Television. Yea or Nay? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

badprofessor -> Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 10:43:32 AM)

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

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

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

4. It is inherently an undemocratic medium with no potential for democratization.

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



RCdc -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 11:00:45 AM)

This is Darcy

I think the major problem with television is that it has become the only source of information for many people, and as a result they only get the view that is perpetuated by whoever controls the various channels.

Sadly many of the youth (and adults for that matter) have the opinion of "I'll skip the book and wait for the movie" when it comes to information. Instead of reading newspapers, factual books and other such sources they rely only on what they can digest in ten minute bursts.

Harlan Ellison called television 'the glass teat' and he's right. He wrote a book of that name (and a sequel called The Other Glass Teat) many years ago, and the sad thing is that although the names of the shows and the presenters have changed, the basis premise that TV is a cynical, manipulative controlling medium still holds true today, perhaps even moreso given the few individuals that control the world's media.

Personally I hardly watch TV at all these days, preferring to either catch things on DVD, or to actuall read about factual things. I also find that I have a ton of time on my hands to do creative things. I've achieved so much in the last few years purely because I've swapped time on the couch with my brain switched off for more intellectual and creative pursuits. I'm not saying everybody should do this, but for those of you who have always thought 'I want to write/paint/sketch/make music/whatever' then I suggest an experiment. Kill the TV for a month and see how much you achieve - I think you'll be surprised.



faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 11:06:28 AM)

without tv how would i be able to watch sports? one can never get tickets in toronto...the local businesses own all of them...so the only way to acquire it is knowing someone in high up on a companies list like a CEO or PREZ to get tickets from...course you pay 5-10 times the actual price because thats what tickets go for.

so the only way i can ever see sports is on tv.  thank god my cable company plays a ton of games without pay per view.



Zensee -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 11:08:29 AM)

Haven't owned a TV since 1979. I think I turned out OK.


Z.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 11:54:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: badprofessor
Four Arguments for the Elmination of Televison, Jerry Mander


That name has to be a pen name. [:D]



Aneirin -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 2:10:57 PM)

A few years ago ironically there was a program on tv news about an island where the people had grown up largely honest and innocent, a place where there was no tv. Now the experiment is, they now have tv and the social experimenters are waiting to see how the people change. It was to be a ten year experiment, but I forget the name of the island, but if anyone else knows, it was inhabited with what could be called britons of a pre tv age, i.e. a british colony.

Personally, I feel it is a cruel experiment, but I have no right to deny others of what we have.

Tv, in Britain it seems is  almost as a must have, why else, it is a means to extract a tax er fee from people, very few are immune from this fee and if a place has not submitted this fee, the authorities want to know why and will go to lengths to prove the non existance of a tv.

A tv in every home, a perfect way to train a person to think a certain way. We are a consumerist nation, where do we think this desire for products comes from, largely, the tv.

I rarely watch my tv, but it is on now as it ever is, but the sound only do I notice as I am doing other things. When a person lives on their own, a broadcasted signal increases comfort. I settle down to watch something, and I soon tire of it and go off to do something else.



slaveboyforyou -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 3:23:58 PM)

Televison is what you make of it.  You control the on/off switch, and you decide what you want to watch.  I used to keep mine on in the background constantly, but by circumstance I changed that habit.  I had to move my computer into another room away from the television, and I just stopped having it on so much.  Now I actually plan my viewing.  A program guide is a wonderful thing.  You look to see if anything is on worth watching, and you make your decision. 

Now I do have the computer on constantly, so I don't know if that is any better.  But it doesn't make noise constantly like the television.  I am actually sitting here with the windows open listening to the wind chimes outside and the birds chirping.  I heard some ducks returning from their southern, Winter retreats a little while ago.  I actually stepped outside to watch them fly overhead.  I never did that when I had the television on constantly. 

So I don't consider television to be a bad thing in and of itself.  It's a nice diversion now and again.  But it shouldn't take up the majority of your free time, and it certainly shouldn't be your sole outlet to the world. 



Level -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 3:35:29 PM)

I agree with sb, tv is what you make of it. I've been entertained by it, I've gotten to watch some of the world's greatest atheletes, and I've learned and been inspired to learn a great number of things.



Real0ne -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 3:41:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: badprofessor

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


I would argue that 30 years later these arguments "overall" have all been proven valid.  There are always the exceptions but for the most part people accept the tube as the holy grail of info and they would never lie.

I only watch football and the rest all comes off the net.











SugarMyChurro -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 3:51:45 PM)

I watch new episodes of House and not much else. Other than that I tend to watch maybe an hour of stuff on DVD per day, maybe even less.

I do use my computer extensively for all manner of things. Certainly the internet is my main news source.



stella41b -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 4:25:38 PM)

I've just had one of those people at my door demanding to see my TV licence.

"I'm sorry," I reply, "But I'm a transsexual, and I didn't know I needed a licence."

[you can all groan now]

I haven't had a telly ever since it was stolen way back in 1987. It's bad enough with all the time I spend on the Internet not to spend any more time staring at another screen.

Television has the potential to be one of the most educational form of media, the most entertaining, but sadly it remains the most abused form of media.



faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 4:35:43 PM)

quote:

i've just had one of those people at my door demanding to see my TV licence.


did he ask you if you are hd or regular?  did he ask you if you offer free porn?  did he ask you how many channels you actually get?    wait....your ts...not tv.... honest mistake...



LadyEllen -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 4:40:26 PM)

I'm pretty sure Stella that the licence is not for a TV as such (ignoring your joke for now.......... if a crossdresser dresses in black and white, does he pay less?) but for equipment capable of receiving television pictures? Which means every PC hooked up to the internet, since TV pictures are transmitted over the web too.

E 



faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 4:42:47 PM)

well speaking of cd's i usually ask them what style of music they are..... and how many songs they offer..



Level -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 4:43:20 PM)

*groans at the tv jokes*
 
It still blows my mind that you all have to pay a tv license over there.



LadyEllen -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 4:46:17 PM)

Its not that big a deal though Level, considering one gets (mostly) quality programming from it, a bunch of radio stations and no commercials!

E



bipolarber -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 6:21:21 PM)

"I'm not a Doctor, I just play one with TV's"  -Me

Sturgeons law applies: 98% of everything is crap. TV, movies, books, music, radio, or what have you. You have to be a discriminating consumer when it comes to media. Otherwise, you get manipulated by it. Look at today's headlines: "Dems are worried that the sniping between candidates will drive voters away from their polls." Total bullshit! I mean think about it, no matter how much they bicker, do they really think America will just allow yet another Rethuglican asshole to slime his way into office? That, after 5 years of this stupid war, we're going to allow McCain to effectively be Bush's third term? Screw that!

As much as I dislike Michael Moore, his movie "Bowling for Columbine" did have a great point: American media is out to throw fear into your mind. Every single newscast has some report on how something in your home, or in your neighborhood is out to kill you.

It's gotten so bad, I just switch off after the weather, and I get my news from papers and The Daily Show. (Sad that the Daily Show is more trustworthy than Fox News... but then, anyone is more trustworthy than Fox News...)



petdave -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 6:41:46 PM)

Hm. It's hard to comment on some of the hypotheses without knowing the context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: badprofessor
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


Most content is sales. i have a hard time with the concept of an "illusion of interest and value"... How exactly does one create an illusion of interest? [:-] Either something interests you or it doesn't.

quote:


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

4. It is inherently an undemocratic medium with no potential for democratization.


Even though satellite and cable bandwidth have given us umpteen million channels, this is certainly still true. However, if you take the literal definition of "television" as broadcast video, the Internet has changed the game completely.

quote:


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


Um... this is another one i'd have to read the explanation of. TV distracts the crap out of me, but if there are any controlling effects outside that scope i have a hard time imagining what they might be.

i don't think that TV has really changed since the 70's. It's still at least 99.9% crap, possibly more depending on where we are in the sweeps/re-runs cycle. Still beholden to the Big Money. Still the modern equivalent of the Roman circuses.



farglebargle -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 7:46:33 PM)

TV: No.
MythTV: Yes



Celeste43 -> RE: Television. Yea or Nay? (3/24/2008 8:24:10 PM)

I don't think when it was first devised that anyone foresaw satellites allowing you to view all around the globe, or local access stations. From that point of view, it's quite different than imagined 30 years ago.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125