|
Despite the advent of the computer, the television remains
the ubiquitous medium in our society. I think it would be
difficult to understand American culture without watching
television. But I have been without it where I dwell for almost
a year, (although since then I’ve watched it in bars,
friend’s houses, motels, etc… and I’m still able to rent
movies, so I’m not off the grid.) While I miss sports most of
all, I can’t say that I’ve been worse off for not having
television. More about that anon.
It’s definitely true that television has gotten much better
since the advent of cable. From its birth until the 1970s,
television allowed viewers no more than four choices, and most
of those choices were network fare designed to appeal to the
lowest common denominator. Now there are, what, 80 channels
available? You can get sports galore, children’s programming
all day, then classic TV on Nick at Nite, about 5 movies on at
one time, the Outdoor Life Network, the History Channel (which
should be named the Hitler channel because that’s what’s on
half the time), the weather, a MTV channel that doesn’t show
anything except teeny-bopper music for the large number of
teenagers coming of age at this time, and on and on and on. And
if you had DirecTV, well, you’d have to sit down for an hour
just to figure out what’s on.
So there’s more choice, especially for political junkies.
(Note that C-Span and C-Span 2 are provided as a service from
the cable companies, who can proclaim their public virtue
without having to worry about losing much of their audience.)
Much of this choice is more of the same formulaic crap we’d
find on the networks, but some of it is not, which is an
improvement.
But even though the networks have lost about 50% of its
audience, it still draws in the vast majority of viewers. The
twentieth most watched show on the big four networks still draws
twice as many viewers as wrestling, which is still the biggest
draw on cable by a mile. The networks still rule the roost. Why?
Because they give the people what they want: shows that are
test-marketed and polished to death, and more often than not,
shows that tend to be conventional and safe.
Friends is the quintessential example of this phenomenon.
Although many people complain about its placement on the 8:00
p.m. time slot because of its sexual content, it’s hardly a
Roman orgy. In fact, the show is good-natured, with likable
characters that have genuine concern for each other. Moreover,
the show can be funny from time to time. But what I could never
abide by how cutesy the show can be, all the more so as the
writers are running out of dialogue. Maybe it’s just me,
but if you take away the laugh track as the show declares is a
funny moment, you’ll see the characters are just being
slightly amusing, and sometimes just being ridiculous or
childish in an unfunny way. Maybe the characters are stuck in
the dialogue and the constraints of the show, which forces them
to be, well, two-dimensional. They’re so well rounded that
they can’t have any edges.
I don’t mean to pick on Friends, which is actually one of the
better shows on TV. But that’s the point: if that’s almost
as good as it gets, then the hell with the whole medium. I would
rather live with the reality of my surroundings than in a la-la
land where everything is sanitized to death. Glamorous nonsense
is still nonsense.
Now I don’t want to act as if this
critique is an indictment against people who watch the boob
tube. Indeed, my friends look at me funny when I tell them
that television basically sucks you in and makes you a pacified
slave. They say, “You’re getting on your serious kicks
again…don’t you just want to sit back and relax
sometimes?” And TV lets you do that, I suppose: it is
pleasurable because one can escape responsibilities and thoughts
for a while. Moreover, I must point out that there is some
quality shows on the tube: Frasier, the Sopranos, and so on.
(I’ve always enjoyed BET’s Def Comedy Jam as well.) Besides,
it’s not like everyone wants to read Dante or Solzhenitzyn as
well.
But let me stress the following: not only does television
fosters complacency, it encourages it as well. IT MAKES
INDIVIDUALS PASSIVE, BY DEFINITION. And when anyone is in that
state, great dreams can never be realized. You want to lose
weight and get in shape? Not only does TV want you to be a
vegetable and watch more commercials, but they’ll show
commercials that promote foods that taste real good and make any
weight loss impossible? You want to think outside the box? TV
will spoon-feed you the conventional wisdom, and the
corporations that own the networks sure like the status quo.
(Committed activists on the left and right, take note.) You want
to save money for the future? Television generally opposes that
kind of thinking, because they want you to be a participant in
the consumer-driven culture from day one. You want to change the
world bit by bit? Television depicts a world where the people on
the screen are the ones that matter, and you are on the
sideline. You want to reach your fullest potential? With TV,
forget it. I could go on, but you get the point: the television
business is not in it to see people excel.
Many people I know well and not so well seem perplexed by my
decision not to have cable. “What do you do with yourself?”
Well, I read a lot. I jog enough so that I can run marathons, as
I will again in April. I’m involved with some organizations
that I’ve written about in the past, which I derive
satisfaction from and may lead to opportunities in the future I
could only dream about right now. I have conversations with
others that aren’t possible when the TV is on. Weaning
yourself from TV is never easy, and I don’t think it’s wrong
if you don’t. But you may find that it may provide more
benefits than one would expect at first.
|
Buy Books
Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris
Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia
by Paul Klebnikov
Sale of the Century: Russia's
Wild Ride from Communism to Capitalism
by Chrystia Freeland
The Long Walk
by Slavomir Rawicz
Uncovering Clinton : A Reporter's
Story
by Michael Isikoff
No One Left To Lie To:
The Values of the Worst Family
by Christopher Hitchens
Search
the Web for:
Ronald
Reagan
Bill
Clinton
Middle
East
MP3
Web Music
George
W. Bush
Saddam Hussein
Hillary Clinton
Presidential Pardon
Online Gambling
Auto Loans
Free Online Games
NFL
Nascar
Britney Spears
|
