That’s weird. I was browsing through the original Roald Dahl Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at work today (we’re selling copies as a tie-in to the movie) and Willy Wonka’s little friends were singing the same thing after Mike Teevee got shrunk.
Are the researchers at Zurich University Oompa-Loompas, by any chance?
I too am surprised that this would be considered bizarre or paradoxical. I would rather have categorized it as “common knowledge now backed by an actual study”.
That was my first thought, taht the commericals designed to promote insecurity to make people buy products was responsible. Plus all the shows that try to give the image that people are beautiful and have no major problems other than minor romantic trists can screw people up mentally if that is how they think life is supposed to be.
Here here about Wimbledon, e-logic. 
I take it you’re not familiar with Marshall McLuhan?
If you throw your TV away, you will be very unhappy when you realize you could’ve sold it for a few hundred bucks.
I’m with the “don’t blame your bad habits on your television set” and “everything in moderation” crowds.
Regarding the “advertising sucks” bandwagon, I completely disagree that it’s designed to make you feel shitty about yourself or your life. I’ve never seen an ad that made me feel bad about myself or my life, and I watch a lot of TV. The only ads I can think of that might fit what y’all are talking about are “self-improvement” things, like ads for Weight Watchers or makeup or hair color – but does anyone really watch those ads and suddenly feel fat and/or ugly when they didn’t before? If so, don’t blame advertising for your low self-esteem.
I’m watching COPS right now (and MAD TV just before it), and the past four commercial breaks have included ads for Coke, PNC bank, Major League Baseball (twice), lots of other Fox programming, a muffler and brake shop, athlete’s foot cream, Marlo furniture, Six Flags amusement park, the morning news, Preparation-H, Gatorade, Alka-Seltzer, and one of those 1-800-GIRLS phone services. Seems pretty typical to me, and not one “your life sucks” ad in the bunch.
The fact that it doesn’t make you feel that way doesn’t mean it isn’t designed to, though. As I understand it, that’s the standard way to advertise these days: instead of trying to use reason to convince the consumer he/she needs the product, simply make him/her feel that their status is lessened and that their life is incomplete without the product. I’m not saying it always works, but I do think that’s done. For example, when you see car commercials talking about ‘the horsepower you NEED,’ the idea is that you need a super-powerful car or you’re not sexy and adventurous and so forth, like the car in the commercial is.
I just realized a few days ago, while cleaning, that my television hasn’t even been plugged in for…I can’t remember how long.
It’s not that I haven’t enjoyed the hell outta TV in the past. Heck, it was my primary outlet for some of the cheesiest, stupid shows in childhood. I hold ‘Creature Feature’ responsible for my subversive love of C monster/SF bombs. It was as fun as hell. And this from someone who watched–and enjoyed–repeat showings of Bell Lab’s ‘Hemo the Magnificent’ and ‘Our Mr. Sun’ in classrooms.
There are many more choices now, but maybe the glut has just swamped my ability–or desire–to winnow through all of it.
There are umpteen options out there but nothing reliable enough, for information or whimsy, to rate staying with it. It puts me a real disadvantage for pop culture, without a doubt. I watched exactly one episode of Seinfeld, and none of Survivor, Friends or American Idol. A few of Buffy and The Simpsons, but not enough to really grab me. They were fun and all, but not overwhelming enough to pursue them.
Mostly I wandered away from television, and movies, for that matter, because nothing much in 'em grab me.
Fair being fair, this could be due to early training. TV and movies were treats, frills, that were apportioned out. An hour–max, maybe–on school nights; maybe an hour and a half on weekends, depending on the show. Television just wasn’t the default. It was one option, weighed among many.
I can’t keep up with the TV/movie-fads-du-jour, and lack the drive to try. The onslaught is overwhelming. The times I do get caught up usually end up feeling like pigging out on cotton candy.
No fault or pissyness for those who can winnow out the gems. It just doesn’t work for me.
Ya think?!? 
Seriously, memorably great post, pokey. I’m thinking of printing it out and sticking it over my TV screen (of course I’d temporarily remove it for Oz, DVDs and The Chappelle Show)
That’s not how it works. People don’t watch a show or ad and say “wow, my life sucks”. They watch TV and they can start to think that what’s shown on TV is how life is supposed to be. Advertising attempts to connect with people’s lifestyle choices - hey I’m an active on the go hip person. I should get the iPod! How many high school and college students emulate the fashions on the OC? It was the same with 90210 a decade before. How many people eat at NYC restaurants just because they were featured in Sex in the City.?
I certainly feel this way. If it’s crappy weather outside, I don’t have a problem spending the day watching TV. But if it’s nice, I feel as if I should be doing anything but watching TV.
The reality is that most of us would not be out curing cancer or anything instead of watching TV. On the other hand, we could be out doing activities that actually add value to our lives. Probably one of the best experiences I had was going to summer camp for four weeks. No TV at. It forces you to actually meet people and do stuff.
The problem is that people are lazy and TV is easy.
Sorry for not being more clear: I’m not saying “it doesn’t work on me, therefore you’re wrong,” I’m saying that I really don’t agree that advertising is designed to make us feel crappy about ourselves.
I think that’s a very old stereotype about advertising that isn’t true anymore, if it ever was. I’m not saying that there aren’t some ads out there that are “bad,” because I’m not claiming to have seen every single commercial that exists, I just don’t see support for that kind of general vilification.
I can agree that they’re trying to convince you that your life would be happier with their product, because that’s what advertising is all about. But to say that that they’re also trying to convince you that you suck and your life is shit because you don’t have their product? I don’t think so. Maybe you see the messages as indistinguishable; I don’t. :shrug:
Well, I was just talking about advertising, but since 3/4 of your examples were television shows I’ll say that the same argument applies to both: if people start thinking that TV is how life is supposed to be, that is their weakness. It does not mean that the show or commercial is responsible for their poor self-image and/or self-control.
It’s kind of like blaming alcohol for alcoholism: just because some percentage of society will abuse it doesn’t mean that alcohol is bad for everyone.
Perhaps there should be psychological screening for people before they’re allowed to purchase a TV, and the weak-willed among us would not be allowed to get one?
But seriously, I’m not denying that advertising is all about getting you to buy something that you never knew you needed. I just don’t agree that most ads are out to imply that you suck if you don’t buy their product.
We didn’t have TV for years. Then we got cable and still didn’t watch much because it was too hard.
Then we got TiVo and life is good.
I think a better analogy is if you see all these people out drunk every Thurs, Fri and Sat night, you will assume that everyone goes out drinking every Thurs, Fri and Sat night. It might just be 1% and you don’t see the other 99% who stay home, but from your perspective, it looks like everyone.
I usually have no trouble understanding your posts, but for some reason I don’t understand the point behind this analogy . . . are you saying that I’ve only seen 1% of the advertising out there? Or, are you saying that the people who feel bad about themselves when they watch commercials only do so because that’s all they know?
They need a study for that?? All they have to do is watch Second city Tevelvision. especially the opening credits.
No. What I’m saying is that television shows maybe the most interesting 1% of a subject. Take being a lawyer for example. Television portrays lawyers as rich, attractive, dynamic, passionate people. They make law firms look like exciting, fun places to work. People in my field (consulting) all think lawyers make much more money than we do because they compare the top 1% big law 6 figure lawyers that already fall within their preconcieved notion of what a lawyer is like and they compare that to our entire industry. The reality (based on my work with lawyers) is that they tend to be dull (or at least no more exciting than accountants or other business people), the work tends to be tedious and not all of them are highly paid. Since law requires an advanced degree, you need to compare it against consultants with MBAs to be valid.
I think the problem is not that TV makes you feel “bad” but that it reinforces preconceived stereotypes. Successful, wealthy people are always attractive on TV so maybe I look for attractiveness when hiring someone. High school and college students have constant consequence free sex so I must be doing somethign wrong if I’m not getting laid every night. Basically TV shows us the images we already expect to see.
John Prine told us that years ago in “Spanish Pipedream”
Well, no one’s going to want to watch the other, boring 99%, right? It’s entertainment, not a documentary.
So now we’re back to personal responsibility and mental health: if someone mistakes television for reality, how is that the fault of the programming? Perhaps you believe that the average TV viewer is not able to make the distinction?
I watch less TV than before, simply because it cuts into the time I spend on Wikipedia.
I understand TV-viewing is going down amongst certain age groups in certain countries.
I’ll respectfully disagree w/ you on that. I’ve given up and re-adopted the television addiction many times. And I don’t say that lightly: I’m a guy who can channel surf for twelve hours when there really is nothing good on; it’s so easy, it really helps give me a break from my ADD brain.
When I don’t have a television available, the dependence (the more proper word) breaks fairly quickly and then it’s smooth sailing. Right now I have a television & a DVD player, but no cable & no terresterial stations, so I rent more movies and frequently watch the DVDs I own—television’s methadone? Pretty soon I’ll be able to quote The Tick like true maven.
How can someone watch TV and not be influenced by the programming? I’m not talking about crazy over the top stuff. I’m talking about subtle distortions that TV causes in how people perceive the world. People around here hate Fox News, right? Why is that? It’s because if you tell people only part of a story long enough, that’s what people will think the whole story is.
Let’s take some of these reality shows like “The Swan”, “Joe Average” or “Beauty and the Geek”. Why is there an almost universally accepted criteria for what is a “geek” or what is “hot”. And why is it that people automatically have the immediate reaction that the “geeks” are not even worthy of consideration. They must be “made over” into something acceptible to the viewing public (most of who ironically resemble that end of the spectrum). Is that something just innate to us as human beings, or is it the result of a lifetime of viewing images that send a message “you must be ‘hot’ like these people otherwise you will be an outcast and nothing you do will ever matter”.