Blog!ARU: Replies
The Original Entry:
I don't have a TV.
That's right, I don't have a TV.
![[ Cartoon TV ]](http://andrewu.co.uk/blog/images/?tv.gif)
I did have a TV and a somewhat expensive video recorder to go with it, but when I came down to Bath I gave them to my parents. Whilst I was at university in Newcastle Upon Tyne we rented a widescreen TV between us in a flat of 6. I think I watched it a handful of times. A couple of my flat mates used to watch it for the sake of it being there, and one watched it for the sake of tacky porn on Channel 5 when he thought we'd all gone to bed. Now that I don't have one, do I miss it? Not really no, and I think that's the truth. I occassionaly get a ribbing from folks at work for not having one, but knowing that when I have had one I didn't really watch it, I'm not particularly fazed by it.
I recently had a short break to see my family in the North-East of England and inevitably I ended up watching TV because others were. I watched it. Tens of adverts per hour streamed straight into my brain wanting me to eat this, buy this, wear this, smell like this, look like this, drive in this, sue these people and holiday over there. Now this may be startlingly obvious but just what is the correlation between such pushing of the consumer society and smoking, obesity, violence and crime. I'd imagine that the U.S.A. would have more of a correlation as it's TV developed faster than ours over here in the U.K.![[ 1940s TV ]](http://andrewu.co.uk/blog/images/?ancienttv.jpg)
Ours in the UK seems to be approaching the American model pretty fast, at least the commercial channels seem to be. At the same time Britons are experiencing record levels of obesity and violence. We seem to have 'better than reality' life portrayed on TV that urges it's viewers to consume more and more for a happier life. Countries whose commercialisation of TV has not been so great until recently are starting to see the first signs of upward trends in obesity. Now maybe this is all coincidence. It could be, because you could probably show that with increased commercialisation of TV there's been a hand-in-hand increase in people's incomes and freedom of choice and competition for those choices. Nevertheless I still have this feeling that there's more of a link than that. Now, you might be thinking I'm going to advocate smashing your TV set. I also don't think that's the right way to go though. If it wasn't the TV that glamourised the consumer society, it would be something else and prohibition has never been the right answer to anything. Maybe people will just get bored of consuming anything and everything simply because they can, or because the Jones' next door have got something you haven't got or because some celebrity endorses something. Maybe consuming will go out of fashion. Maybe then people will remember how to have conversations with one another and go out with the family on day trips to remember, or at least some of the time.
What do you think?
That's right, I don't have a TV.
I did have a TV and a somewhat expensive video recorder to go with it, but when I came down to Bath I gave them to my parents. Whilst I was at university in Newcastle Upon Tyne we rented a widescreen TV between us in a flat of 6. I think I watched it a handful of times. A couple of my flat mates used to watch it for the sake of it being there, and one watched it for the sake of tacky porn on Channel 5 when he thought we'd all gone to bed. Now that I don't have one, do I miss it? Not really no, and I think that's the truth. I occassionaly get a ribbing from folks at work for not having one, but knowing that when I have had one I didn't really watch it, I'm not particularly fazed by it.I recently had a short break to see my family in the North-East of England and inevitably I ended up watching TV because others were. I watched it. Tens of adverts per hour streamed straight into my brain wanting me to eat this, buy this, wear this, smell like this, look like this, drive in this, sue these people and holiday over there. Now this may be startlingly obvious but just what is the correlation between such pushing of the consumer society and smoking, obesity, violence and crime. I'd imagine that the U.S.A. would have more of a correlation as it's TV developed faster than ours over here in the U.K.
Ours in the UK seems to be approaching the American model pretty fast, at least the commercial channels seem to be. At the same time Britons are experiencing record levels of obesity and violence. We seem to have 'better than reality' life portrayed on TV that urges it's viewers to consume more and more for a happier life. Countries whose commercialisation of TV has not been so great until recently are starting to see the first signs of upward trends in obesity. Now maybe this is all coincidence. It could be, because you could probably show that with increased commercialisation of TV there's been a hand-in-hand increase in people's incomes and freedom of choice and competition for those choices. Nevertheless I still have this feeling that there's more of a link than that. Now, you might be thinking I'm going to advocate smashing your TV set. I also don't think that's the right way to go though. If it wasn't the TV that glamourised the consumer society, it would be something else and prohibition has never been the right answer to anything. Maybe people will just get bored of consuming anything and everything simply because they can, or because the Jones' next door have got something you haven't got or because some celebrity endorses something. Maybe consuming will go out of fashion. Maybe then people will remember how to have conversations with one another and go out with the family on day trips to remember, or at least some of the time.What do you think?
I'm currently feeling fine
I'm currently listening to Björk: Debut: Human Behaviour
Replies
![[ web page link ]](http://andrewu.co.uk/media/jasper/blog!aru//furniture/webpage.gif "Rob's web page"){kind=small}
![[ email link ]](http://andrewu.co.uk/media/jasper/blog!aru//furniture/envelope.gif "Email Rob"){kind=small}
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
TV didn't cause all this stuff, but it did give mankind a damn good excuse for it.
TV didn't cause all this stuff, but it did give mankind a damn good excuse for it.
The only thing TV is good for these days is The Sky At Night. Perhaps the TV License looks a bit steep when you consider Patrick's program amounts to 4 hours of viewing per year. Hence the reason why I don't have one (a license, that is). Ahem.
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc"reminds us that coincidence is no indicator of cause and effect. However, there may be evidence that indicates that TV has had an effect on these social conditions. It might look like a
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc"situation, but is it that easy to dismiss the question with this retort? Is there evidence for the an increase in the rate of increase in these social conditions before and after the popularity of TV advertising, whilst accounting for other factors? However, given that it is probably too difficult to extract the other factors the conclusion may remain indeterminable.
Re: 2.
Hehe! There's still a good bit of stuff to watch here and there. When you get away from most of the commercial stuff you can find some interesting things. Surely the Open University (OU) programmes are worth watching? The OU shows a lot of astronomy stuff and if I remember correctly (always a challenge) there used to be that really good monthly OU astronomy programme whose name and presenter I've completely forgotten.
Hehe! There's still a good bit of stuff to watch here and there. When you get away from most of the commercial stuff you can find some interesting things. Surely the Open University (OU) programmes are worth watching? The OU shows a lot of astronomy stuff and if I remember correctly (always a challenge) there used to be that really good monthly OU astronomy programme whose name and presenter I've completely forgotten.
Hmmm. I take your point about acceleration.
Television is a reflection of the society that watches it. I still believe that. Many people believe that society is a reflection of what is on television.
I say that human beings have always had gluttenous, greedy instincts as deeply engrained in them as positive, constructive instincts. Television advertising plays to both, roughly equally.
Bath products promise to "purify" as well as cleanse, deoderants promise to turn you in to an irresistable sex object for 24 hours as well as make you smell nice.
Television advertising feeds off that which people ASPIRE to be. But, aspirations are not always positive (we've raised a generation that ASPIRES to be promiscuous).
In essence, what I'm saying is, we created television. We get out of it what we put in to it. While it may have accelerated negative social conditions to some extent, I think we personally have to accept the liability for that, rather than blame the TV.
To illustrate my entire point... I can look out of my living room window, which has a pretty good view of the canal towpath and Kensington Meadows, and be pretty certain that somewhere in my sight is someone injecting themselves with drugs - it's a common occurence just off the twopath.
But do I then blame the window for letting me see that? Or do I ask myself why I'm not out there asking these people with drug addictions what I can do to help them?
vita non est vivere sed valere vita est.
Oh yes, I have a pretentious latin saying for every event.
Television is a reflection of the society that watches it. I still believe that. Many people believe that society is a reflection of what is on television.
I say that human beings have always had gluttenous, greedy instincts as deeply engrained in them as positive, constructive instincts. Television advertising plays to both, roughly equally.
Bath products promise to "purify" as well as cleanse, deoderants promise to turn you in to an irresistable sex object for 24 hours as well as make you smell nice.
Television advertising feeds off that which people ASPIRE to be. But, aspirations are not always positive (we've raised a generation that ASPIRES to be promiscuous).
In essence, what I'm saying is, we created television. We get out of it what we put in to it. While it may have accelerated negative social conditions to some extent, I think we personally have to accept the liability for that, rather than blame the TV.
To illustrate my entire point... I can look out of my living room window, which has a pretty good view of the canal towpath and Kensington Meadows, and be pretty certain that somewhere in my sight is someone injecting themselves with drugs - it's a common occurence just off the twopath.
But do I then blame the window for letting me see that? Or do I ask myself why I'm not out there asking these people with drug addictions what I can do to help them?
vita non est vivere sed valere vita est.
Oh yes, I have a pretentious latin saying for every event.
What you see through your window though is not largely paid for by profit making companies. It is in their interest to make you desire their products so that they make money, pretty much regardless of the costs to society. There is no profit to be made by advertising moral and ethical behaviour, unless you're a religious institution, and then you're on to a nice little earner.
Hmm, yes, but the promotion of products for sale, which must be one of the foundations of our capitalist society is not, as far as I can see, linked to "record levels of obesity and violence".
To my mind television is only one factor involved in this rise (hence I take your point about acceleration), but the fundamental cause of obesity is people either *choosing* to eat more, or being medically predisposed to obesity. It is the result of a society that offers *choice*.
Equally, the rise in violence is, to my mind, more the result of a vaccuum of discipline in society than anything else. I'm not convinced that violence on television is commonly linked to real life violence, that has more to do with the fact that there are less police on the streets, more leaniance if you get caught, and the abstraction of consequence from action.
Sooo, I still say television is more the reflection of the ills in our society, rather than a contributing factor (or, as some would argue, the actual *cause*).
To my mind television is only one factor involved in this rise (hence I take your point about acceleration), but the fundamental cause of obesity is people either *choosing* to eat more, or being medically predisposed to obesity. It is the result of a society that offers *choice*.
Equally, the rise in violence is, to my mind, more the result of a vaccuum of discipline in society than anything else. I'm not convinced that violence on television is commonly linked to real life violence, that has more to do with the fact that there are less police on the streets, more leaniance if you get caught, and the abstraction of consequence from action.
Sooo, I still say television is more the reflection of the ills in our society, rather than a contributing factor (or, as some would argue, the actual *cause*).
Write Your Own Reply
NOTE: This entry is archived. You can still submit a comment but it won't be published on the website until it has been approved by an editor.
Guide to Writing Replies
- To add a web address to your reply simply write out the address in full including the "
http://" part. The address will be converted to a proper 'clickable' link after you submit your message. - Some HTML tags are allowed: ("
<p>,<i>,<b>,<q>,<strong>,<em>,<cite>,<code>,<sub>,<sup>,<var>"). Also, if you have javascript enabled you may use the shortcut buttons near the comment text box to enter these 'tags' into the text box automatically. Push a button, e.g.: 'q' and enter your text like so:<q>your text</q> - I reserve the right to modify or delete your stuff. Advertisements are not allowed.
- Please read the privacy policy and only submit a reply if you're happy with it.
- Note to spammers: You'll not gain page rank from spamming this blog entry with your links, you are however likely to be added to a public IP blacklist including your proxy IP addresses.
NOTE: This entry is archived. You can still submit a comment but it won't be published on the website until it has been approved by an editor.