Why can't we make it tv turnoff YEAR???

by **Ted the dog** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:02 pm

"Intersesting. I have to wonder what effect computer screens have on brain function? Certainly, people seem less critical of arguments presented on a blog or a website (especially if accompanied by pictures) than they would of something in print." I'd imagine it wouldn't be as dramatic a shift, if that's true about the brain switching over. With a computer, you're still interacting with it on some level. like if you sat down and decided to design something in illustrator or photoshop, I doubt the brain would respond in the same way that it would to just watching television. Television gives the impression/illusion of being connected to an outside world....whereas computers, (unless we're talking about the internet) seem to give more of an introverted feeling....more of "tool to be used"-type vibe.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:00 pm

The amount of text typically presented on a television screen is negligible. Even worse, there's no way for the average viewer to transmit back to it. (A few scattered callers on "Larry King Live" doesn't make the grade in that department.) I don't find myself any more or less suggestible to an argument presented through a book or an Internet screen. Frankly, I'm often inclined to be persuaded on first reading, with either medium. I give myself to the argument, or polemic, or what have you. It's only when I review that I begin the process of finding flaws. Review is another capability that television lacks, unless one records the program in question. and then, even if one does record it for review, what do they get? Pre-edited snips of visual material, primarily. It's difficult to argue with a picture, even when it's used to support a blatantly bogus argument...it isn't speaking any language. The best one can hope to do is say "that's edited" or "that looks phony" or "that's too blurry" or "I'm not sure that's original and unretouched"...

by **professorpan** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:02 pm

While I do understand how excessive television watching can be harmful, especially to kids, I have never agreed with the "kill your TV" mentality. A television is a neutral object. I choose which content to view and to avoid. And since I have a low tolerance for garbage, I seldom watch mainstream shows. I do enjoy an occasional dramatic series (Sopranos, Six Feet Under) and I have watched The Simpsons since it premiered. I like to watch some PBS programs and rent movies on DVD. I also watch news programs in order to understand state-of-the-art propaganda. After all, how can someone comment or critique television news/propaganda without watching it? Media literacy is the key. Teaching kids to evaluate and understand television, good and bad, is much more effective and useful than banning TV watching outright. That goes for all forms of media.

by **Ted the dog** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:09 pm

"After all, how can someone comment or critique television news/propaganda without watching it? Media literacy is the key. Teaching kids to evaluate and understand television, good and bad, is much more effective and useful than banning TV watching outright. That goes for all forms of media." I'll agree with that. I grew up on TV, but for the past 4 years or so, I've been without it. I have a television set, but it's not connected to anything other than my DVD player. I can't even get general programming in my place, so it's fine. In my experience, people who have grown up not watching TV or watching as little TV as possible due to parental regulations, have a really really hard time around television sets when they're older. In college I knew a few people that grew up with very little access to television...they said their hippy parents wouldn't allow it....but my two roommates and I were the typical "grew up on TV" kind of guys...our non-TV watching friends would come over to hang out and they couldn't seem to function when the TV was on. They literally couldn't hold a conversation because they were so entranced by the television set. Later on, one of the non-TV guys ended up being a roommate...same thing happened. He literally could not function if the TV was on. If it was on, he was watching. Even when he "wasn't watching", he was watching. It really became a problem after a while. He was like how a kid is when he doesn't want to do anything other than stare at the TV...like a man that had reverted to a child. He couldn't seem to ignore it and it was really hard to break through his "TV trance" to talk to him. I'm talking like "get up to get a bowl of cereal, but whoops, now the TV is on so I'm going to stand halfway between the kitchen and the living room holding a bowl and a box of cereal in my hands for 15 minutes while I stare at the pretty lights beaming out of the box"-kind of bad. Better to expose children to television, while explaining the way it works, than to ban it outright. Banning and/or "killing your television" is just giving the box too much power, IMO.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:51 pm

Ted my kids watched plenty of tv at other people's houses. Now they can watch all they want, but they all have much much better things to do with their time. They never look at it. This is like saying keep a lot of really addictive and poisonous drugs in your house for your kids to "try" when their minds are still unformed. Why? Just because it's a cheap babysitter and shuts them up? Get real. It's bad, it's ugly and it's mind control.

by **Ted the dog** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:09 pm

"Ted my kids watched plenty of tv at other people's houses. Now they can watch all they want, but they all have much much better things to do with their time. They never look at it. This is like saying keep a lot of really addictive and poisonous drugs in your house for your kids to "try" when their minds are still unformed. Why? Just because it's a cheap babysitter and shuts them up? Get real. It's bad, it's ugly and it's mind control. " Then your kids are a lot more well-adjusted than most people that grew up without TV. And I don't think keeping a television set in your house is like keeping poisonous drugs in your house....poisonous drugs can't be turned off with the push of a button. "Just because it's a cheap babysitter and shuts them up?" No, not at all. Keep one in the house so your kids get gradual exposure to television and can learn how it works. Look, I'm not pushing TV. I personally can't stand even flipping through the channels at this point in my life. All I'm saying is, every single person I have ever met that was not allowed to watch TV growing up had a very hard time filtering it out as an adult.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:18 pm

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I would just as likely keep an actual link to the Gov. so they could keep pouring their poisonous lies into my ear at all hours. Last I looked it was all shallow, hollow viscious, mindsucking lifedestroying drivel. But that's only my opinion. And I know other homes without the idiot box. The kids are amazing and have spent their time learning real skills, reading and exploring their actual as opposed to virtual environments. Like I said, it's all in what "turns you on" tv is literally an hypnotic. It robs us of our thoughts, our time and our originality. Why should young children be abused this way? Just so they are "used to it"?

by **Moddey Screbbagh** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:47 pm

a very good friend gave me one of these and i carry it everywhere. it works perfectly. it's extremely cathartic to use it in a public place, e.g. a bar or at the airport, when someone or something particularly obnoxious is on. the resultant peace and quiet is sublime! make sure you have an exit plan though, 'cos it pisses a lot of people off. <a href="http://www.tv-b-gone.com/" target="top">www.tv-b-gone.com/</a>

by **professorpan** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Like I said, it's all in what "turns you on" tv is literally an hypnotic. It robs us of our thoughts, our time and our originality. Why should young children be abused this way? Just so they are "used to it"?<hr></blockquote> Because when you make something so ubiquitous in human society as a TV box forbidden, it increases the attraction to it for many kids. Better to, as Ted suggested, teach children (and adults) to understand the technology and make wise choices. Of course it's smart to limit younger children's viewing, and their computer usage, and so forth. But once kids get a bit older, they're going to watch TV at other kids' houses no matter what -- so it's best to teach them how to analyze and moderate their consumption. And while the *vast* majority of TV programming is shit, I've seen some superb documentaries, great movies, and excellent dramatic shows. Far from being hypnotized, I've been inspired, pushed to act (by such excellent shows as NOW on PBS), and even uplifted. So blanket dismissals of all TV as garbage just don't cut it. It's all in the decision making. I watch very little TV, but when I do watch it's material I've chosen. Some people make it sound like TVs are giant soul-sucking, one-eyed robots with irresistible brain draining beams. Sure, if you're watching American Idol that might be the case.... but "Eyes on the Prize?" And while I understand the desire to use a tv-b-gone, there's also a snide, judgmental attitude I can't buy into -- that one person's desire to avoid TV trumps others desire to watch it. I'd be very wary of walking into a bar during a sports event and surreptitiously shutting off the tube. Some people enjoy watching TV communally -- and who is to say that is a bad thing? If you don't like it, you can go elsewhere. And to use it to turn off the tv when "someone or something obnoxious is on," as Moddey suggests, also carries a thick tone of condescension. I had an incredible conversation with a guy in the military because we were at an airport bar and Bush was on the TV. Turns out he hates the prez as much as I do. I was happy that Bush's obnoxious, smirking mug was on the screen and facilitated a very eye-opening conversation.

by **Lizzy Dearborn** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:50 pm

If you look up the Detroit "green storm" of 1980 you'll see why I had the most fun I ever had as a child - got to know the grown ups, see them interact, had campfires in the backyard, people helping each other...not just TV but all electronics...lights, stoves, record players....they seemed like junk after "the power" came back on after 8 days without it. I do think Tee Vee is the worst! No Tee Vee for me for a year...well, i'm gonna try.

by **Ted the dog** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:54 pm

Look, I completely agree...IMO, 99% of what's on TV is absolute crap. I honestly can't see why any thinking, rational adult would waste large blocks of their time watching television. I work in an office and all I hear is talk about TV...all day long. At the same time, I love movies and I actually get excited when a new film is released on DVD. So there's a connection there....I like watching movies, but I hate television programming. The answer for me, was to dump cable, take the antenna off the top of the box and just have a DVD player. I don't have children, so I can't claim to know what you know about kids and the way they interpret media. And I'd never tell anyone how to raise their kids. I applaud your children's' ability to think for themselves, because that seems like a rare thing with kids nowadays. But from what I've seen so far, the future (unfortunately) is going to be even more highly susceptible to manipulation through media than it already is. and it's not like that's some new revelation. The popularity of the internet has allowed more people access to the process of review. People can now scrutinize media as closely as they like, as often as they like. The digitizing of everything also supports this. BUT....even though the average human now has a greater opportunity to analyze media and decide for him/herself what's what, are most people doing this? not that I can see. maybe they're doing it a bit more in the past 2 years, given the current state of the world, but I think most people don't even think about media. They don't think about where the news comes from, why it comes from there, who's reporting it, what they gain from reporting it, etc. They just want to know who to root for... the dems or the repubs, and the only reason they want to know is so they can razz "the conservative guy that works in the cubicle next to mine", or "the loony liberal in the office around the corner" whenever either side "loses". TPB know this and they know that if they have any chance of maintaining the stranglehold they've kept on the way information and entertainment, they have to get serious. and "serious" seems to be criminalizing dissent, launching MASSIVE smear campaigns, and just regurgitating outright lies and bullshit. They need to keep us as terrified and as polarized as possible. The more we all hate each other, the easier it is to control us. that's also nothing new to you or me or anyone else that comes here to discuss these types of things. But the nagging feeling I have in my gut is making me wonder, what the hell is the end result of all of this? What is the current state of media going to look like in 5 years, let alone 10? I'm worried that when the next generation comes of age, we're going to be seeing a horde of over-stimulated, constantly agitated, theoretically over-educated, yet actually under-educated, psychos running around...and if that's the case, the biggest contributor will be media and the way it's used. I really hate to say this, but I don't see any escape from mass media. Even if children are sheltered from this type of programming, they're still going to have to live, exist and interact in a world of their peers who HAVE been raised on it. I worry that the kids that have no real interaction time with mass media will end up looking like isolated whack-jobs to the rest of their highly manipulated peers. (of course, we'll all know who the real whack-jobs are.... a falsehood believed by millions is still a falsehood...but it's also what's believed by millions) When this takes place now, in our current state of media, I don't get too worried. People still have an inkling that "TV rots your brain"....but it's what I'm seeing now that worries me about he future...how far will this go? are we literally going to see humans killing each other for sport on some neanderthal FOX reality show in another ten years? The whole concept of reality television is frightening/annoying enough as it is...people like Michelle Malkin actively encourage their fans to commit acts of violence against anyone that doesn't see things exactly the way she sees them, (which IMO, is actually the horrific underbelly or side effect of reality TV).....what's next? IMO, the best way to keep a child sharp and empowered to confront this kind of shithead attitude and myopic, self involved world view, would be to allow TV time, but in limited quantities. And then when the child is of an age to properly understand these issues, explain to him or her the way everything works...explain to them how what seems to be one way may really be another way entirely. and, (this would be the hard part, I'd imagine) explain to them why someone in power would want to control others and spread a certain point of view for a certain effect or goal. At the same time, children should be given computer time, constructive free time and they should be encouraged as much as possible to build things with their hands....things like clay, paint, paper, glue, wood, rocks, legos, lincoln logs, erector sets, etc should be the items/toys kids grab first before snapping on the TV. And I think that if you give kids options.... and explain to them the way the TV option works.....eventually the kids will choose the tangible construction elements I just mentioned. (As an aside, I can't believe how many little kids don't build things anymore. They may build things, but the bulk of them seem to do it via computer. Which is fine, but not the same thing. Working with your hands and constructing things, putting time and effort and love into the things you're making is worlds away from constructing things virtually. I think kids need both.) But without exposure to the box at some point, combined with explanations about how it works and clear alternative options for their free time, I feel today's kids will be at a disadvantage in the future.

by **Moddey Screbbagh** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And while I understand the desire to use a tv-b-gone, there's also a snide, judgmental attitude I can't buy into -- that one person's desire to avoid TV trumps others desire to watch it. I'd be very wary of walking into a bar during a sports event and surreptitiously shutting off the tube. Some people enjoy watching TV communally -- and who is to say that is a bad thing? If you don't like it, you can go elsewhere.<hr></blockquote> of course i agree with you professor, and my post above was for the most part tongue-in-cheek, as is the tone of the website which i linked to. yours is the obvious, common sensical position: 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere;' 'there is a lot of good stuff on tv as well, etc.' people are free (or should be free) to do what they want and watch what they want, of course... but a case could be made, and is being made by others on this blog, that those who are truly "snide, judgmental" and "condescending" are the people responsible for much of the mindless drivel, or even worse, the manipulative and deceptive television being broadcast today, and those that now put televisions in airport terminals, waiting areas, elevators, etc., where the general public is a captive audience and has no ability to "go elsewhere." and i think it is interesting to speculate as others here are doing what effect this has on the average person, who might have brought along her copy of schiller's on the esthetic education of man that she has been meaning to read for years, but doesn't open it up at the airport while she is waiting for her flight because bill o'reilly is on the tv's that surround her in the waiting area and she can't ignore what's on because the volume is so loud and so she puts the book away and enters the "zone." hugh's comparison of tv with MKULTRA experiments and Huxley's Soma is very interesting, i think. it is incredibly rude to use that tv-b-gone device, and i have to admit i only did it once or twice, and i felt pretty guilty. but the part of me that feels a certain outrage at the dismal state of things everywhere i look was satisfied, however briefly. my own little v for vedetta, white collar terrorist gesture...

by **professorpan** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:08 pm

Moddey, You make some excellent points, as does Ted. There are major, serious consequences of a populace that stares blankly at a TV set, sucking up the vapid, consumerist crap that passes for entertainment, or the processed, pro-fascist propaganda that passes for news. The solution for some is to avoid the boob tube entirely. That's a perfectly acceptable solution for some. But most people will continue to take part in the mass media. That's why I think it is crucial to teach media literacy, beginning in the home, at an early age. And as Ted suggested, to make sure kids learn to do "real world" things -- build, draw, create, play in the sunlight and not just vegetate in the high definition blue glow. And as to the Bill O'Reilley airport horror scenario, I have on several occasions asked business owners to either change the channel (from Faux news to something less shrill or non-political) or to turn off the sound. In most cases, they are wiling to comply. There are no easy answers, I'm afraid, including "kill your TV." TV is a part of the human media environment. Learning to deconstruct its message, and to understand its value as a propaganda tool, is vitally important. One other important thing: TV is not simply the tool of the media barons. There are some excellent, provocative programs to be found on cable access and progressive channels (such as Link TV, which airs Democracy Now!) and occasionally on PBS. Media literacy + media democratization is key to rolling back the vapid, ugly, corrosive forces dumbing down the industrialized world.

by **Ted the dog** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:50 pm

"There are no easy answers, I'm afraid, including "kill your TV." TV is a part of the human media environment. Learning to deconstruct its message, and to understand its value as a propaganda tool, is vitally important." That's actually a great point. One problem I see with a lot of "KILL YOUR TELEVISION" type stuff is that it's alienating. And right now is not the time to alienate people. The message or information might be great, but the vehicle ends up killing it before it's delivered. Example: When I lived in San Francisco there was an apartment near me that had a "KILL YOUR TELEVISION" sign in the window for maybe 5 straight years. The comment I heard the most anytime it was seen? "Oh god....what a pompous ass. " Message effectively killed without firing a shot! If that same message was delivered in a more inclusive way, the guy that made that remark might have listened. I'm reminded of this anytime I see someone on a blog or a message board start throwing slogans out like "Wake UP, people!!" That's no way to get the message across. Insulting people and making them feel like they're less than, or un-evolved because they're not hip to whatever the message might be only pisses them off, proliferating the polarized state we're all dealing with now. We all do it to some degree at one point or another. Another aspect of this...and maybe on the opposite side of the coin...is with books about conspiracy/UFO/high weirdness, etc. Why do almost all conspiracy books and video available for sale to the general public get tossed into the mental rubbish bin for most people before any investigation? Most would say that it's because the books are covering subjects that are either too scary or too absurd in most people's eyes, so they choose to ignore them or discredit them. That's probably the case most of the time. But another aspect, (and it's one I hardly ever see mentioned) is that most of the books made about these subjects are not packaged well, they're not presented well and they usually feature piss-poor graphics and design. Graphics, design and packaging are what make people pick things up in a store and investigate further. If something looks unprofessional and amateurish, in the way that many conspiracy books look, it's not going to be purchased and it's not going to be read. Sad but true...people have to think about the vehicle for their message. Even if people cringe at something as capitalist as "selling your book", they need to think about design. Even if the money isn't the point, good design that's intended to sell the product will get the message out there. This is crucial. There are too many people using the battle cry of "WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!" and then handing over literature or other forms of media that look ridiculous. Just like in TV and film, it doesn't cost more money to direct something WELL. It just requires more research and time and skill-building. It may sound like I'm being a snob about this, but I wouldn't say this if I didn't think it was crucial. In the same way that "WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!" turns people away from a message, good design can (and IMO, should) have the opposite effect. Design doesn't have to be exclusive. Design can be inclusive. It's just communication. I think there needs to be a real effort to realize the fact that communication, all forms of it, are everybody's to use. No one group or organization has a monopoly on communication. it's raw "technology" that anyone on this planet can learn how to use. Television, graphics, design, marketing...all these things need to be embraced, analyzed, dissected and re-worked by the people that shy away from them in fear of being corrupted. Anything less and it's just handing the power over to the people you fear...and thus making your fears become reality. "There are some excellent, provocative programs to be found on cable access and progressive channels (such as Link TV, which airs Democracy Now!) and occasionally on PBS." Yeah, I do really miss PBS, Sundance and Indy film channel...things like that. I have to admit, I do sometimes miss watching crap, as well. I usually prefer to watch crap movies when I feel like watching crap, though. Maybe the current efforts being pushed to make cable a la carte will prevail. "Media literacy + media democratization is key to rolling back the vapid, ugly, corrosive forces dumbing down the industrialized world.", "....TV is not simply the tool of the media barons." Yeah, I agree completely with that. The answer to changing things is not to plug the ears and turn away...it's to observe from a distance and then get closer once you've got your bearings. From there you can analyze and dissect and really take something apart to see how it works. Not to mention, if TV is like a disease, staying away from it doesn't build up any anti-bodies. Getting in there a little bit and poking around, exposing yourself to it while maintaining your identity is the best way to really take it apart and understand it. Will all television ever be "ideal"? no way. But it is going to be here forever. So we might as well study it, analyze it and blow apart the pieces that are no good for anyone. Well...I guess "no good for anyone" is a matter of opinion. Media literacy as well as visual communication is going to be essential...for everyone....if we want to make it to 2008 and beyond.

by **professorpan** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Most would say that it's because the books are covering subjects that are either too scary or too absurd in most people's eyes, so they choose to ignore them or discredit them. That's probably the case most of the time. But another aspect, (and it's one I hardly ever see mentioned) is that most of the books made about these subjects are not packaged well, they're not presented well and they usually feature piss-poor graphics and design.<hr></blockquote> I'd also add the lack of editing as a problem for many books. It's a Catch-22, unfortunately -- smaller publishers are the only ones who will touch difficult to sell or subversive material. And those publishers don't have budgets for top-notch design and editing. There are exceptions, of course -- the "Disinformation" books are an example of niche publishing that not only looks great (the clean, iconic design is immediately recognizable) but the editing is extremely professional as well.

Why can't we make it tv turnoff YEAR???

...

Re: ...

TV

...

the uses and abuses of tv

...

tv and kids

TV B GONE

Re: tv and kids

Re: TV B GONE

...

Re: TV B GONE

Re: TV B GONE

,,,

Re: ,,,

Who is online