Pet Food For My Ego

Don't you mean, "The History According to Roger Mudd" Channel? ;) And I say that as a fan. There is not a single person out there, though, trying to tell you a single thing that isn't trying to encourage you to think a certain way. This includes what all of us discuss here.

I'm afraid I don't buy into the evils of T.V. anymore than I do the evils of the internet or video games or fantasy literature or rock 'n roll. Or, I suppose I should say, I don't buy that these have limitless power that will draw you in and never let you go. I watch TV shows that I want to watch (predominently History Channel, Animal Planet and Family Guy), read what I want to read, play what I want to play because I want to do it, not because I've been programmed to do so.

Certainly, there are ideas being thrown at you, but I have to laugh--somewhat pityingly--at the notion that these will burrow into your subconscious and render you incapable of independent thought. A woman and I ended up in an argument in Barnes and Knoble one day because I was picking up my copy of the latest "Harry Potter" book. She went on the normal diatribe about how it was about 'real' wizardry and a bad influence on kids. Not even bothering to get into the pseudo-latin that Rowling uses or the fact that the principle focus on the books is on the relationships that kids have and how they change growing up (with a magical canvas to keep it interesting) and not magic, I instead asked her if she considered herself religious. Following her vehement declaration of Christianity I remarked that I couldn't imagine being anything other than ashamed to announce to the world that my own Faith was so fragile as to be endangered by exposure to a children's book. I wish I could say that she saw my point, but she just got huffy(er) and walked away. But then, I suppose it doesn't really surprise me---those who speak out the loudest are often those who understand the least.

I guess my point in all of this, is that there is absolutely nothing you can engage in with anything outside of yourself that isn't going to expose you to some viewpoint or idea, which you may or may not share. If one decides to stop being a part of that interchange or activity because one gets no enjoyment from it, that's one thing. But I can't see shielding one's self from it out of fear of being uncontrollably contaminated by it. And here's a viewpoint for you: THAT'S one of the chief problems of much of today's thinking.

My own parents often speak out against violent video games, saying that it gives kids ideas to go and kill people, jack cars, etc. Well, here's my argument--I grew up with violent video games, R-rated movies, and READY access to a whole selection of firearms. Strangely, I seemed to grow up, graduate college and become employed with no criminal record. Perhaps I was just lucky, or perhaps I was/am actually a thinking human being who was able to make his own choices. Video games don't teach kids to be violent. Society putting all blame on the games and not the kids teaches kids that there will be no consequences for them. They can do whatever the hell they want and then say, "Grand Theft Auto made me do it!" and suddenly they've become victims.

Anyway, I've veered off topic a tad, but I guess I'm saying I watch TV, and am not ashamed of it or afraid of what it might DO to me. And besides--if there were no TV, then everbody'd talk about books, or art or something. The weather and which joints are currently aching get stale as topics really fast.
 
There's a huge difference between an adult watching tv and using what he likes and discarding what he doesn't need, and a developing mind between the ages of 1 and 7 years.

I guess TV can be a fall guy, though. TV couldn't be crap unless the larger society around it was also.



munk
 
What can you say?
Did anyone really have high expectations for "the children of the flower children?"
or "The grandchildren of the flower children?"
 
When I went away to college in 1958, That was the end of my TV viewing. Occasionally, I'd catch a program once in a while in the lounge in my rooming house, or the student union. Once I moved into my own apartment, I only saw TV peripherally. Once I was working on my MS Degree, TV seemed irrelevant. In 1968, I found myself working in the TV commercial production business. I bought a 12" Sony to watch what I was involved in, an to keep in touch with the revolution.
So for 10 years, I was in a TV vacuum. What a blessing. :D
 
munk said:
There's a huge difference between an adult watching tv and using what he likes and discarding what he doesn't need, and a developing mind between the ages of 1 and 7 years.

I guess TV can be a fall guy, though. TV couldn't be crap unless the larger society around it was also.
munk
Click to expand...

Oh I agree--I only point out that stonings, the gillotine, and rape/pilliging were not inventions of the TV era. People have shown capacity for inhumanity and immorality since long before they could see moving two-dimensional renderings of it. Things that horrify us as a society now wouldn't have gotten a second glance a few generations ago. And this in the era when we're so "de-sensitized." I'm trying like hell to remember when people were sensitized but it's eluding me so far--as is the time when society wasn't crap.

Parents need to offer guidance, always, whether it be in the things their kids see or making sure that they don't get run over by cars in the street. I don't think completely shielding kids from a cultural (or even entertainment) world that they're surrounded by makes any more sense than pretending the cars don't exist. Some day, they WILL come in contact with it. The sooner children (again, in my opinion) get some sense of what is around them in the world, and start to learn--with guidance--how to deal with it, the more capable they'll be of doing so when they're on their own; versus being in a cocoon through the years when they can best learn and adapt and then suddenly saying, "Okay forget all you've known, here's how it really is. Go get 'em, tiger!"

If I sound incensed, Munk, it's not with you. I think I'm still arguing with the disapproving soccer-mom to some extent. ;)
 
I know you're not incensed with me. Be incensed- be involved in the world. I envy you. Good stuff in your posts.



munk
 
Munk, aint we had a discussion while ago about a responsibility of person for its own acting. As writen in few posts here, the key is blaming anybody and anyone possible. Computer games, TV, books (oh yes my mother was called out to come to the school once and rather bigot teacher preached her that I m reading "wrong type of literature"), firearms, or firearms producer (thats better as you can beat some money out of this).
Mother of fat and ugly kid suing MacDonalds, because her kid is fat due to overeating with hamburgers and so on.

Fitting into typical consumers shoes is one of things that plays along. The responsibilty of free choice is not taken away from us, is rejected and type of society in which we are all to live just promotes the idea of citizen who doesnt have his own oppinions and does what he is told to.

.......................................
Guillotine - was invented by doctor to actually make execution more human, short and painless.
 
IMHO, TV has been a long dead scape-goat that is being beaten more than a rotting horse. I really think that a lot of people are looking for something to pin their own defects as a parent/person/citizen on. "I'm a working mother of two. I go to work at 7am and get off at 5:30. Then there is my kickboxing class, my book club on wednesdays, and shopping on saturdays. I'm working hard and doing everything right. My little Timmy must be so messed up from the TV/internet/video games i plop him in front of while i gray my widdle fwazzled eyes out at my stressful life."
Parents are the key. They always have been the key. They always will be the key. We didn't have parental locks or V-chips or TV ratings to let me know what i could and couldn't watch. I had a mom that watched me like a hawk. I was allowed to watch whatever I wanted as long as it wasn't sexual nudity. However, you can bet the first time I hauled off and hit someone like a cartoon character it would be straight back to PBS for me. TVs are fairly safe now that the parents have been given so many outs for what their kids watch. Besides ads, which i know that's what this thread is about, you can shield your kids from pretty much anything on the tube...not that that is a good thing. Violence and evil is all around us. Kids shouldn't live in La La Land and be oblivious to it. Violence for violence sake, though, that's another story. Watch TV with your kids...there problem solved (30 years ago). Now where's my medal?;)
Now the REAL danger to kids is the Internet, IMHO. Filters? pppffft. Filters suck. Go to any public school and type in ANY key word. within the first 5 pages i will BET YOU MONEY you will find a porn site that leaks through. Amature video of horrible accidents? sure! do a search. Upsetting non-hollywood violence at your finger tips. Keep the computer turned off...at least the internet with a pass word and monitor what your kids are looking at. Soccer Mom might have to cut her Billy Blanks tape a little short, but it will save little Timmy from finding out what a DVDA is;)
Now on to some psychological stats (might be out-dated, but were considered accurate as of my time in college in 2003). Does violence on TV and video games affect children? Yes. yes it does. Does it affect children SIGNIFFICANTLY? Well, according to the data i was presented no it does not. Oversimplified, I know, but according to the scale of measurement its significance is not high enough to be deemed THE factor for little terrors smackin' each other. It has something to do with it, but it's not the violence itself ACROSS THE BOARD. It could mean that some kids are more prone to violence due to television watching. Kids that can't leave make-believe on the small screen. kids with bad living situations. kids that eat too much white bread. we don't know, yet.
The point of my long rant is that TV is not bad. The Internet is not bad. Video games are not bad. Just like chocolate is not bad. Moderation and self control. Or, controlling the things you kids see. OR at least explaining to your kids that what they see is not real, it's not nice to hit people, jumping off a roof with an umbrella will get you hurt, etc etc etc. Demonizing the TV is just burning more finger-pointing into ANOTHER generation's brain. My generation has pretty much grown up in a golden age free of wars and filled with new technology and toys. We are fat, sassy, and royal. I'm on the cusp of Gen X and Gen Y. Gen Y scares the heck out of me.

Jake
 
Hafta agree and disagree, Steely.

I agree that the key lies with the parents, but I disagree that TV is not bad.

I grew up with TV, my earliest memory of TV includes watching Groucho Marx's show and Dave Garroway and J Fred Muggs on the Today show. TV in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s was different that what's on today. Watch any episode of the original Star Trek series and you will NOT see an exposed navel on any of the female characters -- NBC network censors issued a decree on that to Roddenberry. Contrast that with any of the young-adult-oriented "reality" shows on MTV and VH1 -- the anything but "Real World" comes to mind as an example. My kids (teens) started watching that for a while, and we had a series of chats where I asked them to point out anyone that they personally know that lived in hotels, fancy homes, and motor homes and competed in arcane contests with improbable pretexts. They said no, and I'm 99.9% sure that they can sort out true reality from the scripted reality portrayed on TV.

But I'm not so sure about other kids, some that see this type of de facto hedonism, take it as gospel, and think that it is acceptable.

TV 30-40 years ago is not the sewer that is TV today, but I readily admit that I am a product of my 50s-60s-70s environment, and my opinions arise from that environment.

Noah
 
I don't want TV's arrested and put in jail. But a TV is part of a process of socialization, and information control. The majority of Americans view of the gun issue was formed by watching TV- and listening to liberal news outlets. Now, I'll readily agree there is no 'they'; 'they' is us.
Oh well. I haven't had my coffee yet; never talk about conspiracy or mind control unless you've had at least one cup of coffee.


munk
 
munk said:
. . . Now, I'll readily agree there is no 'they'; 'they' is us.
Click to expand...

Funny, I don't recall being asked by the networks for my input on programming content.

Noah
 
chicken and egg; that programming wouldn't be there if a majority of the people didn't want it.



munk
 
Points well taken, Noah:)
Like you said we are all products of our different placements in the scope of time. I grew up watching sugar-glossed anti-communist millitary cartoons in the 80's. In other words, GI Joe. I do agree with your about the brainwashing of children via television. Brainwashing has always been a huge goal of TV. "Watch the show. Enjoy it! It's free entertainment!...just buy our product when you're done." I think the difference in TV brainwashing today as opposed to 20 years ago is the constant competition it has from the internet as the primary media source. Back when i was kid, all they needed to do is sell you a product. Hook you with cheap junk. Watch this show, buy this toy, eat this breakfast food. Network TV didn't have to stoop to shock TV to get ratings. they had the news, the television shows, the movies. Now, cable takes a huge chunk of their veiwers. More so, people are getting news and entertainment from the 'net more and more. All TV can do is "Look! it's Paris Hilton! Isn't she stupid!?! She doesn't know what Wal-Mart is! Wal-Mart, isn't that what all you people are all about?....OOO! She's wearing shorts that show her buttcheeks!"

Jake
 
As to violence, explain how the "clean" depictions of death in the old westerns was better? Some see the modern depictions of blood and guts as glorifying violence, but I see it as de-romanticizing it. And I'm sorry, but I'm afraid my puritanism doesn't extend as far as being upset by seeing an exposed navel. I'll agree that the American viewing public IS somewhat sex obsessed, but at least the focus on it also manages to get info out about the potential risks of it, disease, and so on. Far better than the old ways of pretending it wasn't there. There is nothing in the world you can do that is going to make burgeoning adults NOT interested in it, but the absolute WORST thing you can do is make it an undiscussible taboo, so that they have to go about in secret and make their own mistakes. Witness World War I where America wouldn't accept that their "moral, upstanding young men" would have any need of prophylactics in their kits, despite the fact that it had been a proven medical benefit in armies the world over. The result was horrifying numbers of dead to STDs. Nobody talked about this at the time, but you'll notice there were condoms in soldier's kits in WW2.

Whether you like sexier television or not, it has made it more acceptable for society at large to discuss and learn about this almost universal human activity. And you can leave your notions of the innocent 50s behind you. Teen pregnancy and STDs are at their lowest in decades. I'm sure many of you won't believe this, after all you didn't hear so much about it back in the good old days. Well of course you didn't--nobody dared to talk about it.
 
Personally I don't watch T.V. . As I have always said television is just chewing gum for the mind. Pure garbage .... Now go play :)
 
Steely:

You just HAD to mention Paris Hilton, didn't you? You did that on PURPOSE, didn't you? You just KNEW that the mere mention of her name takes me from Zero to PO'd in 1.28 seconds, didn't you?

That's it! The rest of the day is shot. Nice job! Hope you're happy!

Noah, still in Lewis Black mode
 
Paris Hilton and Madonna; manufactured cultural products that make their owners millions of dollars.


munk
 
I want rep points back. There is a lot of great stuff in here.

Steely, thanks for adding "anal seepage" to the list of side effects AA is hoping for...

IMO, TV is good for three things ~ tour de france coverage, world rally coverage, and independent films.

Otherwise, TV is poison, and it is only getting stronger. Much stronger.


A few weeks ago, I walked by the living room and the tv was on. There was no one in the room (don't ask me?) ... on the screen was a very realistic and powerful scene of a woman getting raped. It was extremely unpleasant. This was at 1 in the afternoon, a replay of CSI or some such garbage.

Immediately following the rape scene came a commercial with a young woman happily living her life thanks to the wonders of Tide Laundry Detergent. Followed, as we all know, by the yound stud in the fast car, the older stud with a 4 hour hard on, and so on....

Ok, now I am 32 and can process things pretty well. I was raised on tv also, which sucked, but I hardly knew it. In front of it was where I was placed. Not knowing, I stayed ... up until a point when my primal self started screaming oh so quietly "get up, get out, do it now, don't look back." Luckily I listened.

But what about the 12 year old girl that sees the same thing? A rape scene followed by an add for Tide? This is wrong. And it is only going to get worse. The more people are conditioned to violence, the more they need to see to be entertained.


Remember the scene in the 'Matrix' ... all those babies in their pods being used as batteries...

Ok, now look at young kids when they watch tv .... now put them in cubicles for 30 years .... now jump ahead 100, 200, 300, or maybe just 30 years ~~~~ pods; bubbles; feeding tubes; loss of individuality, creative expression, life.


In some ways I say let them bring elephants and tigers back into our societies... yes, many would die, but human spirit might actually grow. That kid won't sit in front of that tv for long when the tiger is pacing back and forth on his front porch.


and I still want rep back...


Bamboo
 
Okay, understand I'm not arguing with you--I don't think CSI reruns need to be aired in the middle of the day when kids are likely home and parents likely not. But I'm curious why the Tide commercial following upsets you so much. If anything, I would think an immediate reprieve from a rape scene to a domestic scene would give a kind of 'it's okay, just a TV show--see, here's some normalcy' feeling. And again, while I STILL think this is a show better reserved for later in the evening when adults are more likely to be home and available to explain what's happening or turn it off, there is some value in something like this being depicted as being a deplorable and criminal thing. If you go on to the end of the show, I'm sure it ends up with the perpetrator being tracked down and punished. While the show is a whole lot more concerned with its snappy editing than it is with good writing (most of Caruso's lines make me break into uncontrollable giggling), the fact that it shows something like this happening and then being pursued and dealt with isn't a bad message at all for a culture where a huge number of real-world sexual assaults go unreported. Perhaps, if nothing else, the 12 year old girl will take with her the thought that what she's seeing depicted is horrible AND not to be tolerated. Seems like that should be obvious to any thinking person, and yet it doesn't appear to be in many cases.

And again, fascination with the darker aspects of life is as old as the human race. Hangings and beheadings used to be attended by entire towns, complete with 4th of July-style merrimaking.
 
I'm not concerened about the content of TV programming. Violence, sex, drugs, or anything else one can point to as proof of harmful influence is irrelevent. Violence, etc. has been part of the human experience forever; claiming that playing violent video games or watching murders on TV are responsible for the decline of society is mistaking symptoms for causes. These things are on TV because our society is corrupt and decaying. It's a feedback loop that reflects and reinforces what is already present.

I don't watch TV because it's a passive activity with no basis in reality. There's nothing real about the people on your favorite show. I would rather do something with my fleeting time than sit and watch non-existent dramas play out while my mind stagnates. (One can of course argue that theatre is also passive, but how many people go to the theatre every day? How many people watch TV every day?)

The other reason I don't watch TV is that I don't wish to expose myself to the socializing aspects of the medium. It's not mind control, but more like mind influence. All mainstream viewpoints (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) support a neo-liberal society based on consumerism. Does anyone really think that TV will expose you to viewpoints that contradict the basic assumptions of our society?

Repetition is the key here. Of course we can chose not to agree, but if we keep hearing the same arguments, they get into your head even if you don't adopt them. How many of you hear a song you haven't heard in years, but used to hear often? You can remember all the words, can't you? Once something's in your head it's tough to get it out again. This is why I think TV is detrimental, especially for kids. No matter what you watch, you're getting the same message.

-Tycho-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top