
or maybe I shouldn't be so cynical about it.
Thanks for the 'who owns what' link, that's exactly what I was looking for. Here's Disney:
ABC Family
The Disney Channel
Toon Disney
SoapNet
ESPN Inc. (80% - Hearst Corporation owns the remaining 20%) includes ESPN, ESPN2,
ESPN News, ESPN Now, ESPN Extreme
Classic Sports Network
A&E Television (37.5%, with Hearst and GE)
The History Channel (with Hearst and GE)
Lifetime Television (50%, with Hearst)
Lifetime Movie Network (50% with Hearst)
E! Entertainment (with Comcast and Liberty Media) JoeChip that reminds me of the 'horror movie' study which measured physical response to fear stimulus in movies. It wasn't about television tho . . .
So, is this something I'd need to own a television to understand?
(sorry-- someone had to say it)
Double-bonus points to Wedge for quoting Mander:
If you decide to watch television, then there's no choice but to accept the stream of electronic images as it comes. Since there is no way to stop the images, one merely gives over to them. More than this, one has to clear all channels of reception to allow them in more cleanly. Thinking only gets in the way.
All media work this way, if one is not really paying attention. Movies, music, radio, even graphic art can enter the mind unfiltered, and, for good or ill, work their way into our subconscious.
It's entirely different when we are active participants. Watching a show or movie with an engaged mind, listening to music that we are alertly following, turns the medium into a participatory experience. We are accepting the input as given, as Mander says, but we can also be thinking it, feeling it, and moving with it. Or not.
Of course, it's so much easier to flop on the couch, turn on the tube, and passively zone out. I'm sure the overpaid and underworked folks who approve most of the pabulum on TV would just as soon we didn't examine it too closely.
We should never forget that every single thing we see on the idiot box is designed to sell something, and also designed to distract us from that fact. Mindless consumers are happy consumers.
I agree with the active/passive point here, but i also would argue that television, much more so than magazines, radio, graphic art, etc., creates a set of defined beliefs that we use whether we agree with them or not, or acknowledge them or not.
example: What does a dumb guy do when he's walking around with a big board across his shoulder?
Does he turn around a smack someone in the head with it?
a toast zedediah . . . to love on my terms.
/Hearst
We should never forget that every single thing we see on the idiot box is designed to sell something, and also designed to distract us from that fact.
"psst...dude...I think you're fast-forwarding through the shows and only watching the adverts..."
Adverts fund the shows though. "The Day After" was a made-for-tv movie about people in Kansas getting nuked. Because advertisers were scared to buy into it nothing like that will be shown again - or so goes the notion.
here:"On Nov. 11 (1983), ABC broadcasts "The Day After," a two-hour made-for-TV film about thermonuclear war between the U.S. and Soviet Union, Because of its controversial nature, the movie appears with few advertisers but demolished the ratings of other TV programs that night." Ratings are important for something but I forget what ;)
Give me a B... give me a B... give me a C...
Even taking into consideration that numerous non-commercial broadcasters exist all around the world, even then I think it's a stretch to damn everything that appears on commercial TV as being "designed to sell something". Just because they take place in a medium dependent upon funding from non-production-side parties, and that funding is dependent upon access to a valuable audience (be it valuable in terms of size or in terms of desirable demographic niches), it is something of a stretch to suggest that the content of the shows must necessarily be tainted with salemanship, or that that was in any way in the minds of the creators as it was being produced.
Not all theatre is designed to sell ice-creams.
Monkeyfilter: wizzing on their diety.
Oh, wait. That's another thread altogether.
TV
Bah!
Three words:
Bread and Circuses
people still pay attn to the ads on commercial television...? i hit the mute button and go back to doing paperwork, reading a book, memorizing a script, coding a website, or i jump on the treadmill. i rarely do one thing at a time, especially when watching tv.
That's a very juvenile comment, BlueHorse... :-)
"Men don't care what's on TV. They only care what else is on TV." - J. Seinfeld
Considering that my current primary source of income is writing snarky commentary about television (of course, I used to make more money mailing out invoices), I shouldn't stop watching television. But then, my last published piece was about a TV show I have never actually watched!
(I enjoy being evil)
flashboy-- nah, I was talking about the shows. Who would want to watch commercials?
Be aware of the agendas and subtext of what you see and hear. Read between the lines. What prejudices do they encourage? Which popular misconceptions do they perpetuate? Why do they have specific types of characters, and what stereotype or psychological role do they fill? How do the story arcs operate, and where were they stolen from and why?
TV producers are timid at heart: they are afraid to show anything that challenges the status quo in any significant way, so try to make shows that appear innovative while validating the audience's fears and prejudices. (see the Michael Moore comment above) It still amazes me that, on rare occasion, someone of talent is able to produce something interesting.
Oh, about your last comment... all theatre IS designed to sell ice-cream. That's how they pay the bills so there can be more theatre.
Waiting for Godot was designed to sell ice-cream? That's what Sam Beckett was thinking about when he wrote it? That was the prime motivation of the actors? The audience left it discussing the symbolism of chocolate sprinkles?
I know they have to sell ice-cream to keep theatres running. I know you can't get funding for a movie unless someone will buy the popcorn once it's made. I know they have to sell merchandise on band tours to make them profitable. That was my point - I know these things to be true, and yet still think that artists and entertainers are nonetheless capable of making art and entertaining, seperately from that; I do not believe that every note of a Radiohead concert is designed to shift hooded tops. I think that, while they cannot be disconnected, they can run alongside each other; they can be epiphenomenal (to quite probably misuse that term).
Your subsequent list is interesting, and definitely contains many extremely valid complaints about much media, and about most humans. But I really don't see how much of it relates to what we're saying about the commercial imperative behind all television (story arcs*?)... but it was cool, so what the heck. I'll try to be aware of it. What I really want to read more of is psychoanlaysis of the people who make television.
*or, as I read it first, starry orcs.
flash: I'll meet your Beeb, and raise you a PBS and a TVO - yay for public broadcasting!
(I would include CBC, which has some very high quality programming (especially news and news satire), but they are a strange public-private fish that still runs ads and occasionally makes really bad Corornation Street ripoffs).
I agree with jb about CBC. I enjoy watching 'The National' for news. Pretty good programming all in all.
Tivo and other DVRs will become less useful as more and more networks subvert the subversion with embedded advertising, product placement, advertainment, advertoons, and other dubious methods. Tivo is also useless against the more obvious delivery platforms, such as gameshows, professional sporting events, and soap operas. Hypercommercialism is as pervasive as the medium itself. This is one of the main reasons why television is inherently problematic. Therefore, it is useless to advocate for "better" programming, or assume that adults are immune to its insidious effects, or dodge the bullet by pressing "mute".
Many people advocate controlled TV watching and "better" programs, especially for children. (It is often assumed that adults are immune to the insidious effects of TV, which is not the case at all.) TV by its very nature has a negative effect on people, and the medium itself is inherently biased. Therefore it is no good trying to improve the programming, TV itself must be eliminated. [Mander explains this better than I could, so I'm quoting him at length...]
Advertising exists only to purvey what people don't need. Whatever people do need they will find without advertising if it is available. This is so obvious and simple that it continues to stagger my mind that the ad industry has succeeded in muddying the point. No single issue gets advertisers screaming louder than this one. They speak about how they are only fulfilling the needs of people by providing an information service about where and how people can acheive satisfaction for their needs.
Advertising is only a public service, they insist. Speaking privately, however, and to corporate clients, advertisers sell their services on the basis of how well they are able to create needs where there were none before.... The only need that is expressed by advertising is the need of advertisers to accelerate the process of conversion of raw materials with no intrinsic value into commodities that people will buy.
In fact, advertising intervenes between people and their needs, separates them from direct fulfillment and urges them to believe that satisfaction can be obtained only through commodities. The goal of all advertising is discontent or, to put it another way, an internal scarcity of contentment. This must be continually created, even at the moment when someone has finally bought something. In that event, advertising has the task of creating discontent with what has just been bought, since once that act is completed, the purchase has no further benefit to the market system. The newly purchased commodity must be gotten rid of and replaced by the 'need' for a new commodity as soon as possible. The ideal world for advertisers would be one in which whatever is bought is used only once and then tossed aside. Many new products have been designed to fit such a world.
Thousands of psychologists, behavioral scientists, perceptual researchers, sociologists and others have found extremely high salaries and steady, interesting work aiding advertisers..(in finding) nuances of artificial discontent (in consumers). By entering the human being's inner sanctum (the family), our inner wilderness, advertising effectively pulls our feelings up out of ourselves, displays them and sells them back to us like iron from the ground.
sorry for being a bit redundant redundant. i didn't have time to proofread. (where's the edit button?) :D
A quick question Wedge: What do we replace television with? Television is one of the most if not the most versatile mediums we have today. It lets people in Ohio see what's happening in Iraq. It lets people in Iraq see what's happening in Ohio. (Assuming either side has enough money, time, or interest to watch.) Maybe ads are worthless. I'd argue the point, but that's me. Regardless, how do we communicate, not just locally, hell, not just nationally, but globally with each other after a television free utopia is achieved? The 'net? It'd become as ad filled as television ever was, plus not everyone has access to it. I'm not saying every third-world village has a television. They sure don't all have computers though. If we want to kill television, fine then by all means pull the plug and watch the static fill the screen. Just find something to replace it with first.
1/ Popular culture has always been in the hands of the mob.
2/ TV is no more inherantly missing out on "real life" than reading, or watching opera. Unless you're doing something, you're a consumer. "Reading" is no more doing than watching TV.
3/ The medium may or not be the message, but it's no indication of quality. You can try to convince me that David Attenborough is less good than Judith Krantz, and I'll laugh at you; try to convince me Ayn Rand is better than Tim Sebastian and I may have to perpetrate acts of violence on your person.
Next people will be telling me that Jeremy Clarkson is better in the Times than on Top Gear, soley because he's in print.
If anything, television offers us benefits in many areas. I'd lay money that there's a correlation between the upswing of our concern about endangered species and our ability to see tigers in their natural habitat as a culture, rather than only the people who care to go there and shoot them.
The world needs Monkeyfilter TV.
i think by NOT watching television, you're missing out on a lot of our culture both good and bad.
If that's our culture, then I'm delighted to take a miss on it.
Waiting for Godot was designed to sell ice-cream?
VLADIMIR: Hey, Gogo, wassup?
ESTRAGON: Oh, Didi, I'm just hangin' round for Godot.
VLADIMIR: Well, why don't we have a cool, refreshing ice-cream while we wait?
ESTRAGON: Great idea! There's nothing like the rich, creamy taste of vanilla ice-cream smothered in crunchy chocolate to really take the edge off waiting for Godot!
VLADIMIR: (to Pozzo) two Magnums, please.
/early draft
Reading is much more active than watching television. Pictures, sound, pacing, even down to actively turning pages every so often. Reading is meditation, television is zoning.
quidnunc kid, take a lap!
wedge, zedediah, petebest. I could translate all your arguments from TV-shutdown to book-burning. and they will sound equally absurd. Stereotypes, product placement, special interests, mind numbing entertainment, you can find all those in books. And the evil advertisers need no TV. Have you taken a stroll thru' main avenue? What do you se more often? What occupies the 50% of newspapers? Now, would you believe that there are enough unnecesary products that sell very well without TV advertisement?
I understand perfectly what bothers you, but your reasonings are completely misguided. Using an example from another thread. You think like the people that prefer the completely extermination of mosquitoes instead of finding a cure for malaria. Or advocate abstinence and the elimination of homosexuals to fight AIDS. That's how silly your arguments for the elimination fo TV sound.
Missing the forest for the trees.
Reading is meditation, television is zoning.
That completely depends on the content both of TV programs that you watch or books that you read.
Why I'm bothering, I'm not good at this kind of discussions. I'll not go any further risking turning this into a flame war.
Besides, flashboy is the one inside the medium. He knows what he's talking about.
Zemat it's not about the elimination of television, it's about doing without for a week to better understand it's effect on one's life.
*returns from lap*
I'm not good at this kind of discussion
I call bullshit on you, Zemat! This thread is incredibly interesting because of the range of views. Ain't no threadwar gonna start up here, just good discussion by all ... err - except for me, of course :)
petebest1 would never have made me do laps :( /couch potato
This Onion article came to mind as soon as I started reading this thread. I don't know if it is the funniest, but I think it satirizes some attitudes to tv rather well.
Personally, I try to avoid using TV as a filler for dead time, but its hard to avoid sometimes. Though I think the internet is almost as dangerous of a time depleter. At least with the web I have to interact with the medium a little more actively.
I'm suprised there hasn't been a Turn Off Electric Media Week proposed by someone.
Awaits tides of criticism of "I can't live with out my NPR/Air America/Casey Casem!"
I can't think of another medium (with the exception of the Infernet) that elicits such a strong reaction from so many people. There are ham radio enthusiasts and newspaper geeks but tv seems to get the big "Aargh" more than anything else.
Nice onion article hehe. "glass teat".
"Glass Teat" is courtesy Harlan Ellison.
What if books had laugh tracks? Some years ago, some televison-watching friends of mine had a great new show that I absolutely had to watch, called "Seinfeld." I found it unwatchable, not only from Jerry's annoying mugging to the camera, but most so from the LAUGH HERE - THIS IS FUNNY intrusion of the laugh track. (Same friends showed me "South Park" and "The Simpsons." Both were a hoot. Both lacked the laugh track.) Are television viewers so dull and cattlelike that they must be told what is and is not funny?
There's one great place for a television that I've found: in a tavern, with the sound turned off, tuned to a sporting event. It's like a fish tank, only with tiny basketball players instead of jettas and guppies. While I'd prefer the fish tank, the TV certainly requires less maintenance.
Laugh tracks are awful - but even some of the finest shows have had them. I think M*A*S*H* did, but it's hard for me to remember - I started watching as an embryo. (Not a joke - my parents were religious about that show).
I think television is a terrific medium - my love of movies isn't from the big screen, but from television. I love when shows are powerful, experimental, original, or silly. Mini-series and long arc series do things with storytelling that movies never could. It's a part of our culture - a really important part, that has its chaff, but also its gold. (Especially stuff played on the aforesaid BBC, PBS and TVO, and CBC when it is good too)
But I do understand the meaning of this week. I grew up in a house where the television often replaced conversation or activities - I show signs of being addicted, though I no longer have one. That said, I think it's actually less addictive than internet - television could never keep me up all night if I were tired. But we do need to think about what we watch, and how much. Maybe this wasn't a great week - playoffs, series finales. But I do understand the sentiment.
Maybe we should found the only watch a few hours a week week.
Zemat-- I don't recall asking for the elimination of television. Just watch it with an active mind, and question what you see. Or don't: it's your brain, fill it up with whatever you like.
And reading books is, by definition, an activity. You can't zone out in front of a book and expect it to entertain you. Do you have a better analogy?
Flashboy and Quidnunc-- (thanks for bringing Vladimir and Estragon into the conversation; they'll be right at home)-- No, I don't think Beckett was thinking of a paycheck while Godot was gestating, but he was writing professionally at the time, and if the money had run out, he might have had to go back to teaching. Godot would have been delayed. (pardon the joke)
I've known many talented people, writers, actors, artists and musicians, and pretty much all of them must forge some sort of alliance (some say an unholy one) between their need to create and their need to eat. People who are good at making money, for some reason, are usually not artistic. The Money and the Talent may seek each other out, but the Money gets to choose which Talent goes with them. Yes, it's a lot like prostitution.
Just be aware that most of what you see on the tube, or hear and read, is financed by wealthy untalented people who expect to make a buck, and made by people trying to be creative within highly constrained parameters. Sometimes art occurs, but not too often.
clearly too many people have no idea how to use tv. they either overdose on it, or they shun it out of a misguided sense of doing the right thing or delusions of superiority. both these groups of people need to get out of the faces of those who understand the medium and how it should be handled; we have a great deal more control over our minds than you would like to give us credit for.
and come on folks... let's come clean about our dirty little mind numbing addictions, shall we...? around these parts, there's way more need for an internet disconnection week than a tv tune out week, heh.
around these parts, there's way more need for an internet disconnection week than a tv tune out week, heh.
So true, so very true. *shakes head sadly*
I was thinking about this yesterday and realised that I could go without TV, because I'd just replace TV time with online time. Staring at a monitor is as bad as staring at a TV to me.
My excuse is that I have to check back for double posts to delete. Yeah.
zedediah, sorry for the comment, I was reacting to wedge's claim and for economy of words grouped all of you in it. Also, at first your comment sounded like some sort of conspirancy theory so I assumed you really hated TV. It wasn't the ideas, but the wording that nagged me, like some sort of "Television is out to get you!".
My analogy with books was a little exagerated. But observation (as opposed to staring dumbly, which I agree most people do while watching TV) is also an activity. Maybe it doesn't require any kind of physical effort but it can be as engaging as reading. For avid readers, those who read more than 5 books a month, reading is as simple as watching TV so there's really no noticeable effort. But the mind can be hard at work on both cases. Besides, you could aslo read without trying to comprehend what you read, which is quite common in many cases.
Just be aware that most of what you see on the tube, or hear and read, is financed by wealthy untalented people who expect to make a buck, and made by people trying to be creative within highly constrained parameters. Sometimes art occurs, but not too often.
Just like in the book industry.
I say we must divide the arguments for or against TV in two groups: The arguments for activity and the arguments for quality. Arguments for activity will never be compelling except in cases of addiction to TV and it's consecuences. Arguments for quality are really the important matter. Here I agree with you that we have a problem, but maybe not as serious as you argue.
I am Zemat, and I'm addicted to the Internet too. Specifically MonkeyFilter.
*cries softly*
We Love You Zemat! :)
MonkeyFilter: The Twelve Banana Program
The folks over at Metafilter brought up some interesting points ... worth reading if you haven't, yet. Huge props to Mathowie for the 'companion' thread!
t r a c y- i have nothing but love for my fellow monkeys and i don't want to come across as pretentious. (i blame my liberal arts philosophy professor for making us spent an entire semester on the subject.) and while i'm thinking of it, i'd like to genuinely thank you for making Mofi ad-free and "premium club" -free. :D
Zemat- ADD/ADHD is a very serious problem. TV rewires children's brains in ways that books do not. Books don't have special effects, eye candy, laugh tracks, panning & zooming, dancing letters, or any of the other technical events that TV uses to disorient, distract, and mesmerize. Next time you watch TV, see if you can count eight seconds between some sort of special technical event. You won't be able to. Eventually, as we are trained every eight seconds to expect something new to change or happen... and from there, you can see how easy it would be for even an intelligent adult to develop an eight second attention span. (probably less... like four seconds, maybe.)
and it's really difficult to interact with people when they are watching tv. i hate that. i get shushed if i try to start any kind of conversation. that is one big reason why Monkeyfilter and much of the internet is much more superior to tv. it's two-way communication! tom brokaw can't hear you or me from our living rooms. and he doesn't really give a shit. i can hear you. and you can hear me. and you can tell me i'm full of shit.
I am going to take my daughter to the playground now.
i'd like to genuinely thank you for making Mofi ad-free and "premium club" -free.
i think you mean to thank tracicle, not t r a c y :-)
I am going to take my daughter to the playground now.
i just got in from the park right across the street. they just put the big swings back up after being down for the winter, wheeee...! i love me some swingset action.
i like watching swingset action. on the tv. 'cause see . . oh heck with it
/runs_to_swingset
Another thing that I hate about pretentious book and newspaper readers: the moment that they come home, they open up a book, then leave it laying open for the rest of the afternoon and evening.
Also, you can't do anything else in a room -- listen to music, hold a conversation, watch television, play the piano -- while some reader-type is, ugh, reading, with that BOOK of his open.
Finally, there's the subliminal element of leaving a book open. Just having the back-cover blurbs always in sight, even without reading them, will leave bystanders infused with notions of the National Catholic Reporter, DePaul University, Union Theological Seminary, or whatever happens to be occupying the blurb page du jour. This is an insidious element.
:::shakes fist:::
You tracies all look alike to me!!!
(you're right... my bad. other t r a c y. ;)
I forgive you, Wedge.
I don't generally mind non-TV-owners (especially since it seems there are a few right here), but the people that actually look down on other people who do watch or even own a television. Luckily they're a small minority.
I'd just like to add, for no obvious reason, that I didn't watch TV at all (apart from the odd movie or DVD) while I was a uni student. Then I moved to the US and got hooked. I blame that more on the lack of acquaintances during the first few weeks, though. Now I watch two or three hours a night, although I've cut back to just the news, so an hour a night.
:::shakes fist:::
You tracies all look alike to me!!!
you loooooo-ooooove us, you think we're go-ooorrrgeouuuuus...!
you know, 'cause we are
*big cheesy grin*
*does posing grin thing next to t r a c y*
television! ours was disconnected last december after i fell behind on the $75 per month bill. we are now saving up for an illegal system to bring in the american channels.
i haven't watched tv in years, except for the odd special, etc. dh is making do with the two channels he can get with the rabbit ears, as the canadian offerings are so poor. to obtain any one or two chosen channels, one has to purchase 'bundles' of many stations. there are only three distributors and they all offer the same choices basically, at the same cost. and then there are the 'canadian content' regs.
conversely, we just traded in our tv yesterday for another model on a warranty trade. it's great for videos, which i can never stay awake to watch 'til the end.
i banished the tv from the front room many years ago. too intrusive when people came by.
my greatest problem with tv was when i used to drive to work at seven in the morning and would see people's tv's on in their windows...usually cartoons. the great babysitter!
/ my daughter had a somewhat media-deprived childhood as well, i must admit. she turned out ok, though.
A final little meander back here before I retire to bed...
TV producers are timid at heart... so try to make shows that appear innovative while validating the audience's fears and prejudices.
Perhaps... Never consciously, in my experience. In fact, I'd say that what my colleagues and I spend a lot of time doing is in fact the opposite; creating shows that appear mundane while (sneakily, underhandedly) actually reinforcing the viewer's awareness of human connection, their open-mindedness, their warmth towards others, whatever... Because in fact, that's what a lot of the most compelling and affecting shows on telelvision do. Innovation scares too many people off, sad to say (and it sure as fuck scares commissioning editors off) - but innovation in and of itself will never be the thing that really gets inside you, like all the best art/entertainment can.
But perhaps, perhaps.
You know, I'm never sure why I defend TV so much in these threads. After all, I spend most of my days complaining about how appalling it all is, how it's run by idiots who think that the viewers are scum... I suppose it must be because I genuinely love it as the best single medium for conveying the widest possible of human affects; I hate to see it done badly, but I'm saddened more by the inevitable knee jerk reactions damning all television as a result. I wanna see more, better television now! What I'm actually going to do though, is go read a book...
There should have been the word "range" floating about somewhere in there (a fun game you can play at home - where should it have gone?).
Oh, and I also meant to say - if anybody knows of a job for a vibrant young television creative who has a contract which, perhaps, expires at the end of the month... please don't hesitate to get in touch... :-)
how it's run by idiots who think that the viewers are scum
I know you meant that rhetorically, but yeah! For the record thread, it's my opinion that television is the most powerful communications medium yet developed - a beautiful thing in and of itself. But that its systems and effects are, on the whole, damaging to flowers and other living things.
It ocurred to me earlier that perhaps a separate thread about advertising is in order. I'm curious if most of the "pro-tv" comments in this thread were made by people outside the gape of American television?
I'm very near the gape of American TV and inside Mexican TV (which is ten times worse, believe me) and I defend it not from critique of content, but from it's disqualification as something worthwhile of existance.
ADD/ADHD is a very serious problem. TV rewires children's brains in ways that books do not.
I don't contest that (although there are no conclusive studies on that respect), but that's a parenting problem. Again, not because electricity is harmful for kids doesn't mean it should be banned from homes.
Here's something I have though that maybe would be useful. Although it's quite obvious. Whenever you wish really hard to see that last episode or that hockey game or that reality show, think really hard if it's really important for you to watch it, how much would you lose from not watching it, and compare it with any other activity you have long posponed and you think you could very well fulfill it on that time. Then make a decision.
I have yet to hear a decent argument against everyone turning off their telescreens for just one week. In a nutshell, here is Mander's summary of reasoning on why television must be eliminated:
[Television seems to be addictive. Because of the way the visual signal is processed in the mind, it inhibits cognitive processes. Television qualifies more as an instrument of brainwashing, sleep induction and/or hypnosis than anything that stimulates conscious learning processes.
Television is a form of sense deprivation, causing disorientation and confusion. It leaves viewers less able to tell the real from the not-real, the internal from the external, the personally experienced from the externally implanted. It disorients a sense of time, place, history and nature.
Television suppresses and replaces creative human imagery, encourages mass passivity, and trains people to accept authority. It is an instrument of transmutation, turning people into their TV images.
By stimulating action while simultaneously suppressing it, television contributes to hyperactivity.
Television limits and confines human knowledge. It changes the way humans receive information from the world. In place of natural multidimensional information reception, it offers a very narrow-gauged sense experience, diminishing the amount and kind of information people receive. Television keeps awareness contained within its own rigid channels, a tiny fraction of the natural information field. Because of television we believe we know more, but we know less.
Television technology is inherently antidemocratic. Because of its cost, the limited kind of information it can disseminate, the way it transforms the people who use it, and the fact that a few speak while millions absorb, television is suitable for use only by the most powerful corporate interests in the country. They inevitably use it to redesign human minds into a channeled, artificial, commercial form, that nicely fits the artificial environment. Television freewayizes, suburbanizes and commoditizes human beings, who are then easier to control. Meanwhile, those who control television consolidate their power.
Television aids the creation of societal conditions which produce autocracy; it also creates the appropriate mental patterns for it and simultaneously dulls all awareness that this is happening.
But a central argument ... is that television, for the most part, cannot possibly yield to reform. Its problems are inherent in the technology itself to the same extent that violence is inherent in guns.
No new age of well-meaning television executives can change what the medium does to people who watch it. Its effects on body and mind are inseparable from the viewing experience.]
On the other hand, it's hard to find much fault with CSPAN (and the proposed science-y CSPAN). I guess I have a little more hope than Mander does... that tv is reformable. I wonder if it would be prohibitively expensive, though.
Television is a form of sense deprivation, causing disorientation and confusion. It leaves viewers less able to tell the real from the not-real, the internal from the external, the personally experienced from the externally implanted. It disorients a sense of time, place, history and nature.
Sweet. Destroy those barriers. Cast us screaming naked into the void of pop culture and mass psychosis. Why not? Obviously it's what we want. If we didn't, we wouldn't watch the things. If the world wants to drive itself insane, why stop it? Being a one eyed man in the land of the blind makes you a king my friend. Pax television. Anybody know a decent english to latin translation website/program?
Wedge: Because we like it. Almost all human activity not directly relating to our biological imperatives - eat, sleep, reproduce, is ultimately indefinsible by any criteria of "necessity."
I am not overly interested in the opinions of petty facists for whom the cry "Life, liberty, and the pusuit of happyness" is an anethma to their puritanical concern with sniffing around my life that they can judge the worth of it.
the Media Carta.
"dominates" is such a strong word, couldn't we just say "is good clean fun in"?
Come on over here a minute pete_best. Let me see your hair.
*screams
Are those...? Are those...?
*gasps
*draws back in horror
Are those ANTENNAE growing outta your HEAD???!??
*deep breath
Hmm. Well. Whatever.
Come here and let me adjust your rabbit ears.
recordthread, it's my opinion that television is the most powerful communications medium yet developed - a beautiful thing in and of itself. But that its systems and effects are, on the whole, damaging to flowers and other living things. It ocurred to me earlier that perhaps a separate thread about advertising is in order. I'm curious if most of the "pro-tv" comments in this thread were made by people outside the gape of American television?