[harrisp]

<strong>Written By:</strong> harrisp
<strong>Date:</strong> 2005-05-10 09:33:00
<a href="/article/6334866-i-laughed-and-laughed-">Article Link</a>

Further, ‘reality’ shows like ‘The Apprentice’ and ‘Survivor’ are apparently teaching the (largely North American) audience all sorts of practical and social skills and stretching their minds. In fact, Johnson says that television is successfully providing the “cognitive benefits conventionally ascribed to reading: attention, patience, retention, the parsing of narrative threads. Over the last half century, programming on TV has increased the demands it places on precisely these mental faculties.”<p> I’m at a disadvantage here because I have never seen any of the programs noted above. In fact, I’m not sure I have actually watched any US-based programming since late in 2004. No wonder I’m not feeling particularly bright lately. <p> The last time I can recall turning on the box at all was to watch Paul Martin dance a rhetorical jig in front of a blasé nation in his attempt to either convince Canadians that he knew nothing about what went on in the sponsorship program, or to beg forgiveness that after nine years as Finance Minister he knew nothing about what went on in the sponsorship program. Now here was the real power of television: a man who is usually unable to speak without stammering and looking shifty managed to stare straight at the camera and speak for seven or eight minutes without a single fumble. And without having that where-is-the-nearest-exit appearance he often has. His performance was pre-recorded to ensure that all the tell-tale Paul Martin trademarks were gone and to help this plaintive appeal to save his job look, well, Prime Ministerial. But I digress.<p> I am willing to take Johnson’s word that these programs have more complex story lines than, say, ‘Bonanza’ (for those of you too young to know this one, do a Google search). And I’m willing to accept that Johnson is correct in his assumption that the audience is grasping the plots. <p> But so what? He offers no evidence to support that television isn’t simply catching up to the intelligence level of the audience, rather than the other way around. <p> Johnson writes:<p> <i>Kids and grown-ups each can learn from their increasingly shared obsessions. Too often we imagine the blurring of kid and grown-up cultures as a series of violations: the 9-year-olds who have to have nipple broaches [sic] explained to them thanks to Janet Jackson; the middle-aged guy who can't wait to get home to his Xbox. But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwinings, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force your kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.</i><p> The reason for the vast improvement in the intellect of the audience is, according to Johnson, something known as ‘multi-threading’. It means the audience is being asked to keep track of more than one story line simultaneously, something they were apparently not asked to do, or unable to do, before the arrival on the scene of a program called ‘Hill Street Blues’ (also one I have never seen --- do you get the sense I am culturally bereft?).<p> Johnson’s claim that television is a tool for brain-enhancement is hard to grasp from his article. In fact, his real point appears to be that television does a fabulous job these days of getting you to watch more television and, therefore, more commercial messages (sixteen minutes of them in every US programming hour).<p> Of course, nothing in Johnson’s essay addresses the educational and cognitive-improving aspects of such stellar programming like ‘The Jerry Springer Show’ or ‘Larry King Live’ or any of the ‘yell-at-your-guest’ programs on CNN. Except to remark that “even the junk has improved.” His belief that a few dramas with intricate plots indicates a smartening-up of the audience is a big stretch. <p> Television, as an industry, has traditionally treated its audience like simpletons and has purveyed badly written and puerile nonsense for better than fifty years. There has been the occasional bright light, but all too rare and fleeting. For the most part, television has done its primary job well: selling audiences to advertisers. It has not sought to entertain with any level of intelligence, or to educate beyond simplistic trivia, or to foster ethics or moral improvement for any purpose other than to sell to advertisers. Even the news and ‘educational’ programs have this as their sole reason to live.<p> I am certainly willing to accept that there is some programming that requires more attention than earlier shows. And I’m willing to accept that some of it is better written and more complex than in the past. But Johnson offers no evidence, because he can’t I think, that the audience is, in fact, any smarter than it has ever been. <p> Even if plots are more complicated, it seems unlikely that they are stretching the audience beyond the levels of intellect they already had. This is non-participatory, non-imaginative, right-before-your-very-eyes programming that requires nothing more than to watch with the same intensity that one might watch a hockey game. Not much there to stretch the mind.<p> And most important: there is certainly no evidence to support that people are becoming any smarter in general than they were previously --- for <i>any</i> reason, let alone because of television.<p> Two things I was able to conclude from Johnson’s article: watching television is smart for him, since he gets paid for it; and even if watching television can make you smarter, reading the Sunday New York Times clearly doesn’t.<p> [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on May 10, 2005]

[Reverend Blair]

I watch re-runs of the West Wing sometimes. I catch about every third or fourth show, usually while reading a book. The plots are uncomplicated enough that it never takes more than a few minutes to catch up on what happened in the shows I didn't see. It is no more intellectually stimulating than MASH reruns, although it is marginally better than Bewitched reruns.

Overall I'd have to say that TV can make you smarter as long as you are reading a book while you are watching it.

[N Say]

<a href="http://www.turnoffyourtv.com">www.turnoffyourtv.com</a><p>---<br>"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

[Dr Caleb]

'24' has some really thinly veiled xenophobia in it too. It's a good, fast paced story, but some comments just jump out at a simple Canuckistani like me

Statements like "Homeland Security must not have identified this 'Natural Born Enemy Combatant' yet . . ."



---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

[Guest]

"...analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwinings, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play..."

Nurture all this along with an impatient, self-centred and diminishing attention span, and what do you get? ...

Apparently television has evolved our minds to such a degree that we are able to finally comprehend the complex, multithreaded, narratives and intertwinings that justify starting a war. The optimist can only hope this wonderful philanthropic exercise by television continues, so that we may one day come to grasp the comparatively simple reasons for not starting one.

[Jesse]

Excellent insights Paul! I'm in the same boat as you, watching little to no tv for the past 5 years or so. I actually watched an episode of survivor for the first time ever last week, and was surprised at the sheer lameness of their plotting. If that is the extent to which tv has 'improved', then it still has a long way to go.

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

[Kevin Parkinson]

It doesn't surprise me that one medium(NYTimes) is supporting another.(televison) They'll are all in to together, and the owners are all connected.

To say that television can make people smarter is basically the opposite of what television has done over 40 years- the dumbing down of the population to such a degree that audiences can be manipulated at the drop of a hat. If I saw it on tv then it has to be true, is an unfortunate opinion that many people have.

While I agree that the "selling" of audiences to the advertisers is a primary goal of television, it is not the only one. Television is the vehicle producers use to change the values of a society.

Take the "reality" shows as an example. Actually, these are not "reality" shows at all. They are well planned and staged events and conflicts which are tightly scripted. The actors are told the agenda and they ad lib the dialogue, but look what values they are teaching us. They set up people to betray others, cheat and lie, deceive others, play favourites, cause severe emotions to erupt like jealousy, envy, and manipulate other people. People are getting caught up in these shows, and I believe they have a very negative impact on the viewers who are being totally manipulated.

Of course, the "gay" agenda is everywhere. Watch a few programs, and a gay father, brother, sister, friend, cop of whomever, is introduced into the plot. No, I am not homophobic, but you have to question why the sudden proliferation. Is the message that it is ok to be gay? I have no problem with that. Or is the message that it's cool to be gay, so get with the times? Children should not be deciding their sexual orientation based on what the television portrays. Give me your opinion if you disagree.

On a global level, television removes people from reading and analyzing, and the majority of people don't write anything anymore and are not interested in doing so. In the western world they're practically giving televisions away for free(furniture stores do) and making the screens larger and larger, which have the effect of mesmerizing the audience.

However, one of the most chilling effects of television is the mind control quality that it exercises over world news and events. During the war in Iraq, CNN ran continuous coverage of the war, showing only reports from the "embedded" reporters, smiling faces of rescued Iraqis, with the banner OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM running across the screen. Meanwhile, in the real world, 100,000 Iraqis lost their lives and 1600 American soldiers came home in body bags. What the hell does this have to do with freedom?

This example would make Goebels, the master of Nazi propaganda, sit up in his grave and take notice of just how effective this have been to shape the mind of Americans, and millions of others around the world.

It's time to re-read Orwell's "1984" because most of what he predicted has come to pass.

[Brother Jonathan]

<blockquote>Of course, the “gay” agenda is everywhere.</blockquote> <p>Congratulations — <i>you</i>’ve just introduced it right here, too! ;*)</p> <blockquote>Children should not be deciding their sexual orientation based on what the television portrays.</blockquote> <p>What if sexual orientation were genetically determined rather than environmentally determined? For example, <a href="http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=8432569">this recent article</a> suggests that a gay man’s hypothalamus differs from that of a straight man.</p>

[Jesse]

I'm going to point out that such discussions are terribly off-topic and pleased not to argue about them here, as there are no definite facts either way and it'll just end up as a shouting match. Thank you kindly.

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

[Spud]

The world is dumbing down,no question there.Telly is part of the problem.A great tool for controlling/escaping.
You never have to think.Keeps you focused on important issues like,like....ahh like.......
Anyway,if you are at home watching tv,you certainly won`t be out there causing trouble for the security forces(insurgent?)
I turned off the idiot box years ago and I do not miss it.
Bonanza was just a poor way of showing that violent cronic bed wetters could actually have a life,know everything,always do right,kill someone every week,......what were we talking about?
TV?
I am too confused,I am going back to reading Vive posts.Now there is something that can make you smarter!
I hear Stacked is fairly good.But probablt too many curves for me to concentrate on at one time to figure out the plot.

[Guest]

I wouldn't say the world is dumbing down at all. I just wouldn't give up hope that easily. North America sure is becoming dumber (or as the Farrlley brothers might say-dumberer!). That generalisation is based on what the average American listens to and watches, both in television and at the cinema. I may be wrong.

I remember turning on (by accident) Saturday Night Live around Christmas time, but for the life of me I could not figure out what was so funny? I had grown up watching SNL when Mike Myers, Phil Hartman, Chris Farley, and Dana Carvey were on in the early 90's. THAT was funny. I can remember my mum telling me about how she used to watch Bill Murray and John Belushi in the late 70's and after seeing it for myself years later I would agree that THAT was funny. But what they have on today is just nonsense. Why would I want to watch Horatio Sanz (the most annoying 'Latino' you could ever come across) and Paris Hilton do a sketch involving them buying Prada bags. Where's the humour in that?

You'll notice how Johnson did not mention any sitcoms in his article. I wonder why? I'd like to hear what 'logical' reason he could give as to why we should watch 'Everybody Loves Raymond' and what we could learn by doing so. To not get married or have more than one child, and to live as far away from your parents as possible. Nice lesson.

The problem is either not enough credit is given to the average viewer, or that too much credit is given to the average viewer. Film and telvision critics have been arguing about this for last couple of years. I like to think it's a little bit of Column A, and a little bit from Column B.

Take 'the Office' for example (the REAL Office!). Here you have a well crafted and genuinely funny show. It comes over to America through BBC America and even manages to win a few Golden Globes in the process. And NBC decides they need to make their own, better version of the Office. Either because it's not American enough (reinforcing by belief in American ethnocentrism), or that's it's too sophisticated for the average American viewer (afterall, it is European?). And thus we're left with a boring show. I only hope they don't do the same to Little Britain or Spaced. I'd like to see them make a 'Battlefield America' version of 'Battlefield Britain'. Can you imagine all the needless explosions, self-righteousness, and posturing?

I am glad that television is so awful these days. When I was growing up (as you can imagine) I watched far too much television. Now that I've grown up I'm more likely to read a good book that turn on the T.V..

Unless there's a good rerun of Star Trek on of course. I mean come on! A dashing young man from Montreal flying through space with Leonard Nimoy fighting large reptileans whilst finding time to bang chick's from outer space on styrofoam rocks. It's a great Canadian tale!