I'm on a business trip in Ohio and this morning the hotel delivered a copy of USA Today to my room, a newspaper I really don't like very much because it's more like watching television than reading. But there were several short, superficial pieces (everything in USA Today is short and superficial), that got me thinking. One was about the continuing decline in circulation of daily newspapers, the other about the difficulties cable and satellite operators face in penetrating the remaining 15 percent of the market that is resisting the hundreds of channels line up now common to television.

I don't know about you, but I happen to think that television has been a dreadful force in our culture. It's been a major factor in disintegration of the family, the rising ignorance of the masses, the falling critical intellectual capabilities of our children, the rise of near total corporate power, and the disappearance of democracy in our very own land. I watch as little as possible of the crap offered up by what Newton Minnow described as this "vast wasteland." Sure, there is some decent programming, but it's overhwelmed by the garbage. The "progress" in the medium is that we now have several hundred channels of effluent instead of the old dozen or so we had in the days before cable.

I start my day with the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun and try to end the day with a book. I'd rather do something that watch others do it. Sports on television? Largely a bore. I'd rather get up off my ass and be out there on my on feet being active that sitting on my butt watching some overpaid gorillas prance around. News on television? You've got to be kidding. Auto racing? I'd rather work on my car or go on a brisk drive in the country than watch cars go around in circles for three hours.

I want to stir things up and televison is all about passivity. To borrow an idea from a much despised political philosopher, television is the opiate of the people.

 

I agree. I can't even be in the same room when the TV's on, most of the time.

What's the activity you're least likely to see people on sitcoms doing? Watching TV...

 

Rick:

Interesting you bring this up. In the Financial Times this morning (I start my day with the Financial Times and the Dallas Morning News) they stated that news paper circulation was down 2.5%. This is the largest drop ever recorded.
To read the newspaper you must be actively involved, eyes and brain must be engaged. It is more work than just sitting and letting a talking head give you the "bad news bites" of the day.
As far as the USA Today goes it is superficial but when you are out of town it is a good way to keep up on sports and I do love their crossword puzzle.

One other point ,and maybe its just me, but I have noticed that my kids (in their 30"s) have no problem reading news articles on the web. I have found that I feel very uncomfortable reading long articles via CRT and almost always print them out to read.

Must be the age.

 

So, it isn't just me. Not that all the channels aren't equally abominable, but has anyone else found any irony in the fact that the Fox network, as a self-appointed defender of conservative/family values via its news and political programming, has some of the most vile and mindless programming on television?

 

I don't think that you'll find much disagreement that the vast majority of tv is just mindless. It is also dangerous when so many of the "news commentary" programs seem to be accepted as news. That line has been blurred if it sill exists at all. And it's true for both "sides" except that Fox is the worst!
168 hours per week times how many hundreds of channels? That's a whole lot of veiwing. As I get older, I find that I watch very little tv. It's like walking around in a landfill. Mostly stinking garbage, but every once in a while, there's something worthwhile. Oh, and Dr. Phil is the most dangerous man in America!

 

I hate mindless television and I totally despise newscasters who use percentages in their ridiculous chatterbox commentary, ie, there's a 25% percent change this or that could happen, well, duuhhh, there's a 75% chance it will not happen. I agree with Frank Lloyd Wright, "Television is chewing gum for the eyes." I also hate to see people chewing gum as if they were cows chewing cud. Maybe I should start a thread about gum chewers too.

 

Perhaps you should add him to your list of candidates for flogging.

 

I watch TV some, but not as much as I did before I met the +1. He watches almost no TV, except some sports and the History Channel. Most often we are out doing things, or listening to music or playing games. I no longer read the printed paper, so I'm like the younger folks in that regard. I read the Washington Post online.

 

I have no such list. My idea of proper punishment is to strap Dr. Phil in a chair and subject him to Joe Pyne reruns. If that proves ineffective, maybe Alan Burke.

 

"Otherwise, it is merely lights and wires in a box".

I don't hate television anymore than I hate billboards or internet forums. Granted there is alot to dislike with respect to each with both content and intent, but the medium, to me, has become a mirror (not to the exclusion of "...the message."). It reflects what appears to be important to the majority of us who give aid and comfort to those who design programming and news content.

Newspaper circulation is down for many reasons. Yes, we are generally becoming a society of non-readers, but many of the folks I know who have given up on home delivery of newspapers complain about the sheer volume of paper (mostly advertising) they have to store, recycle or dispose of. Out here where I live (50 miles east of Sacramento), most people have given up the Sacramento Bee in favor of one of the local papers because they have fewer pages, cover high school football games, have at least 10% of their content dedicated to revealed religion and tend to overlook stories on terrorist plots (and I thought we all moved up here to be closer to the pine trees, deer and turkeys).

Shortly after 9/11, Peter Jennings hosted a show with a bunch of kids. The idea was to try to understand how and why this tragedy happened. One of the thoughts was that American society was increasingly being viewed by others in the world as nothing more than the crass depictions of pop culture. While others in the world struggled to survive contaminated water, inadequate housing, famine and AIDS, we were all consumed with what Brittany Spears was wearing (or not). Given the view of the US as wasteful and without concern over the plight of much of the rest of the world, the "why would they do this" question suddenly had a different facet to it.

This brief and sudden flash of awareness lasted a few months and we witnessed several nobel attempts to direct TV and news content toward more meaningful stuff. Alas, the following year brought us the largest onslaught of "reality" programming anybody could ever have imagined. Even something as shocking as the death of 2,800 innocent people wasn't enough to tweak our collective view of what's important in life. After a slight and short course correction we headed on back toward Brittany and haven't looked back.

It is lights and wires in a box because that's what we tolerate, if not demand. Sound bites, short clips and half naked newscasters are what its all about because we ask for nothing more; and its going to get worse long before it gets better.