it's so embarassing when I get caught plagiarizing Rocky and Bullwinkle

Best to describe it as an "homage."

All kidding aside, I should clarify my point by saying that sitting around flipping channels on the tv when there's nothing good on is the mental equivalent of eating greasy potato chips. There are a lot of great programs of course.

Now if only they'd make some new episodes of "Foyle's War"...

Do you have tivo? I must confess, I love watching tv, but I feel that I do it extremely efficiently and with purpose. I do not flip channels or watch most commercials. I record programs and watch at will. I can't say enough good things about tivo.

And as far as your opening remarks on the subject of tv vs. theatre, I wonder what consumption you compare to reading, after all, a book is the same when I read it as it is when you read it and it is even more solitary than watching tv. Still an individual indulgence and often delicious, no?

That said, we must all watch our intellectual love handles.

tivo--you pay money to a company, in order for it to collect data on your tv watching habit, it order to better 'satisfy' your need to watch tv in the future?

i watch TV.. i have at times, (weeks, not months!) been with out a TV, but it gets replace.

but i see no need for cable, and less need to tape (or Tivo tv shows.. they are all repeated (ad nausium) anyway.

There are spec for open source digital video recorders freely available online.

Actually, I paid a couple of hundred dollars approx 3 years ago to be tivo serviced for the life of my dvr. Money well spent, in my opinion. I probably watch far less tv than most people who claim they watch very little, but I'm not a slave to scheduling, which can be an issue even with repeats. Also, sometimes I'm into ad nausium. For example, I have an Austin City Limits folder that collects new episodes. Those, I will watch repeatedly or even listen only while preparing dinner.

I'm not afraid of "the man" collecting data on my tv watching habits. Actually, I embrace the idea that my interests receive as much or more value as other tv watchers. I feel I watch smart programs that stretch my brain farther and that come off as more original than many best-selling novels turned overly hyped movies. I keep reading them, hoping...

>>>>I'm not afraid of "the man" collecting data on my tv watching habits.

Do they really check what you are recording on tivo (Illico in Québec)?

Sheesh, they must think Hubby and I have the most disparate tastes.

O.T. I really enjoy having Illico. I love documentaries but they don't always play when I feel like watching. Being able to record them means I can watch them any time I want.

I am, of course, preaching to the choir regarding books. I dare say the monthly, if not weekly, consumption of books by awad fans could fill large libraries. I just wish intelligent people weren't so down on tv. You can actively watch tv. TV doesn't just happen. Clever formulas are used, obscure references made(even on the WB!). Now, how can fans of Holmes not enjoy a little House every now and then? And then there are poorly written shows (Prison Break) with a million plot holes I personally enjoy catching. That's not even diving into cable or the brainier channels.

Just sayin'.

...
The nearest analogy to the addictive power of television and the transformation of values that is wrought in the life of the heavy user is probably heroin. Heroin flattens the image; with heroin, things are neither hot nor cold; the junkie looks out at the world certain that what ever it is, it does not matter. The illusion of knowing and of control that heroin engenders is analogous to the unconscious assumption of the television consumer that what is seen is 'real' somewhere in the world. In fact, what are seen are the cosmetically enhanced surfaces of products. Television, while chemically non-invasive, nevertheless is every bit as addicting and physiologically damaging as any other drug...

Most unsettling of all is this: the content of television is not a vision but a manufactured data stream that can be sanitised to 'protect' or impose cultural values. Thus we are confronted with an addictive drug that delivers an experience whose message is whatever those who deal the drug wish it to be. Could anything provide a more fertile ground for fostering fascism and totalitarianism?...

Television induces a trance state in the viewer that is the necessary precondition for brainwashing. As with all other drugs and technologies, television's basic character cannot be changed...
[p.p. 218-220, T. McKenna, Bantam, 1992. ISBN 0-553-37130-4]

I personally find music to be the food of the gods. A good rock star has way more influence over me than a tv show.

I often don't agree with the political/secular undertones of tv, so I believe I'm maybe more alert than other viewers who might feel validated by what they are watching. It's more fun for me to say, for example, "ooh, did you see the way the writer just completely misrepresented the Patriot Act?"

Great quote, by.

In case anyone imagines this is a cross-pond issue it ain't - some of my entertainment highlights in the last year or so have included smart shows from the USA like '6 Feet Under' and Serenity.

No-one can doubt there are good, sometimes superb TV programmes made. Conversely, no-one in full command of their powers of observation and independant reasoning can doubt this fact: that the overwhelming tidal wave of TV output is mind-sapping drivel delivered to the lowest common denominator of commercial expediency.

> can actively watch tv. TV doesn't just happen.

Very true, and I'm sympathetic to your approach. Trouble is, I don't think you are adequately conveying the addictive power of the medium. After all, if this was not true how do you think the advertising industry would have grown so fat on the endless 'profits of doom'? I know I have frequently started out 'in full control' to watch Programme A and ended up surfing to Programme Z. In belli's context, this boast of being in control of the box can sound uncomfortably reminiscent of any other substance abuser, don't you think?

Even the most educational programming in terms of content is delivered via a medium that affects the brain adversely. A highly informative show on the history of Henry VIII, for example, might have frequent "cuts" where the camera changes angles. This conditions the brain to nearly constant visual stimulation unlike reading, which relies on constant mental stimulation to make the reader produce the images in their own head. So you could learn something about Henry VIII, but your brain would be conditioned just a little bit for the worse, making your faculties less sharp than the scholars whose work originally provided the material for the program. Of course a single hour doesn't do grave harm, especially not if you're motivated to turn off the tv and read more about Henry VIII in this case. But when I fall into the lazy habit of vegging out to the History Channel all Sunday afternoon, I'm not doing my brain much good, although perhaps it has value merely as a relaxation technique.

> cuts

how about a museum?

I see your points. Merely trying to provide possible solutions to channel flipping and got soap box, side-tracked.

Even the most educational programming in terms of content is delivered via a medium that affects the brain adversely. A highly informative show on the history of Henry VIII, for example, might have frequent "cuts" where the camera changes angles. This conditions the brain to nearly constant visual stimulation unlike reading, which relies on constant mental stimulation to make the reader produce the images in their own head.

I don't know about that point - it doesn't seem right to me. If you slam television because of the constant visual stimulation, then you'd have to slam every play that involves a lot of action.

For example, I've seen plays where people are coming in from all angles, things are dropping from the sky, loud banging and sounds are also being blasted from different places. LOTS of visual stimulation there.

And why is a lot of visual stimulation bad for you? Why is it bad for your brain?

I'll take a couple of guesses, not intending to try and step in for Alex, because a.) it wouldn't be right, and b.) I'm not a doctor.

I think the important word in his post was conditioned . No one watches plays for several hours a day, seven days a week, but lots of people do watch television that much. There is some connection between visual stimulation and the brain, I do know. There is a therapy that I can't remember the name of for the life of me (EMD,EMR?) , but it involves moving your eyes side-to-side from one point to another while thinking certain thoughts (say, to stop smoking), so that after a while when you move your eyes that way at any time, that thought pops into your consciousness.

A major concern I have about kids' shows--Sesame Street in particular; that's one I'm familiar with--is this conditioning. Never mind that it's set up to help them learn things; I can't help but wonder how it affects their ability to learn from other sources, say minor ones like school, and books. If they have been condtioned by three years of watching Sesame Street daily, how difficult will it be for them to focus on any lesson in kindergarten (and later) that lasts longer than 15 seconds? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on that.

A study was done to see what factors correlated with standardized test scores and number of tv watching hours appeared to not be a factor. Not an attention-span study, but interesting. It also found that those who have lots of books in their homes (not necessarily being read by or to them) have a positive correlation to high test scores.

not to mention the study of music.

No matter how frenzied the action onstage, for live theatre one generally sits in a seat and has the same point of view through the performance. When the play's over you exit the theater.

I'm not saying that watching a single television program will make your brain melt and run out your ears, but ultimately it is luxury that, like alcohol, should be used in moderation if at all rather than a staple that should make up a large part of the mental diet. I attended college with a couple of brilliant twins who grew up rich in books but with no television in the home at all. Academically, they blazed through college like a couple of comets. One was later a Fulbright Scholar in fact. Of course they had intelligence and academic motivation anyway, but I'm convinced that their lack of television gave them great stamina as readers. They could read large volumes of academic material with as much ease and gusto as I can muster for a gripping work of genre fiction.

There is a running argument I have with my wife. The disagreement has become severe on some occasions. Frankly, I want her to 1. leave the kids alone and 2. quit passing on unsupported opinion as absolute fact.

Let me explain:
She has a really bad habit of saying something to the kids and - because she said it - it must, of course, be absolutely true. She'll tell them things like "If you bite your nails, your fingers will fall off." or "If you sit cross-legged, your hips will grow wider and no man will want you." Those are two exact examples, but the list of things she says like this is really very large.

Part of my problem is that she mixes in things that have a very large chance of being true (or at least correct within some limit) and things that are ludicrous.

One large peeve of hers is the "too much TV" thing which in recent years has grown into a "too much video game" or "too much computer game" thing. Every single time she sees the kids relaxing in front of the tv playing halo or playing scrabble online or what have you - she launches into a tirade. Additionally, she's taken to cutting out every article she can find that shows the dangers of video games and forces the kids to read them.

If there were any hint of a problem, I would be the first to say we have to do something - but everything with the kids is going wonderfully. In my wildest dreams I never thought I'd be this lucky. There's a lot of things I could say, but I'll leave it at this: my youngest daughter (age 13) is depressed because she got her first B+ ever. This is pretty typical of the kind of problem we have to deal with. It's not just academics. They're both pretty good swimmers - are actively involved with 2-3 teams throughout the year, and are involved with other activities as well. They're REALLY busy. My oldest (16) has been tutoring a girl a few hours a week and has just gotten her first job as a cashier at a local food store. My youngest is practicing violin and reading all the time. If they get a few hours free here or there and want to spend it playing video games - what's the big deal? They both spend a lot of time reading. The youngest is about half way through DaVinci Code right now. (Not a great book, but it's a pretty good choice for a 13 yo.)

I know the kids are not perfect. It could be they would benefit from other experiences. But we DO go to museums, zoos, aquariums. We DO talk to each other a lot. We DO read together and share experiences and articles. But I just can't stomach nagging them when they get a few minutes free.

That said, I can imagine that there are families where tv is a problem, maybe even a serious problem. In fact, I don't have to imagine - I *KNOW* families where this is a problem. But the problem in each of those cases - at least from from my pov - is not the tv, per se, but the lack of parental involvement. Using the tv as a baby sitter or a proxy parent is destined to cause issues down the road. I don't have a problem with parents who limit their kids' tv time or video game time. In fact, I applaud the fact that they're paying attention. But I don't think that the right answer is that alone. Nothing effectively replaces contact with the kids.

>>>> I'm not saying that watching a single television program will make your brain melt and run out your ears,


>>>>but ultimately it is luxury that, like alcohol, should be used in moderation if at all rather than a staple that should make up a large part of the mental diet.

Aye, that I agree with. Life is all about balance. Television, books, plays, games, sports, activities...they should all be used to expand your mental and physical horizons, not limit them.

When something starts to limit you, it is time to take a good look at what your are doing. That is for everything, not just television.

I'll give you an example. We all know we should exercise every day, however, a coworker of mine has had to cut down on her physical exercise because it was keeping her from getting pregnant. She did Iron-Man triathelons on a regular basis and was exercising too much.

A child or adult that is constantly plopped down in front of the television is not balancing his life with other physical, mental, and social activities. It is limiting the individual.

The same can be said about a child or adult that is constantly hiding behind a book. A shy person will justify limiting his social interactions because he is "busy" reading. Reading is a good thing, but in that case it is unhealthy for the development of the individual.

Life is balance.

Aye, and speaking of balance...I better get back to work if'n I want to get paid and balance my checkbook.

I was once told something that completely changed my outlook on the purpose of TV. Somebody who worked in the industry said to me: "You know, the product of the television industry is not programmes. The actual product of television is viewers, and this is what is being sold to advertisers".

I don't watch much TV anyway, but even when I do, the idea that somebody is selling my attention for their own benefit is disagreeable.

FF, I had the same thing with my mother, re: my kids (when they were little) and fast food. She would launch into lectures if I'd mention taking them to McDonald's. BUT--looking at the overall picture, they got pretty much the nutritional requirements and balance every day; they were in good health. I saw and still see no problem with having taken them there once a month or so: possibly because I felt so "different" as a child, I place(d) a high importance on letting them be part of the same culture* their friends were in.

*Up to a point: they did have outside activities (youth baseball team at the Y, swimming, music lessons, etc.), but only one activity at a time, because I think it is also important for children to have time to just "be"--to be able to relax, think, and use their imaginations. My husband would occasionally say that they ought to do their homework as soon as they come in the door, whereupon I would remind him that adults wouldn't want to come home from a full day's work and immediately do another couple of hours of it, and that I thought the kids needed a bit of "down time" after a full day of school, as well.

It IS a matter of balance, and that does require parental involvement. They were in high school before I quit reading every single book they checked out of the library--which is how I came to know and hate both The Polar Express and The Velveteen Rabbit.

Re:They were in high school before I quit reading every single book they checked out of the library--which is how I came to know and hate both The Polar Express and The Velveteen Rabbit.

Ha! when i was 13 or so, i read Pearl Buck's The Good Earth--and thought it was the raciest book i had ever read--(yeah, i grew in in NYC, but my parents did their best to protect me from many thing)

the book was filled with strange and sexy ideas --concubines (i looked that word up--i though i knew what it meant from context, but NO way would my mother smile at me reading books about people who had concubines! and opium.. people in the book took opium! (and there there was the passage after Onan has twin sons, and her husband gives her twin pearls (which she keeps--rather than wears) nestled between her twin swollen breast! wow did i think that was sexy!

a year or two later, i was reading the microbe hunters (a book she didn't approve of!) and i was reading about STD, but not about the sex part--more about the disease part, (as i recall, the transmittal part was covered by a simple sentence "caught by having (sexual) intercourse with an infected partner" nothing erotic there... but the science--that was riviting!

(the general policy was "no censorship"-- we were free to read anything we wanted.. but somehow, the microbe hunters kept getting helpfully returned to the library--it was years before i realize this was her way to discourage this book (i don't think she ever read it, but she might have looked at the chapter heading and say something about the fight against syphilis)

i know she hadn't read (and didn't read) most of the books we read --(she did actually read A Catcher in Rye--and couldn't see what the problem was.. (when i was a teen, it was banned in several school districts.) She counted on the nuns--if they didn't disapprove, she didn't. at some point, one of the parish priest must have told her the Microbe hunters was OK, and i finally finished reading the book.

Yep, I think everyone has contributed some good points here. It's about balance, parental involvement and so on ~ or to suggest a more fundamental outlook, it's perhaps about taking active decisions? I have never had a problem with my kids playing a range of computer games; otoh, they do not have 3 different kinds of consoles like some of their compadres. I still thank my parents for influencing my attitude to being harvested by the TV industry: when I was 8 they finally acceded to us kids demanding to be (like Jackie's) part of our peer group, but they demanded that we actively schedule our viewing, booking a maximum number of hours a week.

The figures came out for the UK today; everyone living in Scotland and the North East average 28 hours' television per week.

And it ain't mind-broadening documentaries they're watching, bel. Their brains are being sucked out and replaced with advertising.