The Kill Your TV Web Site does cite its sources for data. Just because a site has a purpose or agenda does not make the source material used invalid. If you want to post contrary sources or refutations to the sources, please feel free to do so. The second site, however, doesn’t cite sources, so if you’re feeling persnickety and want to toss it out be my guest.
Well, Nelson Co, guru’s of TV statistics, claim that children 2 to 5 watch and average of 25 hours of TV per week. I guess it depends on how want to define epidemic, but that’s a lot of hours IMHO. Of couse, I fall into the category of middle age men who supposedly watch more the 3 hours per day in 30% of population and 1 to 2 hours in 61% Hardly paltry numbers.
Whoa… sweeping generalization, sweeping generalization. And you got the nerve to accuse me of faulty logic.
If I see something just once that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck I’m going to call it a duck. Could I have confused it for a goose? Maybe. I suppose certainly can only be assured by close and careful examination, but since the object that resembled a duck isn’t around for scientific testing, I just going call it a duck anyway. If the object that only resembles a duck comes back and proves itself to be a goose, then I’ll revise my initial judgment.
Actually, what the OP said was “What kind of brain addled TV Zombies will arise from being unable to separate themselves from the idiot box while jaunting to mall?. Or even, heaven forbid, on an eight hour road trip? What is so freaking essential that some people can’t live without it even in their cars?” You replied that it was good parenting to allow kids TV in the car and I responded that that was inept parenting. You’re the one who has been championing the educational value of “educational” TV without any evidence or cite whatsoever to backup that claim. Kids were not even part of the OP. My statement has been it is rather sad and pathetic that TV Zombies can’t do without TV in their cars and further posts have included parents and kids as TV Zombies.
Actually, it doesn’t implicitly make it invalid, but it does cast a pall over it. Facts can be twisted. I’m not saying they are here, but this is not an objective source.
You’ve hit on the crux of the issue. It’s your opinion that that total is a lot of hours. Do you recognize others might not share that opinion, people who perhaps have children?
Wait a second. I do not wish to misinterpret you here. Are you saying you’re one of those who watch more than three hours a day (30% of population) or 1-2 hours a day (61%)? If you’re saying you watch 1-3 hours a day, why is it a problem for other people to? I’m missing something here.
I have such nerve because you leap to conclusions on things on which you have very little information. My conclusion is perfectly logical in a general sense. A “sweeping generalization” is one in which you say ALL in a given population act the same way; stereotyping is one form of this. But to construct logic, one must take a larger perspective. It is perfectly logical to say that if a certain percentage of people limit their kid’s TV viewing, then it is likely those parents are being responsible by doing so. On the basis of that conclusion, we can then say that what TV they do allow is educational, if we assume “educational” to be the paragon of responsible TV viewing.
And that’s why your logic is so flawed. You make your assertions on the basis of minute information. You have no idea if this hypothetical thing walks, looks, or quacks like a duck. You saw one post. You cannot possibly drawn all of those conclusions from one post.
Your OP didn’t include children because you were ignorant as to the reason those TVs were in there. Once people explained the TVs’ presence, the issue of education was introduced. Also, no one said that this TV in the car was “essential”; that was your own adjective. It’s not essential, and I don’t think anyone could argue it is, not even the automobile’s manufacturer. It is an electronic device that can provide both education and entertainment to people who are passengers in a car. Why you have a problem with this pleasure is not clear, but you do not have the right to impose your own values on other people. If you were really interested in knowing why those TVs were in there and why people “need” to watch them in the car, you could easily have asked. And people who are parents and others who own those vehicles would have responded with their own opinions on why they have them. But, IMO, you began this thread with a closed mind and are continuing to propagate the most basic ignorance of other people’s opinions.
[/quote]
First I was a TV Zombie and now I’m a duck. :rolleyes:
What is it Pyrrhonist that’s got your shorts in such a tight knot? What is it that you are struggling so hard to condemn? Has someone forced you at gunpoint to watch TV against your will? Have you fallen victim to some TV-Zombified teenager who sold you a McFish at the drive through when you clearly said McChicken? What?
Yes, people now are able to have TV’s in their cars despite the fact that there seems to be no apparent “need” for it. (However, I don’t. Does that make me less of a duck?) But you’d be hard pressed to find a person these days (in a major metropolitan area) without a cell phone or pager. A personal music player is standard issue to most teens. Lap tops and PDA’s seem to be standard issue for many professionals. The internet has become the backbone of all kind of business and personal information exchange. All these things started out as conviniences. We live in a society which values conveniences. Many societies that don’t have these luxuries tend to envy them and work towards obtaining them. Not suprisingly, we call them developing nations. Not too long ago the internet was a convenience. Would you say the same thing about it as you do about the TV? After all, how much of the Internet is content and how much is simply a sandbox.
None of these things are essential to life. Exchange of information seemed to flow just fine (if slower) before any of these devices were invented (and then made cheap and accessable to average Joe Public). The genie has been out of the bottle for a long time now. Like with all technologies, there is a time of adjustment that needs to take place. Granted TV has been around longer than most of this new stuff, but it has not remained static. It is very quickly evolving into not just a portable and passive information medium but also an inter-active one. I submit that children unfamiliar with it’s characteristics, it’s ability to enlighten as well as deceive will be the ones who will most likely fall victim to it’s poorer programming.
I am in no way suggesting that kids who watch more TV are the smarter ones. I’m suggesting that your hardline anti-tv position is, at best, flawed. You are just reacting disproportionately to a fairly benign stimulous.
In fact your objections remind me of a story told to me by my sister in law who works as a legal advisor in the Ontario Prime Minister’s office. She reports to the PM’s chief aid on public Children’s programming for the province. This chief aid has a screw loose about with respect to puppets. His staff has advised the legal office where my sister in law works that no proposals with regards to puppets be made to him or in his presence. In fact the words “puppet” and “puppet thearter” shall not be mentioned in meetings with him. He does not like puppets and will not, under any circumstance, aprove funding for children’s puppet thearter programs in any public institution. His reason is that puppets are bad for children because he has a traumatic childhood experience with puppets.
The two main problems with excessive TV watching by kids that are usually sited are sedentary activity-unhealty over weight kids and the excess TV viewing-leading to lower test scores.
Well, on a long trip the kids are going to be sitting on their asses anyway, so unless you are promoting making the kids jog along outside, or unbuckled kids having a good wreslting match in car, the first point is not an issue.
As for the second issue the point is more relevant, but I’ve never really seen data that works out the possible problems. It seems to me the type of parent who would refuse to allow the kid to watch TV, would also much more likely to force them to take prep classes to artificially raise scores on standardized tests.
If you’re against TV, then you’re against TV, but I don’t see why it being in a car makes it a worse crime. It seems to me like that is the optimal time for kids to get whatever TV viewing in.
So you think there is no merit to the observation that TVs in car are a little over the top? From what everyone else has posted, I guess I’m the only one who thinks this way. I never realized that people were so protective of their TV watching habits. I feel like I’ve wandered into a Mosque, said something naughty about Mohammed, and forced to flee to keep the skin on my back.
**
Do you really believe that I’m anti-technology because I don’t watch TV? Do you think it is possible to be a technology aficionado and still find no quality and value in TV. Or are the two irrevocably linked?
**
[quote]
Of couse, I fall into the category of middle age men who supposedly watch more the 3 hours per day in 30% of population and 1 to 2 hours in 61% Hardly paltry numbers.
Sorry if I was misleading. As a middle aged man, the statistics would indicated that I’m 30% likely to watch 3 or more hours per day and 61% likely to watch 1 to 3 hours. I’m a statically anomaly because I watch none. While 1 to 3 hours per day is better than 3, I think most 1 to 3 per day is too much. 1 to 3 hours per week would seem more like an appropriate among for some one inclined to watch IMHO.
**
Please tell me you jest! Certainly there are others more thoroughly sneering at the rest of the world than me. I hate to be peaking already.
**
Nope, there is a lot of stuff that has no redeeming value. Most modern music, especially pop music. Most if not all movies. Professional sports is laughably ludicrous. Many contemporary books. It all about shifting through the bad stuff for the few good nuggets. Now I suppose you could argue that it’s all a matter of taste and opinion. Some people, like Glenn Gould, believed Mozart was contemptibly bad, but that is only they think. I’m not troubled by their poor opinion of what I find value in.
I could add that a majority of current politicians of both major parties have no redeeming qualities.
What’s not to “hate” about jejune fare offered on the idiot box? It is like “hating” tripe. Some people may like the taste of tripe, and there is no accounting for taste, but in the end it is still tripe. When I quit watching TV in 1995 there were no quality shows worthy of the time it took to watch them. And that includes the Simpsons. But that is only my opinion.
I spent most of my youth as a bona fide TV Zombie, so I know what it is like on both sides. I sometimes ponder what it would be like to have used those all those wasted hours everyday learning something tangible—like playing the piano or learning foreign languages or training in athletics or contemplating the Tao or the Buddha nature. Well, I can’t have those hours back, and it seems like a shame not to tell people that there are better options than TV after I’ve learned from my mistakes. Do you disagree with that? Do you think someone can do both? Well, maybe. Even if a person only watches an half hour a week, that is still a half hour that could have been better spent. I’ve made a decent and good life for myself despite a misspent and wasted youth, so I don’t have much to complain about, but I believe I could have done much better if some one had taken me aside in my youth and told me to turn off the idiot box.
Yes, TV is just a tool. A straight razor is just a tool too, but misuse around the carotid artery and you can have very bad results.
Let me know if I skipped any and I will reply.
**
**
Well, in the absence of second adult, or older child, there is the always handy Book on Tape. Check your public library sometime. There are hundreds and hundreds of titles to choose from where I live, though I can’t speak for your local municipality, there would probably be some at least.
**
ALW is a little on the light side for me, I’d pick Wanger’s Ring first, but Opera and other music could be alternatives to the box on road trips.
**
No thank you, I’ve already got a job that suits me. Now if the Arbiter of the Human Race comes with a hefty pay raise and two months of vacation. Maybe, just maybe.
You are not alone in feeling that a TV inside a car is something less than an absolute necessity. But it is a modern convenience. That’ all I’m trying to get you to understand. TV, if used wisely, is not the enemy.
I’ve a friend who, like you, had given up TV for long periods at a time. He’s given it up three times so far for about a period of one year each time. He did it in the hopes of sitting down and writing a really cool AI program that we often talked about. He never did sit down to do it. The only thing his abstinence accomplished was newer, bigger and better television sets at the end of each hiatus from TV watching.
YMMV.
Now you may find Wagner and Mozart the height of entertainment. I must say I don’t care for Wagner but Mozart is wonderful. Does my enjoyment of the occassional television program somehow mean that I don’t enjoy Mozart as much? Besides, isn’t it all entertainment? Can things that you enjoy and benefit from be a waste of time? I laugh at Simpsons episodes - they give me pleasure. Should I forsake that and force myself listen to Wagner because it’s good for me?
By the way, my daughter, the aspiring surgeon, finds time in her busy day to study piano. Forcing her to study piano more at the risk of never watching TV would not only not necessarily make her a better pianist, it may make her hate it and refuse to play again. At the moment, she has struck a good balance of school, playing with friends, reading, piano, gymnastics and TV. When she is done (or bored) with one, she moves to the other. She enjoys all of it and gets something from all of it. If she chooses to shift her balance from one to the other (or somthing new) she will make those adjustments (with out guidance while she is young). She is growing up to be a healthy and balanced individual. TV is not harming or hindering her in any way.
I do not believe that you are anti-technology. I believe that you have underestimated the value of some information that television brings. You also don’t seem to be familiar with the high quality of some of the better children’s shows. Also, while TV and technology is not currently tightly linked they are not far from being fully integrated.
Finally,
Pyrrhonist wrote:
Please alow us poor brainwashed TV-Zombies the same freedom of thought.
More importantly, please trust us responsible parents to do the right things for our kids. We promise not to harass you about not choosing to have kids yourself. Nor will we report you to Family Social Services if you do have them and choose to deprive them of a TV in your car.
I understand it is a modern convenience, but sometimes there is a cost to the convenience that goes beyond the monetary price tag. TV in a car is not merely a convenience to keep its occupants amused, but a symbol for how deeply rooted the TV has become in American culture, and how reluctant some people have become to be separated from it.
Your enjoyment of music is your own and whether or not you watch TV has not detrimental effect on Mozart. I didn’t realize I’d said it was an either/or situation.
**
Well, once you realize Wagner is good for you it wouldn’t take force to make you listen. But that is an appreciation you’ll have to cultivate yourself… though there are better choices than Wagner.
**
[/quote]
Also, while TV and technology is not currently tightly linked they are not far from being fully integrated.**
[/quote]
I’ll forge those waters when the flood comes. Future technology, especially telecommuting, holds great promise IMHO. I only hope that there will be opinions that avoid the commercialism and consumerism of TV. Already the net has too much advertising, I say, and ad filter software (like in the Peter Norton Security suite) less than perfect.
**
Umm, you seem to have a kinder opinion of Family Social Services than I do. I could see social worker sentencing me to some program or another for not allowing a child of mine watch to TV at home or in the car—they’d probably call it neglect or abuse or some such nonsense from pop-sociology because Pyrrhoninto or Pyrrhoninta didn’t understand the concept of Power Rangers or My Pretty Pony.
You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. However, when you imply that you view those who disagree with you as being hopelessly addicted to TV, you can expect a certain level of hostility. Arrogance is not very well tolerated here.
IMO, you worry too much. If this were at all a valid fear, the Amish would be in deep shit.
Considering the fact that I’m not having kids, this really isn’t a worry at all for me, but I can image Family Social Services taking a stronger hand in telling people how and what to do. I’ve little faith in the Government doing things right.
The Amish a group apart the rest of society and their ways are protected by Religious Freedom, so analogy to them may not be entirely appropriate. However, it does lead to an observation that, by not watching TV, I’ve voluntarily separated myself from a common bond that links around 99% of society, and as the years go by I’ll almost be like a foreigner in my native land, disoriented by cultural icons considered to be common knowledge by most of the population. A don’t think this is necessarily bad, but it does entail a willingness to accept a kind of hermitage.
I was a little flippant in my first post but it is a little annoying as a parent trying to do his best to have someone who admits they know nothing about parenting come along and pass judgement on you.
**
**
But you seem to expect the rest of us to not only be troubled by your poor opinion of what we find value in but to concede the point simply because you raise it.
Well I don’t know what you were watching but I have recently enjoyed Broadway musicals, Shakespeare plays, science programming and dramatizations of classic literature that I found considerable value in. It really looks like you were not a discriminating viewer. Yah, if you switch on the box and turn to a random channel you are very likely to find dreck. That does not mean the TV is broken it means you need to change the channel or put in a video.
Involvement in life and physical exertion are essential. They are not mutually exclusive with watching TV any more than they are mutually exclusive with reading a book or listening to music or playing cribbage. If you spend every waking hour doing any of these things then the rest of your life will suffer. If you spend every waking hour doing any one thing that is true.
Yes but your solution is not to stop misuse around the carotid but to ban straight razors altogether. Straight razors, like TV, have their legitimate uses.
On reading in the car -
**
**
And why not watch a good dramatization on the TV? What is it about the visual element that annoys you so?
Ever seen the BBC version of Anne of Green Gables? How about The Secret Garden? The film version of the Pirates of Penzance? The Jeremy Bret, Sherlock Holmes stories?
There is a great deal of excellent video out there. If the only option were to let my kid watch broadcast TV during the journey then I would not allow a TV in any vehicle. But if they could be watching any of these or a few hundred more that I could list then I would certainly encourage them to use the time of forced idleness in the car to this end. More importantly their absorption in a good story gives me the concentration to get us where we are going safely rather than having it taken up solving the problems they create because they are bored.
TV may be unnatural but so is strapping a four-year-old in a restraint for eight hours. You have to find some way to entertain them or they melt down after a very short while. TV happens to be the most appealing alternative because it helps the time pass for them and does not interfere with the driver.
(I use and enjoy books on tape from my local library)
Again why the prejudice?
Books on tape or musicals on the sound system are fine but TV would corrupt their souls?
BTW: I don’t think my little one is quite up to Der Ring Niebelung just yet. We’re starting her out with Weber and Gilbert and Sullivan. Video and Audio.
Kids, schmids- I take my laptop along on trips and listen to (if I’m driving) or watch (If I’m riding) movies on long trips. A friend of mine and I travel to NC quite a bit- 12 hours each way. If I didn’t do something like watch a movie or listen to an audiobook, I’d go nuts.
I am thinking of picking up one of those portable vcr/tv jobbies for my camper. My husband and I enjoy “watching movies” (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) at bedtime.
Based on your posts you seem to revel in that kind of hermitage to the point of being elitist about it. I see little reason for you to feel that way. I, like you, am also an avid non fan of professional sports. Corner me at a party to talk about this star athlete or that team and you’ll see the blankest stare to cross a face since somebody handed a copy of A Brief History Of Time to Pam Anderson and said “read it”. So I find watching pro sports a waste of time. So what? I’d much rather be in my garden weeding or on my boat sailing. Do I deserve the right to feel elitist about that? Of course not. I choose how I spend my time of leisure just like the guy on the couch watching the football match. In doing so, I have removed myself from a huge subject of small talk that takes place in bars, office functions, and parties. I don’t know many guys who enjoy conversations about training climbing roses. I know even fewer people who can distinguish a tack from a jibe or what it mean to cover in yacht race.
Plenty of people make concious decisions about what segment of social life they will participate in and which ones they’ll not. Granted TV is pervasive but intelligent people will not snub you for not knowing one network from another. You, clearly being an intelligent person, ought not discount people for having an interest in a form of entertainment that you don’t find appealing. You certainly ought not lump every one into the same TV equiped automobile. Surely there are other things for people with varied interests to discuss and even learn from one another. I don’t think your eschewing of TV needs to become an impediment to social interaction - not unless you make it one.
Have you ever made comments or passed judgement on laws and politics? If so, are you a lawyer or politician? I was a kid once and I had parents, so does the fact that I’ve got no offspring make it an untouchable subject?
**
I don’t expect you concede until thoroughly accepting of my ideas—which may be never.
**
Maybe I’d prefer to see Shakespeare, as intended, on the stage. When Branagh first came out with Henry V I thought it was a great movie, but then I saw a staged production and came to the conclusion that all grand visual imagery of the film was all smoke and mirrors, signifying nothing, and that the play was the thing. A further blow to Shakespeare on film was McKellen’s Richard III which I was fortunate to see on stage—a production to me stunned and awed at the power of the stage. Then, years later, I saw the infinitely disappointing film version. There was simply no reconciling the difference between the stage and the film other to concluded that the stage is the proper vehicle for Shakespeare and filmed versions but a poor man’s substation.
I’ve got no use for dramatizations of classic literature when the original is available to read. It would be like choosing to read a slipshod translation of a foreign novel when you’re fluent in the original. Kind of pointless IMHO, I’ll stick the original sources, thank you very much, and only go to translations or dramatizations when the source is incomprehensible like Ancient Greek.
As for science programs I’ve got no real objection to them, other than that they were often geared to young people, but the numbers of such shows is not a significant excuse to turn on the box and wade through the sea of commercials and consumerism or PBS funding drives. I find there are better ways to seek out scientific knowledge.
**
I suppose you’ve forgotten about the marvelous visual things hanging in places like the Louvre. I’ve nothing against the visual element if it is used intelligently and purposefully as a visual medium like non-child originated animation. There was an obscure movie called 32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (Gould again :eek:!) that made excellence use of film as a medium IMHO. It wasn’t so good a movie in the traditional sense, so I wouldn’t recommend to a general public.
**
Is this really binary situation? 1=Child is forced into idleness in the car; or, 0= Absorbing their attention with TV. Binary is required for computers, but I think there is some parent, somewhere that could help you think of another option since mine seem so unpalatable.
**
Well, I’ve got a laptop with a DVD (it came with a sweetheart deal and not an option I would have normally chosen), but I’ve never used that function. I can’t think of any movie that would capture my interest. I listen to audio tapes on my way to work too, but that doesn’t equate to believing that TV in the car.
**
Maybe so. I’d probably be quite content in a isolated mountain cabin far away from civilization for long periods of time. Telecommuting may prove that possible yet someday.
**
There is an interesting article by John Derbyshire about not watching a lot of TV, I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, but he had some interesting comments like “Not watching much TV, I hit a lot of dead air in conversation. There should be some TV equivalent of Cliff Notes for people like me. For weeks now I have been hearing the name of Robert Downey Jr., but I had no idea who this man was…”
Plenty of kids live in situations where parents either don’t have the means or interest to expose their kids to such quality productions. Seeing them on TV brings thearter to these kids at a fraction of the cost. Should we forsake this kind of exposure to thearter because the TV production may not come across as grandly as a stage production?
:rolleyes:
Well my remote allows me to skip channels that I find uninteresting (like QVC, TNN, sport channels, etc…). That way I’m not even annoyed at having to scan through them. I just bypass them entirely. My off button allows me to simply walk away when nothing of interest is on.
We don’t all live in Paris. We can’t all afford to fly there at a moment’s notice.
Funny thing about children. Most find the child oriented animation and programming remarkably interesting. Things not aimed at them or their level of comprehension tend to bore them and teach them nothing. Most quality children’s programming tends to challenge and teach them without putting them to sleep. In my book, that is a good thing. Most quality adult programming tends to challenge and teach adults without putting them to sleep. That is also a good thing.
Also, my 5 year old daughter’s interest in things medical came from watching a surgical procedure on TV. I doubt that if I plopped her down with a Grey’s Anatomy on her lap she’d get the same thrill or understanding of the inner workings of the human body.
Now look, it seems apparent to me that you are stubbornly unwilling to admit that TV can enrich human lives and certain programming does provide viewers with valuable information in a manner that is sometimes superior to other media. We can go on arguing like this for many more pages but I feel it is simply not going to be fruitfull because you are clearly convinced of the evils of television and of your own superiority for having foresaken this video based mass medium.
I too am gently bowing out of this discussion. I wish you best of luck living at the top of that mountain, well away from civilization. We may or may not miss you.
Pyrrhonist, you say that having a TV in one’s vehicle is indicative of TV zombie-ism in and of itself, and I must disagree.
True, but that doesn’t mean that anyone who would watch TV in the car is automatically an addict.
Once someone invents an affordable car with reliable robotic control, and I get around to buying one, there’s a good chance I’ll have a TV installed in it. (I have no intention of reproducing, so this is the only way I could ever possibly want a TV in my vehicle.) I could forego TV without going crazy if I needed to, but if something good is on and there’s nothing that needs to be done at that time, I’d rather not. What’s wrong with that?
True TV zombies are people who watch stuff they don’t even like just because they’re too lazy to think of anything better to do, let important things go undone because they can’t pull themselves away from the TV, and have sex doggy style so they can keep watching. It’s not about where you watch or how much you watch, it’s whether you can stop watching when it would be prudent to do so.
A TV in a car may not be absolute proof of Zombie-ism, but it is an indication IHMO. Empty food containers and soda cans piled in the back seat of a car doesn’t automatically mean the driver and/or passengers are slobs, but it is an indication. As some parents have said, they use the TV to amuse their kids with educational shows on long trips, creating a peaceful and safe driving condition. If this were the only case, I would agree that it is not necessarily Zombie-ism, though I still think it is the easy way out and options other than TV are dismissed offhandedly . After all, there are surely many families on long road trips who can’t afford a TV in the backseat and they seem to survive just fine; whole generations of kids before now survived without too. Also, I find it difficult to believe that it is only used as ideally and sensibly as some members have suggested. The TV in a car is indicative IMHO of the inability to stop watching for a few hours.
