The naked truth…
Why is television bad for you? Because the structural biases of that medium do not allow it to present propositional content. Surely, one may make a proposition while a camera and mic are turned on. TV is a medium of assertion. The relentless forward motion and visual necessities of TV, however, guarantee that no proposition will ever be explored in enough depth to promote understanding.
What makes good TV is emotional-visual conflict. That’s why Bill O’Reilly has good ratings. Such conflict is entertaining.
Too bad Bill Clinton and Bob Dole couldn’t muster a little bluster. Their lack of attack may lead to the cancelling of their point-counter-point segment on 60 Minutes. As producer Don Hewitt says: “They haven’t managed to go after each other as I hoped they would.”
He quickly blames the war for this, but that’s a dodge. The real problem is that Dole and Clinton are serious and intelligent politicians. They cannot perform to their abilities in a short TV segment. But performing to their abilities is not what TV demands; it demands they spat like children.
Want to be a patriot? Want to fight for the American way? Then stop watching TV news-talk. Strike a blow for civil civic discourse.
what about sportcenter? is that still bad for me? or what about cspan? i think cspan might as well be a radio broadcast.
Well, you’ve pointed out a huge flaw in this post: Lack of background.
Sometimes I assume, by default, that readers of Rhetorica have been reading since the beginning. That’s not only an error, it’s a preventable error because I can easily link to earlier material.
Anyway, what I failed to make clear here is that I have an attitude about TV very similar to Neil Postman’s, author of “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” I have some disagreements with his contentions, but, for the most past, I believe TV cannot handle ideas well.
Sports? Movies? Sitcoms? Reality TV? All that stuff is wonderful! TV is a great entertainment medium…but that’s all it is.
C-SPAN is a heroic effort. And, because it doesn’t try to jazz up its content, it challenges Postman’s contentions. You’ll notice, however, that its ratings aren’t quite those of FOX.
ok i feel better now, i was afraid that sportscenter was bad for me and what would i do without sportscenter. fox news for awhile was really great about putting up more information on the webpage and letting you know where to go to find it. right now they don’t currenly do that and i agree it is upsetting. have you ever considered that maybe TV is not intended to be an absolute form of communication but maybe just an effective way to raise an issue? then it is up to the individual to read more about the issues of personal intrest?
re: raise issues
No medium can be an “absolute” –which I take to mean: handle communication in all its variety. That’s a given. What I think happens with TV is that too many people assume that it IS capable of absolute communication.
In a perfect world
TV would stick to entertainment until something “newsworthy” (i.e. something to point a camera at) happens. You see, even the definition of “newsworthy” changes depending upon the medium just as “communication” does.
When you say TV, do you mean TV in general everywhere? or do you mean TV in America? While you say C-Span is a heroic “effort” it seems you are implying that it also falls short? What about documentaries? Does film as another visual media have the same issues as TV?
Alexander…I’m talking about TV as a medium.
C-SPAN “falls short” of the medium because it doesn’t pander to TV, i.e. no jazzing up the visuals, few funky logos, no dramatic music, etc. In that sense, it’s “bad” TV.
As for TV “everywhere”…great question! There are some places in the world that play it straight, e.g. talking-heads only news. Notice, however, the government structures where such is the case with TV
I just can’t shut my pie hole.