quote:

ORIGINAL: badprofessor

In his influential book of 1977, Four Arguments for the Elmination of Televison, Jerry Mander contends that television is inherently possesses negative consequences as a medium.

The basic arguments are:

1. It gives the illusion of interest and value, but it really just perpetuates the message of the broadcaster. i.e. all content is propaganda

True, but that is only a problem because of number 2. 20 different propaganda messages is more effective in leaking the facts than 4. A 100 is better than 20, so on and so forth..

2. Limited ownership and control of the broadcast frequencies prevent new voices from controlling the medium.

Agree, and think tv is going to be swallowed by the internet anyway, so that is bound to change more and more with time.

3. Its physical and mental effects on the viewer, render the individual receptive to external control.

I'd say it opens them up to suggestion, maybe not control. People are generally stupid, even smart ones. If you repeat something as fact long enough a large portion of any group will accept it as fact. If that equates to control.

4. It is inherently an undemocratic medium with no potential for democratization.
I agree traditional television doesn't represent it's audience well. Part of that has to do with censorship, and whoring for ad dollars though.

So, 30 years later, do these arguments still hold? Did they ever? Has the evolution of the medium redeemed itself?

Pretty much still true.