I’ve not read through the link but pasted it just incase someone wanted to look at it.
I recently listened to this 1961 speech and found several parts of it amusing. Of note, the FCC chairman spoke of how awful the programing was and that if more channels were offered with better quality programing (assuming he meant more high brow and eduactional type stuff) that the American public who is “much smarter than you think” would respond. Well, 4 decades later and we have 100s of channels and many more options. Somehow I don’t think that the educational and high brow shows are beating out American Idol and news about Ana Nichol Smith’s estate.
The other was where he pleaded the networks to, more or less, do the right thing and offer good tasteful programming instead of being driven by profits and ratings. Amusing.
…my 2 cents. It’s a good speech worth listening to.
TV is just like real life. 100’s of people/Channels and 95% of them are more interested in entertainment and shallowness than self improvement and education.
TV offers maybe 5% of channels that offer something other than soap opera’s, drama and or celebrity watching of some sort. Don’t get me wrong I occasionally watch TV just for entertainment, Lost for example, but about 80% of the time I’m watching TV, It’s History Channel, Discovery channel, Science channel or something of that nature that you actually have a possibility of learning something.
Pretty much every other person I know that is interested in “personal growth” of some sort is the same. The only exception to this rule is sports. Sure some of them don’t watch science channel, but maybe something on how to restore the house, plant a garden or something else constructive. Those people I know that are merely “Going thru life”, are watching the other 95% channels that are drivel of some sort most of the time.
Again not surprisingly the ratio of channels kinda mirrors the goals of the population.
Pretty much every other person I know that is interested in “personal growth” of some sort is the same. The only exception to this rule is sports. Sure some of them don’t watch science channel, but maybe something on how to restore the house, plant a garden or something else constructive. Those people I know that are merely “Going thru life”, are watching the other 95% channels that are drivel of some sort most of the time.
Ugh. Perhaps we prefer our “personal growth” to come form somewhere other than the TV. Between working, grad school and life in general, I get plenty growth. If I watch TV its because I just want to relax and entertained. Sometimes mindlessly so. Give me a break with the holier than thou “I only watch enriching programs” crap. I’m not “merely going through life” because I like Top Chef. I’m merely taking a break.
Again not surprisingly the ratio of channels kinda mirrors the goals of the population.
Where did you get your stats? Oh, that’s right, out of your ass.
Ugh…me too, get your panties out of a bunch. Not saying that EVERYONE must watch TV. Just saying that of those people that I know that do watch TV are separated into 2 groups. Those that watch nothing but crap and those that are interested in getting something from what they are watching. From personal experience typically those that are interested in watching something other than the latest version of “Who’s screwing who” are also those that have more interests outside of TV and generally watch less TV overall as well.
Not sure where you got the “Holier than though” part, other than you’re still pissed about our last exchange, as I openly stated I occasionally watch “entertainment” TV as well. However I don’t watch alot of TV and I don’t watch just “Entertainment” TV. In fact, just like you, many times I may only watch one or two “Entertainment” TV shows, but that’s pretty much all I watch. I’m also trying to figure out where in the world you got the idea that I was limiting “Personal growth” to strictly TV.
Basically it’s pretty simple. Of the people I know that are TV aholics, they do ALOT of TV watching and outside of work precious little else. These people, in my experience, watch mostly crap TV and come in talking about this show, that soap, that show, this celebrity etc etc. Those other people I know that are interested in “Personal growth”, spend typically much less time watching TV, do alot more away from the tube and often times watch shows that offer something other than simple distracting.
Again not surprisingly the ratio of channels kinda mirrors the goals of the population.
Where did you get your stats? Oh, that’s right, out of your ass.
Yeh those were definitely PFA’s. But I have looked at the Guide on my TV a couple times and perused content. There are FAR more “Jerry Springers” and “General hospital” channels than there are DYI or Discovery type channels 95/5, can’t say.
** But you do have to admit that you are “merely going through life” while you are watching it.**
Are you trying to say that 100% of your time is spent in a productive, life enriching manner? I’m taking a break, a well deserved one if I may say so myself.
Would it be more acceptable to read a book? What if its a cheesy romance novel? How about if I go to the movies instead, something artsy so as to broaden my horizons?
No, obviously you aren’t. But you do have to admit that you are “merely going through life” while you are watching it.
Exactly and frankly there’s nothing wrong with that and in fact those times are needed. My point is that, using my 95/5, PFA number, seems there are FAR more people simply “Going thru life” than there are doing something with there life.
If people were watching TV to learn something the “educational”, if you could call them that, would be a far greater percentage. More importantly TV viewer ship overall would be far less as those that are interested in “Life” do in fact have lives away from the tube.
Instead we have a large portion of the population that is viewing “Mind Numbed TV” for 4,5,6+ hours a day. In fact the study posted by Vitus had a cut off of 16 hours a day and there were kids in that group. Seriously, 16hrs a day? As adults people get up, turn the TV on, eat breakfast, watch TV, get ready for work, go home, turn the TV on, watch till it’s time to go to sleep. Most of the people I know that do that aren’t watching the science channel, Discovery, or DIY.
Are you trying to say that 100% of your time is spent in a productive, life enriching manner?
No, I am not trying to say that at all. Re-read what I wrote. It’s not a commentary on what percentage of your life you spend watching crap, its a commentary on what percentage of the viewing audience is watching crap. It seems to me like you are in agreement, otherwise you wouldn’t be telling me about all the non-crap you fill your life with when you are not watching TV.
My commentary was strictly on how the speech in 1961 claimed that broadcasters should take on the responsibility of providing quality prgramming and that the population would want it. He was wrong. The population wants mindless crap. Like Matt said, I too spend time watching crap…but its still crap.
Amazing how throughout time, literature, theater, classical music, etc, etc, are considered means to enrich one’s life, and yet TV is looked at as a waste of time unless you’re “learning something.” Story telling is storytelling, regardless of the format. People have always participated in a mixture of higher level eentertainment and low brow entertainment. I doubt that the percentage of split is much different now than it ever has been.
The speech was critical of the content, not the medium. His intent was to offer inspiration for those to use what he considered to be a fantastic means of delivering information and entertainment. He was disappointed to see that the content was not up to his standards, and I tend to agree.
I doubt that the percentage of split is much different now than it ever has been.
You are probably correct. I was at the grocery store recently browsing through magazines, hoping to find something worth reading. The rack probably had the same split that our TVs have. The same can be said for the book section.
" The rack probably had the same split that our TVs have. The same can be said for the book section. "
And the internet, and movies, and music, etc, etc. My only point is that this is nothing new, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have a percentage of our entertainment that is less than “high brow.” People tend to assume it must be a waste of time or brain power, but that’s not true. It is entertainment and stimulation for the brain, regardless of the complexity. Just like your body needs rest, so does the brain, and entertainment that interests the participant without straining the brain is a good thing. Obviously some people will always want more “enrishing” entertainment" just like some will always want more “mindless” entertainment.
Come on, everyone knows “Scott Baio is 45 and Single” is one of the finest shows on TV!
<okay, what I meant to say is that it’s my latest guilty pleasure>
TV should be entertainment…sometimes I’m interested in watching and shutting the mind off, and other times I get into things like “Dogfights” on the History Channel (and no, it’s not about Michael Vick"). It does crack me up when people claim they only listen to NPR, read the WSJ and watch only PBS.
If you believe TV to be “that vast wasteland”, fine, turn it off, read a book and STFU about it. You’re cool, we get that.
<and I’m not referring to you, Cath…as I know my only Reality Show rival here is you…!>
