It seems like every new technology that comes along gets the blame for that particular generation of children's laziness/unmotivation/shortcomings. This was true when TV first arrived on the American scene and it still resonates today. I very much believe that there are some children who watch too much TV and that it sometimes takes the place of reading, playing outside, spending time with family, and pursuing hobbies and interests. However, Johnson's article really made me think about TV in a different way. I had never thought to compare the shows of 20 years ago with the programming available today. There really some very complex, difficult to follow TV shows on the air. Take "Lost," for example. If you miss one episode, you're literally lost! I like how Johnson compared watching some of these shows to reading a book in the way we have to follow complicated plots and characters, and make inferences and connections. I was, however, really surprised that he suggested that people play the video game Grand Theft Auto, which is arguably the most gratuitously violent game out there. I think that there are plenty more video games that can engage the player in those same "reading" skills that are not nearly as violent and sexual as Grand Theft Auto.
In addition to more quality programming, there are also so many quality stations such as the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, the Biography Channel, the Science Channel, National Geographic, Animal Planet, and many more. The quality of the TV we watch now certainly does seem to be much higher than that of yesteryear. However, there are still completely mindless, inappropriate shows for children to watch, and I think that just because Johnson is saying that TV might not necessarily make you stupid, he's not saying that parents should just let their children watch anything they want all the time.
I thought Storey's article was also interesting in the way that it explores the emotional connections between viewers and programs. It said that TV wasn't just an escape but an outlet for people's emotions and a way for them to connect emotionally to something in a safe way. I don't enjoy soap operas much myself, but I can see this explanation for why people like them so much.
3 comments:
I agree with you about the Grand Theft Auto thing--I was a little surprised by his suggestion.
And, it's so true about the critical thinking and invovlement a viewer has to be with some of the current t.v. shows. My husband and I watch Lost together (he's a self proclaimed non-reader). It's so funny b/c he watches Lost the way some of my struggling readers read. Thank God for the pause feature on DVRs b/c I'm constantly having to stop it to help him in his confusion. Not that I necessarily know what's going on, but usually I've picked up on a few clues, or filed away something that I thought just might be important later. He on the other hand is still working on those inferential cues and is not altogether comfortable with the confusion. Whereas, for me, I think b/c I'm a reader, I have faith in the story that is unfolding, that the author is giving me just enough info and I need to be attentive and patient, as it comes together.
I also liked what Storey said (or what Ang found) about television shows and emotions. I think that's ultimately why we engage with anything (books, tv, music)--we have some emotional/social connection with it. I appreciated that Ang wrote that "...is not a compensation for the presumed drabness of daily life, nor a flight from it, but a dimension of it." In other words, these connections are a part of our lives, not a way we mediate our lives.
That's an interesting point, Jules, about you being more comfortable with not recieving all the information about Lost becuase you're a reader. Perhaps because you are used to having to wait and get through a book before you find out exactly what's been going on is why you are more comfortable with that than your husband.
Post a Comment