raddevon.com - Latest Comments in No TV

Re: No TV

raddevon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:59:12 -0000

I've seen a similar argument against bike riding. One paper suggests if everyone starts biking instead of using cars for transport, lifespans will increase and people will require more food putting significant strain on our planet's resources. I personally believe we would find some way to sate our increased need if something like that were to happen, but there is no way of knowing.

Re: No TV

ColdWave — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:31:13 -0000

I was actually thinking a lot about this topic today as the hours passed by. If the huddled masses were spontaneously set free from their television addictions, wouldn't the environment suffer incredibly? They would require material goods (cameras for picture taking; wood for building; paint for painting; paper for writing; toys for playing; goggles for bird watching; chemicals for backyard biological warfare testing), and they would require lots of gasoline to motor around and participate in their newfound hobbies. All of these goods would require other resources to be used up for their production, and even more foreign oil would be necessary to transport the goods around the country. It seems like, in a world suddenly without televisions, the entire planet would suffer direly!

Or... with all the TV junkies gone, would the disappearance of the junk food industry create such an abundance of natural resources that it would all balance out in the end? Hehe.

Re: No TV

raddevon — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:21:26 -0000

The existence of television depends upon ad revenue (except in rare cases you mention such as HBO and PBS). This fact alone means that any television station, if faced with the prospect of losing that ad revenue in response to airing certain content would have to refrain from airing it. No corporate entity will willingly commit suicide.

I don't believe that I will become helpless faced with TV advertisements, but I do know that my brain is flawed. There are times when logic doesn't win even though it should. It is weak to repetition. It is weak to suggestions that play on my insecurities. I certainly wouldn't keep a mental shopping list of every ad I see on television while watching, but I may be subconsciously persuaded to buy things I don't need or to make poor decisions about what to consume. The human mind is incapable of a tunnel-vision which sees only the most logical choice no matter how valuable that might be in some circumstances.

There are certainly more responsible ways to watch television than many of those outlined in the article. I'm talking about television as a societal affliction. Most people do watch TV that way. Most people do watch it only for a perceived lack of superior alternatives.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I'm writing and comment. I'm looking forward to hearing from you more on my other posts.

Re: No TV

ColdWave — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:58:43 -0000

As I always do, I will take up the rebuttal on this issue!

I think your argument rests too heavily on the foundation of network channels and their closely aligned cable affiliates. I find no danger in the commercialism flourishing on network television because I don't watch network television. I would almost dare to assert that no educated adult watches the ridiculously generic sitcoms and vapid crime dramas that populate every network channel's schedule. These "accessible" shows breed with each other and produce endless generations of insipid, formulaic clones. I certainly don't think your personality type is interested in said shows. I'll even go so far as to haphazardly say that most network programming appeals only to idiots.

What you do miss are important facets of television. PBS's nightly news programs are the only thing this country has that even come close to rivaling the BBC World News, one of the most untainted news sources in the modern world. If the American versions aren't enough, then the PBS actually airs the BBC World News! You're definitely not going to find such important information on ABC. PBS has minimal advertising, but television networks aren't cheap to operate. If PBS didn't offer marginally stimulating documentaries on astronomy, evolution, et cetera, then I'm not sure where the layperson would stumble upon them--certainly not on the regularly dumbed down Discovery Channel. HBO, although owned by AOL Time Warner (ick), shows no signs of morality police trespass; their entertainment is almost entirely progressive and atheist-and-gay-friendly. Even in films do you rarely find the adult situations and intellectual fiction found in original HBO programming. It's nice to sit down once in a while and enjoy something that you know was made for someone your age and no other market. You can't find this anywhere else. HBO has almost no advertising to speak of.

One thing that I've always noticed about your position on television is that you seem to think you will become a helpless victim to flagrant consumerism if you partake in television. As a rational adult, you can reason yourself through Bisquick advertisements without rushing to the pancake aisle, right? As an adult, I find no reason to be fearful of commercials, because I'm capable of rationalizing my finances and actual needs versus wants. There's no reason to learn to live without something that could provide enjoyment. I could learn to live without chocolate and tell all my friends that I don't miss it, but I'd still really enjoy it if I ate it. It almost seems as if you are denying yourself something based on principles that apply to other people and not yourself.

Where I do think your point has strength is in the affliction of consumerism and sedentary life delivered to children. Children cannot be expected to make educated decisions, obviously. As you have expertly stated the consequences of this, I have nothing further to add.

I take issue with the notion with many of the statistics you offered, as they apply to people who aimlessly watch television for lack of anything better to do. When I do watch television, I know what I'm going to watch and when I'm going to watch it. I don't "surf." I don't think many educated, intelligent adults meander through the banal network sitcoms and overt celebrity worship of the cable channels. I'm an advocate for people who enjoy that kind of thing to stay exactly where they are. Frankly, I fear the havoc that would be wrecked if stupid people were freed from their televisionic comas and set loose upon the world. Not everyone would become a socialist revolutionary whose potential had formerly been checked by the tube. Some people would be exactly who they were as a television viewer, and I'd prefer those people remain within the boundaries of their homes, please!