How much do you really know about the factors that influence the way you live life? Our perception is controlled by a constantly changing line separating ego from environment, the fluidity of which is determined by a variety of external stimuli. Our lives revolve around sensory perceptions of reality. Specifically, the things we see and hear determine the emotions we feel and the choices we make—who we are. Just think what life would be like if you could not see or hear anything? To you, the earth would be a totally different place. One can never downplay the influence of other people and the world on his or her life. Without living in solitary confinement, no one can fully escape the constant messages that other people are beaming out, trying to get a response back from you. These messages are sent through many mediums. The 20th century witnessed the invention of the most powerful instrument of mind-control known to man. This creation soon rose to permeate modern society under the seemingly harmless guise known as “the family television set.” Television is unprecedented in its ability to deliver information through digital and analog channels directly into the susceptible, totally absorbed minds of an audience. The simple act of “watching” TV allows these messages to enter the brain. TV affects the life of the average American in many ways. Some of them are obvious, and others require deep analysis and sometimes even intense introspection to uncover the truth. More than we know, television is shaping societal norms, personal morality, and ultimately choice.
One of the major and most obvious problems with television as an entertainment medium is its self-imposed portrayal of events and characters as real.
Any form of entertainment is always sending a message. Television is no exception. Totally ignoring the content of programming, one must still account for the influence of advertisement on the minds of viewers. Advertising is so pervasive on TV that one cannot even watch an hour without being exposed to almost 15 minutes of proselytizing madness. When you are constantly being asked to buy things, constantly being exposed to 30-second video-bytes about why you “need” a product, there will certainly be a change in personality. I know of many items when I never desired to own an item before I saw it in a television commercial. To make matters worse, product-placement implants these products and ideas into the very fabric of television shows, subliminally influencing people to buy, buy, buy. If “real” people are using a product on a show, why shouldn’t I? If the “ideal American family” uses Tide® to wash their laundry, what reason do I have not to purchase this brand over all others? Questions like these need to be addressed by anyone who watches television, yet very few people think about the advertisements that are washing over their semi-conscious minds. A recent study by the American Psychological Association shows that young children “tend to interpret commercial claims and appeals as accurate and truthful information” (Willenz). While older adults can filter out the many diverse methods advertisers use to hook their prey, children are without the mechanism to distinguish truth from fiction. Therefore, they are more likely to desire a product for the wrong reasons. If you look at the ads that are geared towards children, what are they for? Sugary cereals and action figures are two categories that stand out from my experience. What is this doing to the children of our nation? Once again, it only serves to encourage needless consumption and foster unhealthy habits.
Even advertising’s effect, however, pales in comparison to the influence actual programming has on the social behavior of individuals who watch television. TV is spreading like a sickness throughout the fabric of our society. It only takes one person to become engaged in a show and soon he will convert countless others through his constant babbling about “what will happen next week” in the lives of people that do not even exist. What a wasteful, pointless distraction from important issues. Furthermore, the way people interact socially on television certainly becomes a model for the viewer’s social interaction. This is extremely disturbing. If a character on TV exhibits a certain behavior, and that behavior is shown in a positive light, it is only natural for the viewer to exhibit the same behavior. What is troubling about this is the fact that the “behaviors” of “people” on TV are controlled by writers, programmers, and network executives. And yet, viewers still believe most if not all behavior exhibited by characters on television is “normal” and “natural.” In extreme cases, right and wrong can be determined by what a person sees on television.
Television watching is also a habit-forming behavior. Subjects often feel “addicted” to a certain show because they are so curious what will happen next that they cannot stop watching. My girlfriend in particular said that she cannot stop watching a show because she “want[s] the next episode to be better” (Crowell). Even though she dislikes the show, she continues to watch in the hopes that it will someday get better. This love-hate relationship with the television is certainly not healthy, and has all the signs of addiction. Television watching in and of itself is not inherently evil. However, the poor quality of most programs and the extreme potential for addiction and excess to occur makes it undesirable compared to other activities. Any other form of media that actively engages the viewer through choice is superior to sitting in front a screen and letting messages and advertisements wash over you. When you allow yourself to be numbed by television, other bad habits such as eating a bowl of chips or a bag of popcorn while watching are allowed to foster without mental checks. Television is not real life, but it is pretty close. So why would you want to engage and participate in your community when you can have a nice, comfortable reality fed to you on a screen every night? Think about what America would be like if no one watched television. Perhaps people would begin to appreciate natural stimulation like walking through the park and would become more involved in their communities.
Television unrealistically portrays life. Instead of being a creative outlet, it only enforces stereotypes and makes people more opinionated and less rational by making judgments for them. The amount of advertising present on almost all TV shows only leads to excess materialism and poor habits in children. Even though television is one of the most effective means of information transfer that our society knows, the level of education and discernment towards this form of media is pitiful. The only solution to the nationwide TV epidemic is abstinence and radical negation. Turn off your TV for one week, or even one day. See the effects on your life. More than you know, television is shaping the way you view society, your own morality, and ultimately your choices. If you must engage with this monster, treat it with a careful disdain, being constantly aware of the fact that it is trying to influence your thoughts and actions.
Works Cited
Crowell, Liz. “An Adverse Media Outlet.” 14 Sep. 2008.
Willenz, Pam. "Televisions Advertising Leads to Unhealthy Habits in Children." APA.
23 Feb. 2004. American Psychological Association. 27 Sept. 2008
4 comments:
Hey, it's Drew from down the hall.
I don't consider myself part of TV's audience (which from what I can tell is what you are discussing) as I don't actually watch television proper. However, I still watch TV Series, and I would like to hear your thoughts on my method of watching and justification. Obviously the masses don't engage with television in the same way I do, they probably never will, and my whole post here depends upon the idea that you are blaming not just those who run television but also the medium of the TV Show itself, so hear me out: I download shows that have earned lofty reputations for their artistic merit (not their ratings or popularity), such as Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development, and Seinfeld. I watch the Daily Show online. My old creative writing teacher, one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, encouraged me to watch the entire series of Gilmore Girls. I assure you that I approach these shows not by disengaging my mind; quite the opposite. I take in what they have to say (most of these shows deal in critiquing society), analyze how it was said, analyze why it was said, and try to come up with some sort of understanding of the sole artist's intent or the message shared by the writers/collaborators. I decide what place this message has in my worldview. I discriminate, I think, I do not swallow. I engage with these shows the same way I would engage with a work of fiction or any other work of art. When I determine that a show is worth revisiting, I pay my fair share and buy it on DVD. For me a television series is no different than an extended movie, some better than others. For me it is not passive entertainment, but an aesthetic and even sometimes philosophical endeavor. Should television, as a whole, be blamed for all of the bad things it has created culturally? Should we stop watching movies altogether because of commercial garbage such as Beverly Hills Chihuahua? Should I not savor the poignancy and sophisticated craftsmanship of Peanuts and Calvin & Hobbes because most comic strips are mere gags like Garfield, that do nothing to engage the reader with his humanity? It is my bent as a fledgling art historian that reminds me always to disfavor individual artists and works, or in this case perhaps networks and shot-callers, but never entire mediums. True, television has, as a cultural force, been one of the major movers in degrading the everyman's spiritual life. Taken as a whole, it HAS become more of a drug than an artistic medium. But that doesn't mean that it can't be, and that it can't (or hasn't) also be a force for good. Think of the pathos and social responsibility of such shows as All In The Family. It exposed many to the absurdity of racism and the importance of self-reliance while at the same time teaching acceptance and love of your family even when you may disagree with them. If you cast television wholly as a villain, you must also cast newspapers for the disinformation of the Hearst years, movies for the sexism and ethnocentrism of many adventure and action films across decades, paintings for their objectification of women during many modernist periods that have been proven only as two or three steps a way from mere porn-lite masquerading as deep art (obviously not all nude paintings are merely porn-lite in disguise, but some are), and even books as well, for the generic reusable formulas evident in much of the work in romance and thriller genres that degrade the innovative artists of true literature: all at one time or another were seen as either distortions or mere destructive escapist devices. But they are only mediums, and you can't blame the medium itself. In the case of TV Shows, blame the networks, blame the current bureaucracy, blame the way those in control have attempted to make it into a mere cash crop, but do not blame all of the artists who still believe in the potential of the medium. As is, the only thing that is restraining the structure of television (not the content itself, which is policed though mainly for deviance and not free thought) is the market...which results in poisonous advertising infecting the minds of those who simply want to watch a tv show, and that's why many, like me, resort to the illegality of the internet for their shows: we want the good, but not the poison. The networks may never catch up to this idealistic line of thinking. But in the meantime, I think I'll keep spotting the literary illusions in Gilmore Girls.
Hey Drew, sorry it took me so long to reply to this, I actually just noticed it yesterday as I have no way of knowing when people comment (it doesn't tell email me or anything).
I think there will always be a divide between us (the perceived intellectuals) and the "masses." I also think you can justify pretty much anything if you're smart enough ;) Furthermore, I agree with you that it can be interesting to watch TV, that you can learn from it (even from the popular culture garbage) and even be stimulated. The reason I was being so radical in my paper was to sort of raise awareness and get people to think. I didn't really consider the value of the medium of TV as much as I should have.
I liked your comment "For me a television series is no different than an extended movie, some better than others." I'm really glad you replied to my paper and kind of gave me a counter-example of how a responsible person can look at TV and appreciate it. I think I'm too negative about humanity in general to be able to take that view right now, though! ;)
"Should television, as a whole, be blamed for all of the bad things it has created culturally?" I don't know. I think it's possible to judge a medium when you see that it has created far more "bad" than it has "good." I just don't think television is worth redeeming, I think it's a lost cause and that there will forever be a divide between the mindless masses seeking entertainment and those who choose to rise above. That's just how it will always be. The reason I was railing on TV is because of that very fact: I don't think there is any hope for change (as long as there's money in mindless television) so I was pouring out my frustrations with a corrupt system through words.
Even if there are some shows that can be taken as "good" by some people, the basic fact that most people who watch do not know who wrote the show or what they are trying to tell them still remains. I think you're right to say that you can't disqualify the medium based on the content, but like I said before I think the medium has become too corrupted to be redeemed, at least on a network level. It's good to know that there's other people out there who don't give in to the system and make their own entertainment (legally or illegaly) ;)
peace
You bring up interesting points, and I do not necessarily disagree with them. The following comment is written not in the spirit of arguing or refutation, but of personal interest. I have all these thoughts in my head that I often don't have a chance to share, and this seems like a good opportunity.
The one thing I've noticed about TV that separates it from other popular media such as film and music is its relative inability to create niche markets. The medium of the TV Show is always overseen by someone other than the artist, whether that's the network or the cable provider, whatever. The filmmaker or musical artist can now quite easily go the independent route, while someone who wants to make a series in serial installments a la TV does not have this luxury. They must compromise their work to fit a marketable framework, and while I believe in a free market sometimes, a mixed market other times, I feel the market mentality usually has a harmful effect upon art. I used the example of Arrested Development in my response. This show is of high artistic quality, but as such it did not get great ratings and was canceled after every season, and the passion of its earned cult following kept demanding another, until after 3 it just proved not profitable enough that no such devotion could make up for a lack of viewers who would rather watch Paris Hilton pretend to be poor in The Simple Life. But a part of me also has a great admiration for those artists who chose to work in one of these mediums and change it from the inside out. Charles Schulz, the creator of the comic strip Peanuts, was a brilliant (though not intellectual) man of the highest artistic talents. He brought poignancy to a medium that before was just good for a few yuk-yuk throwaway laughs. Then Bill Watterson of Calvin & Hobbes took it to new limits, stretching the formal limitations of the comic pages, openly challenging newspapers to change their syndication methods. Seinfeld was successful enough to make demands of the networks in such ways that allowed leniency for future shows. These works of art are revered by me for their mastery. They work on multiple levels. A child sees a Looney Tune and laughs at certain lowbrow elements, and the adult laughs and sees certain high brow elements that he missed out on as a kid. Stuff like this, imo, can make the best art. But the days of that kind of popular-but-also-great-art is over, even in music. There are no more Beatles. Unfortunately, the corporations won out, and the only good TV shows you will find nowadays are on HBO, and the only good comics (with a few exceptions) you will find on the Internet. Still, while the corporations won, a lot of great art was created in the wake of that failure, and what more can you ask of an artist than that his work be good. I agree with you now however that the current state of network TV is perhaps too far gone. I think it's possible that there could still be a few more shows left in it, but until the format changes, it's no good for artists.
I think there's still a lot of good art out there, just not much of it on TV besides on cable like you said. I agree with you about comic strips, and I thought it was really interesting how you described the evolution of comics talkinga bout Shulchz and Watterson. Interesting stuff. Furthermore, I think there's still a TON of good music being created right now, it's just all online and it's all free. Most if not all bands that have a record label are trash. Just like most stuff on TV that IS controlled by network execs and shit like that is trash.
Post a Comment