David Greene writes:
>... My question is, if there is an abusive amount of TV
>watching, why? What is the real reason so many have turned on the box?
>I ask because if there is a reason, for example, dispair, helplessness,
>frustration all leading to passivity and withdrawal, throwing the
>TV away may have little effect. Unless we determine the motives, we
>may miss the point and any chance along with that of making a
>difference. I guess the old idea fits here of never taking something
>away without putting something better in its place. If we
>believe turning off the TV will simply lead to more community
>participation, I think we will be disappointed. I don't believe
>people watch TV out of lack of something better to do. Unfortunate
>as it may be, something consuming so much time from so many must
>be filling an important, even a desparate need. What is it and
>how can it more effectively and constructively be satisfied?
My personal feeling is that most people watch TV simply because of
its seductiveness, not because they don't have anything else to do. It's
an extremely powerful technology devoted entirely to entertainment. As
Neil Postman says in AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH (p. 87), "Television offers
viewers a variety of subject matter, requires minimal skills [or effort --
TH] to comprehend it, and is largely aimed at emotional gratification.. .
But what I am claiming here is not [just] that television presents us with
entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as
entertaining... Entertainment is the supra-ideology of all discourse on
television. No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the
overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and
pleasure." It's just too easy to flop onto the couch and click the remote.
The unfortunate result is, of course, that people end up spending hours
and hours of their leisure time in front of the boob tube instead of at a
local PTA meeting or--sorry-- at a local bowling alley. So one way to
increase community involvement, it seems to me, is to reduce the amount of
time we spend watching TV.
But this is not to say that we should simply avoid TV altogether. As
others have pointed out, there are various good reasons for watching TV,
ranging from education to well-deserved relaxation. The key is to not
overdo it and to be discerning in how we understand what we see. I agree
therefore with those who advocate instruction in media literacy rather than
with those who favor a total boycott.
Tom Huckin
University of Utah