Greetings, all. Breaking my thread-starting cherry with this one. Below is an e-mail I just sent over to C-Span regarding Book TV. As the e-mail says, I think this is the best programming on television, but could use a little kick in the pants.
I thought it might start a decent conversation about television and its potential to be much more than a “stupid-box.”
For a long time I’ve been pretty ticked off about the fact television had (and still has) the potential to be a mass-educating tool of the first rank. As with everything else, it seems, it has instead fallen into the hands of big business and advertising whores whose only desire is money. Such is the fate of such an invention under the influence of capitalism and the free market society.
Still, the potential is there. Moreover, I’ve held for years that the future of television entails an eventual merger with the internet itself: within our lifetimes, the internet and television will be the same thing. But that sort of vision is still years and years off. For now, we’re still left with the problem of mindless garbage polluting the airways.
one man’s mindless garbage is another man’s bible.
one man’s greedy capitalist venture is another man’s education system.
if only we could “educate” all the masses to slave away their lives for “the good of all” we’d have utopia… no, you’d have a colony of slaves. nothing more.
and what makes you think that commercials are anything besides educational?
they teach you that your life is not complete without product x.
if you don’t like the lessons taught, you are free to be a teacher…
and that’s the catch. you may teach all day… your freedom of speech does not demand the necessity of a captive audience for your “education programs”…
Or if you don’t want to be a teacher then write TV shows.
The prejudice against TV as ‘the idiot box’ is disgusting. It is the finest artistic invention of the 20th century, and I include in that statement consideration of the PC. A TV show is as ‘intellectual’ as one interpret it to be. I could equally discuss the semiotics of childrens TV or an advert break as I could a documentary…
So let me get this straight. You gents are suggesting the potential of television - has been reached? That something which can be called “the finest artistic invention of the 20th century” has met your expectations?
I don’t think that the potential of television has been reached, I just think that there’s a tendential critical prejudice (sod that, I know there’s a critical prejudice) against TV which is basically a hangover from the prejudice against all popular artforms. It’s also a hangover from the film industry’s attempts in the 50s and 60s (as it lost ground and revenue to TV) to rubbish TV and make out that it was an inferior form of art that was only good for offering poorly-made, lowbrow entertainment to the intellectually miniscule.
Being British I’ve seen an awful lot of good TV. I won’t hear a word said against British comedy, which I feel is the best in the world (and I’m not talking about Hugh Grant/Rowan Atkinson movies, I mean stand-up, radio, sitcoms, quiz shows, satires…) and I’ve seen so many good documentaries in the last few years that I’ve really become quite impressed by TV as an intellectually artistic medium. It’s all too easy to point out how apathetic the average young person is and to link this with their habitually watching 40 hours of TV per week. For those with an agenda to propagate they link the two with TV being the cause, the apathy being the effect. But it could just as easily be seen the other way round, or to see the two as part of something much larger and more complex.
I was born in the 1980s, I only know a world with TV. I have no expectations per se because I have no idea what the world would be like without television. But, once again, being British I do have certain expectations of quality, many of which have been met. The highlights of this year’s TV have been an excellent series on the development of militant Islamism called The New Al Qaeda, a documentary about a boy who was charged with inciting his own murder which I discussed in the thread ‘A story like no other’ and a comedy series about a bunch of Whitehall spin doctors called The Thick of It which can be watched via streaming here.
I have far more problems with the quality of print media than with TV. TV offers so much and asks so little, whereas print media promises so much and delivers so little, as well as being a total waste of resources for the most part. National newspapers that can’t even produce an edition without spelling and grammatical mistakes, that sort of thing.
I don’t disagree at all. I wonder if you haven’t read too much into my use of the term “stupid-box” as though I was in favor of the term. The reason I placed the term in quotes was because this is the general perception - not necessarily mine.
First, I must agree, there are plenty of quality programs on television. Again, I mean not to imply the whole idea, or the whole industry, is a waste of time; I don’t have a “KILL YOUR TV” bumper-sticker. Second, there’s something to the fact we’re not countrymen. Namely, you talk about “so many good documentaries” you’ve seen recently. Well, here in the states, the only place you can see docs is on PBS (which I mention in my e-mail above), and perhaps a couple of cable stations (notably The History Channel and The Discovery Channel). When I speak poorly of television as a whole, this is the sort of fact I have in mind: why so few places?
I have a DVR, and so I often search through the totality of what’s on television in order to record the sort of things I’m looking for. Do you realize there’s more programming on haunted houses than there is on, say, I don’t know - Einstein? Forget Nietzsche or Kafka; I can’t get a piece on Darwin or Twain without stumbling into it by way of a special “Cable in the Classroom” showing at 7am.
We have a cable channel here called ‘The Learning Channel’ that, in the past, showed things like documentaries, science specials, and the like. Do you know what they show now? Home improvement shows. I’m serious. Roughly 70% of their programming has shifted to home and garden.
Anyway, my point would be there’s at least a chance we’re talking about two very different things when we speak of ‘television’ when we’re not from the same country. Here, I can count on one hand the number of stations that play ‘high-brow’ stuff on a regular basis.
Again, I couldn’t agree more. The TV-as-Scapegoat argument makes me puke.
Hey, I’m only 27. I’m right with you. Moreover, as I said, it’s not as if I’m suggesting nothing can be found on TV. It’s more that I am asking, why isn’t there more and more of this sort of thing?
Taking it back to the ‘perception’ part of this conversation, can’t we say that this perception - false or not - might well determine what money goes where? In other words, if the perception is “the masses don’t want documentaries and scientific and philosopical inquiries, they want something to dull their minds of the workday,” then that hurts the potential (and development) of television, doesn’t it?
My letter above is simply a voice that says, “Look, we do expect more.” In fact, its last comment could very well be applied to all of television: “You’ve wet our taste buds nicely. It would be wonderful if you gave us a full plate.” I’m not saying telelvision sucks. I’m saying more people might need to speak out that they’re not happy with sitcoms and comedies dominating prime-time TV while the “good stuff” is buried on public access and obscure cable. Maybe I’m just saying I think it should be the other way around.
Sure, but it’s all too easy to lapse into that way of thinking. I’ve met artists who proudly stated that they don’t watch TV, as though it were some sort of accomplishment to be ignorant of the most pervasive popular medium in the world when you deal solely with popular media…
In this country we’ve got BBC 1 for mainstream documentaries (war, politics, poverty etc.), BBC 2 for slightly less mainstream documentaries (economics, business, religion) BBC 4 for all sorts of clever stuff and Channels 4 and 5 for pop culture docs and fringe culture docs. Channel 4 is currently trying to do its bit for cultural harmony by showing a range of docs which demonstrate the wide diversity among the muslim communities of Britain, and how general labels fail to stick time and time again. Though they also commissioned a curry house based sitcom called ‘meet the magoons’ clearly on the sole basis that is contained British Asian people. It was bloody terrible, and was universally panned in a way not seen in this country since the halcyon days of Eldorado…
I realise that US media is somewhat different, but even mainstream entertainment like 24, the Sopranos, 6 feet Under and the rest have their observations about life and their comments about the sort of world we’ve created.
Personally I think spectrology is more important than relativity. I couldn’t give a damn how gravity and motion work, the fact is that they do. Spectres on the other hand remain one of the most unanswered and long-standing questions in human history.
That’s because their advertisers have pushed for bigger audiences, and because, like all media organs, the channel wants as much power as possible.
So what are we talking, 7 hours a week? Surely that’s enough to satisfy even the most ardent television viewer? No?
I just prefer to let people talk themselves into circles when they use it, I’m not much one for spontaneous regurgitation. But it’s such a funny argument because it is so widely used by people who’ve obviously picked it up from (bam badda daaaam) television…
Because Popular Culture in general tends towards stupidity because it is trying to ‘appeal’ to as many people as possible. There will always be exceptions to this rule, so try to be an imaginative exception. I prefer novels to TV shows as my chosen medium for discussing what I want to discuss, but I could use TV, film, visual art (though in Britain at the moment the visual arts are basically an adolescent game of oneupmanship)… Not music or clothes, I’m not too interested in either of them.
Sure, but the public wants what the public gets for the most part because, despite their professed individuality, they aren’t particularly imaginative.
Information about Einstein is of no more use to people trying to live happy lives than the information in a soap opera. ‘Should’ is highly questionnable here…
Blockbuster currently has many wonderful television series you can rent: Band of Brothers,Six Feet Under, Ken Burn’s Civil War and others, hence we avoid the commercials, albeit some during Super Sunday are hilarious.
someoneisatthedoorsaid, “Being British I’ve seen an awful lot of good TV. I won’t hear a word said against British comedy, which I feel is the best in the world (and I’m not talking about Hugh Grant/Rowan Atkinson movies, I mean stand-up, radio, sitcoms, quiz shows, satires…) and I’ve seen so many good documentaries in the last few years that I’ve really become quite impressed by TV as an intellectually artistic medium.”
ok, you are british, I am swedish but I live in teh U.S. You need to understand taht american tv is very different from some european tv. Very Very Very different. the comedy in teh U.S. uses stereotypes as the number one way to get laughs, stereotypes are illusions, . . . thus the idea of a “propogating idiot box.” Also, documentaries are “Only” seen on one "public television channel, and often late at night when most are asleep.
When the usuall american networks like CBS and NBC do “documentaries” they are psudo-everything, they don’t want to step on conservative or liberal people’s toes (because they are a corporation seeking their clients, the watchers approval) and so nothing is “too controversial, or too honest” and so what you get is shit shit and a little more shit.
I agree that tv has the potential to be one of the greatest art mediums and information medium of all time, but in america it is a medium of dog do-do, at least to me. I just cannot laugh at stereotypes and sexism, or get satisfied unbiased information from a business.
I do - it’s mainly for industrial reasons. In the US TV has always and will always live in the shadow of Hollywood - hence why so many of the networks are based in Chicago and New York. In Britain we’ve never had a flourishing cinema culture like in the US before the Paramount Case in 1948. Hence the TV industry has never had a powerful rival seeking to outstrip it at every turn - it is the most popular, highest-revenue form of entertainment in the country.
Now European TV is as bad as American TV…
Most comedy, regardless of location, uses stereotypes. It’s the easiest way to get a laugh out of a general audience. No-one really knows why some people find some comedy funny and other comedy not funny, so they are stabbing in the dark to an extent.
Of course the British sort of invented stand-up comedy, and have a rich history of comedic theatre from which TV has drawn so much. It’s simply part of our traditions in the way that fine cuisine simply isn’t…
These days it’s either that or EVERY TV show trying to up the stakes and prove it can go further than its competitors and predecessors. That sort of dynamic is fine for the pretentious asshole modern artists, but popular documentary makers should have more self-respect.
The fact is that there isn’t a ready audience for in-depth intellectual programmes. Derrida once commented that to say all he’d want to say on TV about Heidegger would require about 90 hours of broadcast time. Now I don’t know if you know much about the TV industry but it’s hard enough to get 3 hours to show your standard 6 episode sitcom, let alone the equivalent of over 4 whole days of TV to talk about a dead German ex-Nazi philosopher…
I don’t think that TV is any better in Italy or Spain. I dunno anything about Belgian TV, but given that country’s general lack of doing anything spectacular (did they invent waffles?, if so I retract my previous statement) it would surprise me…
Like I say, if you don’t like it then make better quality TV programmes. The more of these sorts of programmes the networks get rammed down their throats by irate, motivated TV makers the more likely they are to realise that maybe there is a market after all…
The overriding principle (sadly) is this - it’s easier for smart people to get stupid people to entertain each other than it is for smart people to try to get stupid people to be smarter. This may sound elitist but I couldn’t give a damn…
Between what, what and what? Balance is impossible - Derrida
I ask this as an open question, but a serious one. I’m a great admirer (and critic) of television and hearing comments, especially those from foreigners, is always interesting for me.
someoneisatthedoor, I think Daybreak is requesting not just intellectual television content (which you sort of claim that television offers enough of), but a diverse range of intellectual television content. It seems like maybe you don’t quite see where Daybreak is coming from because he’s requesting programs to fulfill many different intellectual needs, some of which are different from your own intellectual needs. Thus there is a discord between your posts and his posts in the discussion. Mainstream entertainment like 24 and Sopranos, sure they have their “observations about life” which may be “intellectual”, but Daybreak isn’t seeking that sort of intellectual content. He’s requesting, you know, Einstein. The reason why I think you may not quite understand is because you say that information about Einsteinian relativity is no more useful to anyone than information from a soap opera. But the thing is, whether or not it is useful is not the issue (and to Daybreak, maybe such information is more useful). What’s important is intellectual content of all sorts, from science, philosophy, religion, etc. get representation on television. That’s why he’s writing a letter to Book TV to expand their intellectual offerings, while already acknowledging that the current, given television content is intellectual in their own right. What I mean is, current television content may be intellectual, but intellectualism spans a broad range of it’s own which current television content may not completely offer.
