Modern television has surpassed many former boundaries held by our society standards of fifty years ago. New inventive shows are created almost every month with a plethora of different characters, surprising twists and intertwining plots. This allows producers to capture the attention of viewers from week to week and allows the television industry to prosper. But does television have any intellectual benefits or is it all just garbage? The answer can be found at a happy medium. Dana Steven’s, the author of the article “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box”, is correct in her idea that the multi-threading and complicated plotlines of television shows in modern-day have no real intellectual benefit for viewers.
Dana Steven’s article specifically addresses television and its intellectual merit, arguing that though television shows today may have more complex plotlines than fifty years ago, they are not, in turn, making viewers any smarter. She spends most of the article pointing out various statements made by Steven Johnson that television has intellectual merit and speedily provides a rebuttal for them. She furthermore suggests that everyone turn off their TV’s for National TV Turnoff Week and challenges Johnson’s idea by stating “…just turn the set off till Sunday and see if you get any dumber.” (234)
Steven’s article is effective in several ways when it comes to her counterarguments, her rhetoric and her logic but is ineffective when it comes to tone. With statements such as, “24 is the perfect example of a TV show that challenges its audience’s cognitive faculties with intricate plotlines and rapid-fire information…it’s really good at teaching you how to think…about future episodes of 24”(232), the reader questions the validity of...
... middle of paper ...
... on future generations. Steven’s remains neutral, viewing television as somewhere between black and white when it comes to its effect on society and does not feel that it has any intellectual merit. Moderation is key and it is up to the viewer to make that discretion. Some television shows have educational content that could be beneficial socially but others showcase only the worst merits in people. Overall, Dana Steven’s article is sound and correct. Just because a show has complex plotlines does not prove that the viewer will be smarter because of it. Next time you watch TV consider whether the show is going to help you figure out what the cure for cancer is.
Works Cited
Stevens, Dana. "They Say/I Say": the Moves That Matter in Academic Writing : with Readings. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel K. Durst. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. Print.
Steven Johnson wrote an article for the New York Times in which he argues that back in the days, television shows use to have a very simple plot which was easy to follow without too much attention. It was just an other way to sit back and relax. However, throughout the years, viewers grew tired of this situation and demanded more complex plot lines with multiple story lines that related to recent news topics. He takes the example of the television show “24”. “24” is known for being the first show which its plot occurs in “real-time”, it is also known for not censuring the violence of its topics. It is a drastic change from what Johnson states as an example “Starsky and Hutch” where basically each episodes was only a repetition of the last one. Johnson also believes that there is a misconception of the mass culture nowadays where people think the television viewer wants dumb shows which in response makes them dumber. Johnson does not agree, for him, television shows such as “24” are “nutritional”. He also states that sm...
In his novel, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman describes to the reader, in detail, the immediate and future dangers of television. The argument starts out in a logical manner, explaining first the differences between today's media-driven society, and yesterday's "typographic America". Postman goes on to discuss in the second half of his book the effects of today's media, politics on television, religion on television, and finally televised educational programs. He explains that the media consists of "fragments of news" (Postman, 1985, p.97), and politics are merely a fashion show. Although Postman's arguments regarding the brevity of the American attention span and the importance of today's mass media are logical, I do not agree with his opinion of television's inability to educate.
Television is a highly entertaining way to pass the time whenever we may want to relax or may not have anything to do. Some believe that watching television is nothing more than staring at a box while others believe that it can help us become aware of things we may not have noticed before such as social issues or in some measure get our brains thinking. This paper will point out the similarities and differences of Antonia Peacocke 's essay "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious" and Steven Johnson 's "Watching television makes you smarter" aswell as
In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman alerts us to the dangers brought about by the way television conditions us to tolerate the brevity of visual entertainment. His message is that with each new technological medium introduced, there is a significant trade-off. His primary example was the medium of television. TV is structured to provide information to the viewer on a platform which is both quick and entertaining. This discourages any viewer subjectivity, allowing television to shape and dictate [politics, education, religion, and journalism] the essence of our discourse. Except for a few pages of "enlightenment", the entire book was a conglomerated resource of evidence to support his hypothesis. Important facts underlined generalizations to present logical and agreeable viewpoints.(e.g. "Television is our culture's principle mode of knowing about itself. Therefore... how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged..."( Postman 92) In other words, how life is depicted on television is how we expect life to be.) And in most cases some truth could be found in Postman's statements (e.g. "For no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are.") (Postman161) Postman's final critical point was not merely enlightenment, but was a message to his reader and a solution aimed at educators: "the point I am trying to make is that only through a deep and unfailing awareness of the structure and effects of information, through a Bibbs 2 demystification of media, is there any hope of our gaining some measure of control over television , or the computer, or any other medium." (Postman 161) I agree. Until we begin to quest...
...d that television holds on us, Postman give two ideas. The first idea that he gives, he describes it as ridiculous to create programming that demonstrates how “television should be viewed by the people” (161).
Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel K. Durst. "They Say/I Say": The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings. Vol. 2e. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2012. Print.
In a Class Dismissed when the narrator says,” because we have seen television as just entertainment, we readily disregard its impact on our thinking”. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself that our perceptions of things are based upon what we see on TV, although I do view TV as entertainment as well. However, I never paid attention to how TV impacted my thoughts until viewing and reading in the material in this class. Because of some of the things that we studied and the familiar shows that we talked about I understand and noticed small things in TV shows and ad
American pop culture has come a long way in the last few decades: from the rock 'n’ roll boom of the fifties, to the hippie aesthetic of the seventies, to the electronic age of the nineties. Pop culture clearly fluctuates at a rapid pace and even though fads have come and gone, one thing has remained viable even in more contemporary times: the TV set. On top of that, never has the world seen a greater peak in technology than it has in recent years, and the television is no exception. Unfortunately, as fascinating as these advancements may sound, it is generally presumed that the television—as with much modern pop culture tech—has had and continues to have detrimental effects on Western culture. Given that the TV has been a predominant force for the last sixty years, it’s safe to assume that most have heard the pervasive statement of how television "rots your brain.” By contrast, the benefits of this technology are rarely discussed and when the topic does arise, it seems to be hastily dismissed as “phooey.” Despite these labels, some would argue that television pop culture not only provides a form of recreational relaxation, but also has the potential to enhance cognitive capabilities.
As many people know modern television produces many good and bad consequences to the viewer. However, as a whole, the positive effects of TV clearly out weight the negative ones. In Barbara Ehrenreich’s passage, The Worst Years of Our Lives, she asserts that what’s being televised, immobilizes the viewer from actually doing the activities portrayed on TV. Yet, all the events on television have been imitated from what is going on in real life. Television is not something that drains a person from everyday activities, but something that encourages them to try new ones and escape the crazy, stressful moments of life. Not only is TV something that exemplifies new hobbies that can be taken on, but it is also a moment where a family can come together and laugh at all those funny moments in Full House and The Simpsons. Lastly, and possibly most importantly it informs people on what’s going on around
Makes You Smarter” argues that certain television shows can make you smarter because we will learn how to think critically and analyze certain situations. Johnson says, “Instead of a show’s violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind” (Johnson 293). Dana Stevens the author of “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” says “From the vantage point of someone who watches a hell of a lot of TV (but still far less than the average American), the medium seems neither like a brain-liquefying poison nor a salutary tonic” (Stevens 298). Dana debates with Johnson because of his opinion and poor choice of wording his essay because she believes that television can lack a person’s knowledge and critical
Not only educational shows accomplish these goals, but fictional television programs can often incorporate information that requires viewers to grapple with a topic using logical reasoning and a global consciousness. In addition, not to diminish the importance of reading, television reaches those who may never pick up a book or who might struggle with reading problems, enabling a broader spectrum of people to interact with cognitive topics. Veith has committed the error of making generalizations about two forms of media when, in truth, the situation varies depending on quality and content. However, what follows these statements is not just fallacious, but
When the first television was first successfully shown, people thought that this invention brought people to a new age, and that the television was a huge benefit to humanity. Unfortunately, since then the Golden Era of television's moral and standards have fallen drastically. We are far away from the days when Lassie and the town of Mayberry ruled the airways and were the talk of America. What was once intended as a benefit for society has become its detrimental fall, now instead of upholding American society's standards, television is working to corrupt the very society it intended to help.
The book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman is about the history of our culture; how it changed from a typographical culture to an image-based culture and the effects of it on America. In this book, Postman claims that television has negatively affected Americans and how they think about serious topics. His argument is that culture’s perception of what is true comes from the medium of its communication. However, because our medium is television, it dampens the discourse greatly because while it delivers a barrage of information, it doesn’t allow us to discuss or contend the message being presented. Postman’s biggest problem is with how the content is presented and which information is presented. Television is the primary source of news,
In his article, Johnson talks about many television shows from the past and present. In discussing shows such as Lost, The Sopranos, and E.R., Johnson says “You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you’re exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads” (292). In other words, Johnson is claiming that by watching complex shows the viewers are exercising parts of their brains that help
Television has come a long way since it was first introduced. Originally, it was thought that the masses that watch television enjoyed the more simple shows that would tell you exactly what was going on from start to finish. In Steven Johnson’s article, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”, Johnson argues that this is actually not the case. In fact, Johnson argues that much more people enjoy shows that involve multi threading, or multiple plots that are all connected.