A year without TV(jgc.org)
jgc.org
A year without TV
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2010/02/year-without-tv.html
67 comments
Agreed. It's probably more accurate to say "I've given up just watching anything, and now choose to watch only the TV programs that interest/entertain me".
Which is what a large amount of people already do, who own a TV.
So the fact you own/don't own a TV is irrelevant. You've changed your behavior from 'watch whatever is on', to 'watch things I want to watch'.
Which is what a large amount of people already do, who own a TV.
So the fact you own/don't own a TV is irrelevant. You've changed your behavior from 'watch whatever is on', to 'watch things I want to watch'.
It's also that many anti-TVers are simply anti-TV-ad-ers, though they don't explicitly state so. Most alternate sources of TV content have fewer ads (at least, of the kind that interject into the content) than TV. Beyond that, about the only thing you can complain about is the timing of what's available / what will fit on your DVR, where you can stream from Hulu or expand your computer's HD space as needed.
I'll fess up. I have come to loath the ads.
In particular, now that I have a 18-month-old son, I find myself slowly putting plans into motion to ensure that he won't have to "put up with them", or, if you want real honesty, I don't have to put up with him getting barraged by ads.
(Just having a Netflix subscription is a good start now. They've got a range of stuff on Watch Instantly. I've got a couple of years before it really gets acute, too, and the situation may improve by then even more.)
Oh, training a kid to resist the commercials is part of a standard education now, but going up against industries with 60+ years experience in manipulating toddlers and young kids is something I'm going to try to avoid. Hopefully I can hold them back until it's more of a fair fight.
In particular, now that I have a 18-month-old son, I find myself slowly putting plans into motion to ensure that he won't have to "put up with them", or, if you want real honesty, I don't have to put up with him getting barraged by ads.
(Just having a Netflix subscription is a good start now. They've got a range of stuff on Watch Instantly. I've got a couple of years before it really gets acute, too, and the situation may improve by then even more.)
Oh, training a kid to resist the commercials is part of a standard education now, but going up against industries with 60+ years experience in manipulating toddlers and young kids is something I'm going to try to avoid. Hopefully I can hold them back until it's more of a fair fight.
Yeah may be true. And I agree it's a problem in the ad heavy US, but not as much other places. Also, just get a PVR, start watching the TV show 10 minutes after it started, and skip the ads if they annoy.
There's something you lose if you just go to on demand stuff. TV is an 'event', at a specific time. Kids go to the playground and talk about what they saw on TV last night. I think that's pretty useful socially to have shared experiences like that. I'd hate to be the kid that doesn't have anything to talk about because his parents don't have a TV.
There's something you lose if you just go to on demand stuff. TV is an 'event', at a specific time. Kids go to the playground and talk about what they saw on TV last night. I think that's pretty useful socially to have shared experiences like that. I'd hate to be the kid that doesn't have anything to talk about because his parents don't have a TV.
useful socially to have shared experiences
Overall, I agree, though plenty of arguments can be made for and against this, especially where TV is concerned (given its brain-rotting tendencies). Personally, I grew up on mostly different shows than everyone else anyway, so I only shared experiences with an extremely small group of people, most of whom I'm sure I never met. Bill Nye, Nova, and generally PBS (no cable) were my shows of choice through all of elementary school. I also had the Animaniacs lineup near its beginning, but the vast majority of other kids my age (at my school) didn't get most of it.
Not bragging about my "mental might" here, my parents & older sister just did a good job loading me with things to learn before and during that age, so I had a real intellectual advantage at elementary school. They taught me most things 1-on-1 well before they came up in school. It's definitely put me in a different social circle, as I associate more with geeks than other stereotypes, but I'm happy here. For myself, I'll call not sharing a lot of the "normal" TV experience a positive thing.
Overall, I agree, though plenty of arguments can be made for and against this, especially where TV is concerned (given its brain-rotting tendencies). Personally, I grew up on mostly different shows than everyone else anyway, so I only shared experiences with an extremely small group of people, most of whom I'm sure I never met. Bill Nye, Nova, and generally PBS (no cable) were my shows of choice through all of elementary school. I also had the Animaniacs lineup near its beginning, but the vast majority of other kids my age (at my school) didn't get most of it.
Not bragging about my "mental might" here, my parents & older sister just did a good job loading me with things to learn before and during that age, so I had a real intellectual advantage at elementary school. They taught me most things 1-on-1 well before they came up in school. It's definitely put me in a different social circle, as I associate more with geeks than other stereotypes, but I'm happy here. For myself, I'll call not sharing a lot of the "normal" TV experience a positive thing.
This is somewhat true, and it is the reason I started watching Lost. But I just don't think that a kid (or adult) is going to be that socially backward just because they didn't watch a TV show. I mean, sure--you hang out with people who like the same stuff that you do, so you have stuff to talk about normally. Fine. But it's not like you seek out stuff to do just because--not because it sounds interesting--but because you want to be able to talk about it. Sounds like a desperate way to get friends.
"Which is what a large amount of people already do, who own a TV."
I don't necessarily agree with this statement. I do not believe people are as selective with what they watch if they own a TV (yes, I know, there are always exceptions). When you actively seek out the content when/where/how you want it, as well as probably paying for it in some cases, you are much more selective with what you watch and how much time you spend watching it.
If people own a TV, they are using the hundreds of channels they have to suck up time rather than providing them true entertainment. People who own TVs, in my opinion, are much more likely to channel surf and just find a boring show to fill up their time because they find nothing else to do. This gets even worse with the increasing use of DVRs.
It turns into not filling an interest/entertainment need but rather providing a diversion.
I don't necessarily agree with this statement. I do not believe people are as selective with what they watch if they own a TV (yes, I know, there are always exceptions). When you actively seek out the content when/where/how you want it, as well as probably paying for it in some cases, you are much more selective with what you watch and how much time you spend watching it.
If people own a TV, they are using the hundreds of channels they have to suck up time rather than providing them true entertainment. People who own TVs, in my opinion, are much more likely to channel surf and just find a boring show to fill up their time because they find nothing else to do. This gets even worse with the increasing use of DVRs.
It turns into not filling an interest/entertainment need but rather providing a diversion.
... Just like the web. If anything, the web is worse if you're susceptible to this sort of time wasting brain rot addiction.
I'd say it's best to cure the problem (If you have one) than to proclaim that TV is bad.
The same sort of personality could waste time reading the dictionary or an encyclopedia. Not because they want to lookup something, just because they're bored. But that doesn't mean books are bad.
I'd say it's best to cure the problem (If you have one) than to proclaim that TV is bad.
The same sort of personality could waste time reading the dictionary or an encyclopedia. Not because they want to lookup something, just because they're bored. But that doesn't mean books are bad.
Those of us who really don't watch TV don't generally feel inclined to write our accounts down.
Take me for example. After my son was born 5 years ago we got busy and decided that we were going to not be connected. My wife connected the TV for a few days to watch Obama win. Then disconnected it since.
My wife rents movies from Netflix. We get movies from the library for my son. (He probably watches about 6-8 hours a week.) We bought a handful of DVDs. But on the average day the (disconnected) TV doesn't even get turned on for that. And the last made for TV show I'm aware of in the house was when my wife decided to watch Weeds.
But to me it is a non-story. I simply don't feel the need to turn the TV on and I don't seek the content out in any other media. I simply have a full life and TV isn't part of it. To such an extent that the non-presence of TV isn't a story for me, it is simply a fact of life.
Take me for example. After my son was born 5 years ago we got busy and decided that we were going to not be connected. My wife connected the TV for a few days to watch Obama win. Then disconnected it since.
My wife rents movies from Netflix. We get movies from the library for my son. (He probably watches about 6-8 hours a week.) We bought a handful of DVDs. But on the average day the (disconnected) TV doesn't even get turned on for that. And the last made for TV show I'm aware of in the house was when my wife decided to watch Weeds.
But to me it is a non-story. I simply don't feel the need to turn the TV on and I don't seek the content out in any other media. I simply have a full life and TV isn't part of it. To such an extent that the non-presence of TV isn't a story for me, it is simply a fact of life.
TV is a distribution channel funded by advertisers - when you're making a show for TV, your economic reality is that you survive by proving that you're delivering eyeballs to advertisers. When you create content for iTunes, the economic reality is that you're creating content that people explicitly choose to buy. I would imagine that this will lead to "better" content on the whole.
Yes, we fall in the group of "alternate distribution channel". We have a TV for movies, no cable. I occasionally watch the last part of football games on it. We do occasionally get TV shows via Netflix, and there's a couple of shows I'll watch online.
We just don't have time to use a full subscription. It's not like we're sitting at home staring at the walls wishing we had cable. So if we paid for it, we'd either not use it (waste of money), or stop doing something we're already doing--which would either be something we like already, or needs to be done. So either way, it just doesn't seem like a good idea.
We just don't have time to use a full subscription. It's not like we're sitting at home staring at the walls wishing we had cable. So if we paid for it, we'd either not use it (waste of money), or stop doing something we're already doing--which would either be something we like already, or needs to be done. So either way, it just doesn't seem like a good idea.
I agree to an extent. The author should not have been critical of one show and praiseworthy of another. TV is great for winding down and not having to think much. Both shows fill that capacity in a lot of respects.
The one glaring omission in this post is the commercials. I absolutely can't stand commercials. 2 minutes of commercials for 5 minutes of actual show? Give me a break. That is the only reason why I don't watch TV.
When I was a kid growing up in the 1950s, I thought I was being deprived because my immigrant parents had a thing about not getting a TV in the house. This actually forced me to grow up as an avid reader, which I realized only years later proved a great long-term benefit.
Back then (and into the 60s and 70s), TV was wholesome enough but highly limited: mainly three networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) that gave us news, variety shows, and old style sitcoms such as the Beverly Hillbillies and a few local UHF stations that mainly featured old movie reruns. Apart from the "all-night" UHF station, most stations signed off by midnight and then went silent for the night, using an "Indian" image or some equivalent to alert viewers to the fact that they were off the air. I would say, throughout that entire period, that TV was for me what I would call a pleasant time-killer. I wouldn't watch that much of it but, after working like a fiend all week doing my studies and working odd jobs to pay my tuition, it was pretty relaxing to settle back into a sofa and just passively watch something - an old movie, a sports event, a stupid comedy, or whatever - without any demands being made upon me. That was the appeal: a mostly mindless diversion with occasional drama when some important news event captured the nation's fancy (e.g., the Apollo 13 drama).
Today, with cable and with digital channels, TV has far more variety with its countless channels and its ubiquitous round-the-clock presence but it remains for me a mostly mindless sinkhole for my time whenever I get caught up watching it, which is not too often. Network news has been largely displaced by wall-to-wall coverage by cable networks of whatever story it is they want to pound to death, with an emphasis on "reality" stories (e.g., what is today's tidbit of information that we can add to the story of the missing teenager who vanished in the Caribbean?). Reality-TV formats are everywhere, creating voyeuristic opportunities to watch people interacting with one another in this or that setting and featuring really nothing more than the personalities of the participants as points of interest. All this and more is for me little more than the "vast wasteland" that Newton Minnow called TV back in the 1960s, with the quality of programming having settled in at a level of almost mind-numbing banality.
That said, TV is nothing more than a medium and will always feature this or that item that is indeed interesting or stimulating. It just is not a good habit to find oneself continually caught up in it. Used selectively, it can be just fine for occasional entertainment or for particular items of news or commentary. Not normally very profitable but nothing to be too critical about either.
Back then (and into the 60s and 70s), TV was wholesome enough but highly limited: mainly three networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) that gave us news, variety shows, and old style sitcoms such as the Beverly Hillbillies and a few local UHF stations that mainly featured old movie reruns. Apart from the "all-night" UHF station, most stations signed off by midnight and then went silent for the night, using an "Indian" image or some equivalent to alert viewers to the fact that they were off the air. I would say, throughout that entire period, that TV was for me what I would call a pleasant time-killer. I wouldn't watch that much of it but, after working like a fiend all week doing my studies and working odd jobs to pay my tuition, it was pretty relaxing to settle back into a sofa and just passively watch something - an old movie, a sports event, a stupid comedy, or whatever - without any demands being made upon me. That was the appeal: a mostly mindless diversion with occasional drama when some important news event captured the nation's fancy (e.g., the Apollo 13 drama).
Today, with cable and with digital channels, TV has far more variety with its countless channels and its ubiquitous round-the-clock presence but it remains for me a mostly mindless sinkhole for my time whenever I get caught up watching it, which is not too often. Network news has been largely displaced by wall-to-wall coverage by cable networks of whatever story it is they want to pound to death, with an emphasis on "reality" stories (e.g., what is today's tidbit of information that we can add to the story of the missing teenager who vanished in the Caribbean?). Reality-TV formats are everywhere, creating voyeuristic opportunities to watch people interacting with one another in this or that setting and featuring really nothing more than the personalities of the participants as points of interest. All this and more is for me little more than the "vast wasteland" that Newton Minnow called TV back in the 1960s, with the quality of programming having settled in at a level of almost mind-numbing banality.
That said, TV is nothing more than a medium and will always feature this or that item that is indeed interesting or stimulating. It just is not a good habit to find oneself continually caught up in it. Used selectively, it can be just fine for occasional entertainment or for particular items of news or commentary. Not normally very profitable but nothing to be too critical about either.
This reminds me distinctly of this onion article: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694
It's great that he doesn't watch television (except that he does, he just gets it through an alternate channel and is more selective of what he watches) but he puts forth no interesting discussion about the merits thereof. He does mention copyright issues, but only to say that he doesn't violate copyright because it's too much work. He again doesn't make any discussion points on the matter.
It's great that he doesn't watch television (except that he does, he just gets it through an alternate channel and is more selective of what he watches) but he puts forth no interesting discussion about the merits thereof. He does mention copyright issues, but only to say that he doesn't violate copyright because it's too much work. He again doesn't make any discussion points on the matter.
It's odd that it reminds you of that. Is me mentioning this once on my blog your measure of 'constantly'?
People who don't watch TV do tend to mention it at every opportunity. But they likely watch youtube vids, interviews, webcasts etc.
So it's like someone constantly going on about how they haven't even owned a car for 5 years! And forgetting to mention they have a 4x4 pickup truck now.
So it's like someone constantly going on about how they haven't even owned a car for 5 years! And forgetting to mention they have a 4x4 pickup truck now.
I don't own a car :-)
But I do drive one. I use http://streetcar.co.uk/
But I do drive one. I use http://streetcar.co.uk/
People who don't watch TV do tend to mention it at every opportunity.
Most of those opportunities are probably situations when the topic of conversation has already turned to television and they are politely excusing their lack of participation.
In my experience, the topic rarely comes up. My guess is most people who would care are off watching TV rather than socializing.
Most of those opportunities are probably situations when the topic of conversation has already turned to television and they are politely excusing their lack of participation.
In my experience, the topic rarely comes up. My guess is most people who would care are off watching TV rather than socializing.
I think knowing about popular culture is actually quite valuable. Especially if you're trying to sell to end users as many of us here are.
>> "In my experience most people who don't watch much TV are too busy doing other things to bother bragging about it."
Like checking reddit, watching youtube vids, laughing at lolcats? ;)
>> "In my experience most people who don't watch much TV are too busy doing other things to bother bragging about it."
Like checking reddit, watching youtube vids, laughing at lolcats? ;)
Like:
At work, at the gym, playing tennis, basketball, volleyball, at rehearsal, at a concert, at the opera, at a movie, at the bar, dancing at a club, snowboarding, making dinner, sharing dinner, studying, tutoring, coding, writing, painting, hiking, chatting, fucking. I have active friends.
At work, at the gym, playing tennis, basketball, volleyball, at rehearsal, at a concert, at the opera, at a movie, at the bar, dancing at a club, snowboarding, making dinner, sharing dinner, studying, tutoring, coding, writing, painting, hiking, chatting, fucking. I have active friends.
I've gone my entire life without TV, at least on a regular basis; I've visited friends with TVs, had roommates with TVs, etc, but never have I or my immediately family owned one, and even my roommates with TVs didn't watch much.
I resented it a bit when I was a kid, since my friends would talk about shows they watched that I couldn't. By the time I hit my teens I had realized what a waste of time it is, though, and I haven't wanted one since.
I occasionally watch a show or clips online, usually when my girlfriend wants to; there are a few shows that she likes. I do watch movies. I will also occasionally watch the Daily Show or something similar online.
Of course, as time wasting and mind-dulling as a lot of TV is, I find that I waste as much or more on the internet, so I'm not sure it's a net positive. The problem is, I can almost always find content that interests me on the internet, that is even plausibly useful, so it's hard to get myself away from it. The social aspect of posting to the internet and getting comments, feedback, upvotes, and the like also helps to suck me in.
On the whole, I think a lot of the reason I don't like much of TV is the ads and the mass-market homogenization. Some niche content appeals to me, so I tend to get a lot more out of internet videos that would never be popular enough to be on TV (people swapping juggling videos online, small foreign productions that will likely never make it to the US like the IT Crowd, stuff like that). As TV and the internet converges, with more channels added, premium channels that are free of ads, and so on, it might be that more of the "TV" content will appeal to me, but for now, I just don't have much interest in a lot of the content that is out there.
I resented it a bit when I was a kid, since my friends would talk about shows they watched that I couldn't. By the time I hit my teens I had realized what a waste of time it is, though, and I haven't wanted one since.
I occasionally watch a show or clips online, usually when my girlfriend wants to; there are a few shows that she likes. I do watch movies. I will also occasionally watch the Daily Show or something similar online.
Of course, as time wasting and mind-dulling as a lot of TV is, I find that I waste as much or more on the internet, so I'm not sure it's a net positive. The problem is, I can almost always find content that interests me on the internet, that is even plausibly useful, so it's hard to get myself away from it. The social aspect of posting to the internet and getting comments, feedback, upvotes, and the like also helps to suck me in.
On the whole, I think a lot of the reason I don't like much of TV is the ads and the mass-market homogenization. Some niche content appeals to me, so I tend to get a lot more out of internet videos that would never be popular enough to be on TV (people swapping juggling videos online, small foreign productions that will likely never make it to the US like the IT Crowd, stuff like that). As TV and the internet converges, with more channels added, premium channels that are free of ads, and so on, it might be that more of the "TV" content will appeal to me, but for now, I just don't have much interest in a lot of the content that is out there.
I can never read articles such as these and shake the author's holier than thou attitude toward tv and tv watchers.
To say you don't watch TV now is not the same as saying it twenty years ago. I mean, how different really is it to watch an episode of so you think you can dance and read half the crap that makes it to the front of reddit nowadays? how different is it to watch people trying to dance than it is to watch a cat do something "funny" or some stupid fffuuu cartoon?
In the past, when people said they didn't watch TV it meant they were living a certain lifestyle. With the advent of the internet, that just doesn't apply anymore.
Perhaps it is a personal failure, but these articles always reek of, look at me, yet another thing I use to make myself feel better than other people.
And no, this isn't me lashing out because I watch hours and hours of TV.
To say you don't watch TV now is not the same as saying it twenty years ago. I mean, how different really is it to watch an episode of so you think you can dance and read half the crap that makes it to the front of reddit nowadays? how different is it to watch people trying to dance than it is to watch a cat do something "funny" or some stupid fffuuu cartoon?
In the past, when people said they didn't watch TV it meant they were living a certain lifestyle. With the advent of the internet, that just doesn't apply anymore.
Perhaps it is a personal failure, but these articles always reek of, look at me, yet another thing I use to make myself feel better than other people.
And no, this isn't me lashing out because I watch hours and hours of TV.
About 20 years. I don't miss it at all. In fact, I can't recommend it highly enough.
I'm at 6 years now. I spend much more time doing (fun and creative) things with my son and when he's asleep - I have more time to work on side projects.
I do consume some TV though but through the BBC iPlayer which we get in the UK. its a flash based player available on the web, but as I have to access through my Mac - I normally end up getting distracted and just browsing the web instead.
I do consume some TV though but through the BBC iPlayer which we get in the UK. its a flash based player available on the web, but as I have to access through my Mac - I normally end up getting distracted and just browsing the web instead.
About 13 years--on moving out of my parents, to college. Never missed it a single minute.
completing 15.
> It was a wonderful reminder of why I don't have a TV.
Amen. So much of TV programming is a gas that expands to fill the airwaves - and economic pressures these days push that content toward low-quality dreck that has little to recommend it other than the fact that it earns a bit more in ad revenue than it costs to produce (I'm looking at you, reality TV).
The issue, it seems to me, is not one of quitting TV per se but of quitting the business model in which you pay a flat monthly rate for a bundle of channels. Since you've already paid for it and since it's there anyway, it's easy to rationalize and get used to the idea of sitting down and channel surfing.
Aside from being a major time suck, this also tends to normalize the idea of spending hours watching rubbish that literally makes you dumber.
It's not until you make a sharp break from that kind of exposure that you start to notice just how bizarre and dysfunctional it all is.
We have a TV, but don't receive any channels - by cable, satellite or aerial - and haven't for about a decade. We do tend to come across high quality TV shows from time to time - mostly on the recommendation of friends whose taste we trust - and if we really like a show, we'll buy it on DVD. That way we get to watch it in sequence, without commercial interruptions, whenever we feel like it.
If a show is not good enough to warrant repeat viewings, it's not good enough to buy.
Amen. So much of TV programming is a gas that expands to fill the airwaves - and economic pressures these days push that content toward low-quality dreck that has little to recommend it other than the fact that it earns a bit more in ad revenue than it costs to produce (I'm looking at you, reality TV).
The issue, it seems to me, is not one of quitting TV per se but of quitting the business model in which you pay a flat monthly rate for a bundle of channels. Since you've already paid for it and since it's there anyway, it's easy to rationalize and get used to the idea of sitting down and channel surfing.
Aside from being a major time suck, this also tends to normalize the idea of spending hours watching rubbish that literally makes you dumber.
It's not until you make a sharp break from that kind of exposure that you start to notice just how bizarre and dysfunctional it all is.
We have a TV, but don't receive any channels - by cable, satellite or aerial - and haven't for about a decade. We do tend to come across high quality TV shows from time to time - mostly on the recommendation of friends whose taste we trust - and if we really like a show, we'll buy it on DVD. That way we get to watch it in sequence, without commercial interruptions, whenever we feel like it.
If a show is not good enough to warrant repeat viewings, it's not good enough to buy.
I would guess that the bigger trend is a switch from broadcasting to on demand usage of video content. Broadcasting is really only better than on demand video in very specific and rare circumstances. But until a few years ago cheap (free) and convenient on demand video was not available. The only (cheap) way to get video was broadcasting. My guess would be that in the next ten to twenty years broadcasting video will shrink while on demand video will grow.
I was TV-less for several years-long periods (starting when I lived overseas in a non-English-speaking country). It's actually easier to do now, thanks to the loads of other time-wasting alternatives, such as Web video, Web surfing, and mobile apps.
Agreed. I don't think many people who proclaim how they haven't owned a TV for years understand the irony - they've switched one activity for an even dumber activity.
It's been years for me. Occasionally I find myself watching TV in a hotel or at a friend's house or bar or some such. What amazes me is not how bad TV is, but how good it is. It's enjoyable, stimulating, highly pleasant distraction. There's some really, really good shows. It's easier to zone out with than reading a book or playing a difficult game. Really, TV is pretty good stuff at what it does.
Just - my long term goals don't jive with TV. I want my distraction/relaxation to also further my social life, learning, or industriousness. So I'll play difficult games that force lots of thinking (Civilization IV on one of the top three difficulties, online Risk over at Conquer Club, Darklands with an emulator), or I'll read a book, or I'll go to a museum, or I'll watch TED talks, or read Hacker News, or I'll click around in Wikipedia to learn more of different philosophies and eras of history, or I'll do something social with someone, or just go sit in nature or a park or a place I can be out amongst people.
These distract, stimulate, and relax to different degrees, but one of them should get the job done at any given time, and ideally my distraction/relaxation/stimulation also furthers one of my other goals. I'm amazed at how good TV is - and that's what scares me about it, because it doesn't further my other goals at all.
Just - my long term goals don't jive with TV. I want my distraction/relaxation to also further my social life, learning, or industriousness. So I'll play difficult games that force lots of thinking (Civilization IV on one of the top three difficulties, online Risk over at Conquer Club, Darklands with an emulator), or I'll read a book, or I'll go to a museum, or I'll watch TED talks, or read Hacker News, or I'll click around in Wikipedia to learn more of different philosophies and eras of history, or I'll do something social with someone, or just go sit in nature or a park or a place I can be out amongst people.
These distract, stimulate, and relax to different degrees, but one of them should get the job done at any given time, and ideally my distraction/relaxation/stimulation also furthers one of my other goals. I'm amazed at how good TV is - and that's what scares me about it, because it doesn't further my other goals at all.
What amazes me is not how bad TV is, but how good it is.
I'm glad to hear this perspective here. Let me pose a question: What exactly makes watching a thoughtful, well-crafted drama (for instance, The Wire) on television any less worthy than reading a good back or going to watch a play?
I think there's a lot of unfortunate knee-jerk bias against TV.
I'm glad to hear this perspective here. Let me pose a question: What exactly makes watching a thoughtful, well-crafted drama (for instance, The Wire) on television any less worthy than reading a good back or going to watch a play?
I think there's a lot of unfortunate knee-jerk bias against TV.
I think you are posing the wrong question.
TV is not a particular series; it doesn't follow that people who hate TV must hate The Wire. TV as a whole, as a linear, inconvenient way of displaying content which doesn't allow an easy way to filter out the crap, is what it's being biased against.
TV is not a particular series; it doesn't follow that people who hate TV must hate The Wire. TV as a whole, as a linear, inconvenient way of displaying content which doesn't allow an easy way to filter out the crap, is what it's being biased against.
> What exactly makes watching a thoughtful, well-crafted drama (for instance, The Wire) on television any less worthy than reading a good back or going to watch a play?
Great question. A few points:
1. A play or movie has a start and end time that is reasonably compressed - you watch Memento or Gattaca, it takes you two hours, you sit and think about it afterwards for a while, and it's done. A high quality program will run for many seasons, taking 30 minutes to an hour of your life times X weeks for however long. Also, being not as compressed, the average quality tends to be lower (with some exceptions of very good programming, though it's rare).
2. Very easy to just keep watching after the high quality program ends, watching the next thing that comes on. Very, very easy to do that. My housemate last year had a TV hooked to a DVD player and Nintendo Wii for parties, but no channels. I did buy him a box set of Planet Earth for his birthday after seeing some of it at a friend's house. But it's like, put on the DVD, watch it, put it away, done. No getting sucked in.
3. Garbage books are no good either - I tend to read books that give me a perspective on another culture (Koda Rohan, Eiji Yoshikawa, or Genji for Japan, for instance), or read business books, technical books, history, economics, finance, etc. I'd classify a lot of fiction as similarly mindlessly-distracting-without-growth too. That's fine for what it is, but I'd rather get the enjoyment while also developing as a person, asking myself tough questions, getting more in touch with another culture, gaining expertise, and so on.
But sure, there's some good TV. I used to go do cardio at the gym whenever a sports match was on that I wanted to watch, for instance, because they had a bunch of TVs, and I'd go during the fifth inning or halftime and watch the end of the game. I might buy a boxed set of DVDs and have a weekend marathon at my place sometime if a show is really good, insightful, and develops the character.
Still, I don't watch television regularly because I think I'll have a healthier, happier, more productive life where I reach more of my goals if it's not part of my life. Perhaps some people have knee jerk anti-TV reactions as a signaling mechanism that they're "unplugged", but that's not it in my case. Some TV is really cool. I watched some Top Gear at one of my English friend's flats in London, and it's just really enjoyable. The question was still - wait, is this what I should be doing with my time? Couldn't I be enjoying myself while also learning, or producing something, or connecting more deeply with someone I like? It's a keenly thought out thing that I made a conscious decision about a long time, but I'm not one of those horrible anti-TV preachy people. If it serves a role in a person's life and they're happy with its effect, then it's a good thing for them.
Great question. A few points:
1. A play or movie has a start and end time that is reasonably compressed - you watch Memento or Gattaca, it takes you two hours, you sit and think about it afterwards for a while, and it's done. A high quality program will run for many seasons, taking 30 minutes to an hour of your life times X weeks for however long. Also, being not as compressed, the average quality tends to be lower (with some exceptions of very good programming, though it's rare).
2. Very easy to just keep watching after the high quality program ends, watching the next thing that comes on. Very, very easy to do that. My housemate last year had a TV hooked to a DVD player and Nintendo Wii for parties, but no channels. I did buy him a box set of Planet Earth for his birthday after seeing some of it at a friend's house. But it's like, put on the DVD, watch it, put it away, done. No getting sucked in.
3. Garbage books are no good either - I tend to read books that give me a perspective on another culture (Koda Rohan, Eiji Yoshikawa, or Genji for Japan, for instance), or read business books, technical books, history, economics, finance, etc. I'd classify a lot of fiction as similarly mindlessly-distracting-without-growth too. That's fine for what it is, but I'd rather get the enjoyment while also developing as a person, asking myself tough questions, getting more in touch with another culture, gaining expertise, and so on.
But sure, there's some good TV. I used to go do cardio at the gym whenever a sports match was on that I wanted to watch, for instance, because they had a bunch of TVs, and I'd go during the fifth inning or halftime and watch the end of the game. I might buy a boxed set of DVDs and have a weekend marathon at my place sometime if a show is really good, insightful, and develops the character.
Still, I don't watch television regularly because I think I'll have a healthier, happier, more productive life where I reach more of my goals if it's not part of my life. Perhaps some people have knee jerk anti-TV reactions as a signaling mechanism that they're "unplugged", but that's not it in my case. Some TV is really cool. I watched some Top Gear at one of my English friend's flats in London, and it's just really enjoyable. The question was still - wait, is this what I should be doing with my time? Couldn't I be enjoying myself while also learning, or producing something, or connecting more deeply with someone I like? It's a keenly thought out thing that I made a conscious decision about a long time, but I'm not one of those horrible anti-TV preachy people. If it serves a role in a person's life and they're happy with its effect, then it's a good thing for them.
What's amazed me as my kids are growing up is how easily they learn from TV. Something about the medium just is able to stick stuff into their heads like nothing else. I'm talking about educational stuff at the moment (which is the majority of what they watch), but obviously there's plenty of things to learn from all programming, and not all of the lessons are exactly what you want to be teaching.
If you like online Risk try http://www.kdice.com ! It is a nearly perfect distillation of the game mechanics of Risk into a game that takes 15 minutes to play. It's also one of the largest public Google Web Toolkit sites. My username is kevin143 on kdice.
When I stopped watching TV on a regular basis about a decade ago the biggest thing I noticed was how peaceful and relaxing a quiet room can be. Getting rid of this constant fast paced grind that is linear TV can really be a load off your mind. It's OK to just sit down in a comfy chair and do absolutely nothing other than enjoy your own thoughts. When I visit a friend's house who is a believer in TV as "background noise" it actually makes me uncomfortable. I feel like my brain is being pulled in a dozen different directions at once and it's hard to focus with the distractions. I think most people would benefit from taking breaks from TV so they don't get totally de-sensitized to the effect it's having on them.
What I've noticed is that programs have gotten more...in-your-face, loud, obnoxious. Kids cartoons now are so frenzied as to be seemingly seizure-inducing. More mainstream fare is more deliberately attention getting. Many many shows are based on public humiliation now, which just completely puzzles me. Obviously it sells very well, but I just don't see the point.
Nothing worse than hollier than thou high and mighty "TV is dumb and for the idiot masses".
If you actually learnt how to use a TV guide, and decided to watch only programs that interest you, you might have a different view point.
And how can you not even mention "micro men" from the BBC which was a fantastic look at the 80s home computer revolution. How can you not rate Newsnight? Question time?
Will the next meme be "I haven't even been connected to the internet for a year! The internet is full of rubbish and I don't miss it one bit"?
If you actually learnt how to use a TV guide, and decided to watch only programs that interest you, you might have a different view point.
And how can you not even mention "micro men" from the BBC which was a fantastic look at the 80s home computer revolution. How can you not rate Newsnight? Question time?
Will the next meme be "I haven't even been connected to the internet for a year! The internet is full of rubbish and I don't miss it one bit"?
Yes, I did watch Micro Men. That was great. Downloaded it on the iPlayer Desktop and watched it on a long flight to the US.
I've watched Newsnight twice in the last year. I've never watched Question Time. Is it good?
Mostly, I feel I don't need to learn to use a TV guide because the people around me are constantly saying 'Did you see X?'. They are doing the filtering for me.
I've watched Newsnight twice in the last year. I've never watched Question Time. Is it good?
Mostly, I feel I don't need to learn to use a TV guide because the people around me are constantly saying 'Did you see X?'. They are doing the filtering for me.
Fair enough. Maybe I was harsh. I just hate the implication that TV is for dumb idiots.
I would say if we took the content on the web, and compared it with the content on TV, the web would not come out of the comparison well at all.
And yes, if you're interested in politics,news,world issues,etc Question Time is good.
There's 100s of other TV shows that are of fantastic quality and well worth watching. QI springs to mind for example (Stephen Fry).
I would say if we took the content on the web, and compared it with the content on TV, the web would not come out of the comparison well at all.
And yes, if you're interested in politics,news,world issues,etc Question Time is good.
There's 100s of other TV shows that are of fantastic quality and well worth watching. QI springs to mind for example (Stephen Fry).
Oh, you lucky so-and-sos who get to watch Only Connect on BBC Four. There is no legal (or even expedient) way for me to watch it here in the USA. Then again, we don't pay for a TV license...
Yeah it's a whole other world. If I was in the US, I probably wouldn't watch TV either. But I'd also quickly go insane.
I wish I could give up web surfing for a year.
Author is clearly not a sports fan - it's the only reason I have a TV, a PVR, a subscription to innumerable channels (because here in Canada you need to sub to many 'basic' channels to receive any of the sports-specific channels) etc.
Ugh, just made me realize how much I spend just to watch sports - but that desire is not going anywhere and I'll continue to do so.
Ugh, just made me realize how much I spend just to watch sports - but that desire is not going anywhere and I'll continue to do so.
As an avid console gamer, I own a nice TV, but I have had the same "hotel TV" experience. I was at PyCon in Chicago last year, and the hotel rooms had these gorgeous flat panel televisions. In a flash, I realized that I had absolutely no idea what to do with the one in my room, since it didn't have a game console attached to it. Like Mr. JGC, I watch some things via Hulu, Netflix or on DVD, but I haven't dealt with cable/network programming & commercials for years.
Worse than news were the commercials. I think it was George Carlin who said, "If you want to see how screwed up our country is, just turn the TV on for five minutes sometime, and watch only commercials." I don't mind the occasional ad on Hulu since they're far less frequent. I often find myself feeling exhausted after 5 minutes of commercials on television--it feels like nothing so much as being buffeted from all angles.
Worse than news were the commercials. I think it was George Carlin who said, "If you want to see how screwed up our country is, just turn the TV on for five minutes sometime, and watch only commercials." I don't mind the occasional ad on Hulu since they're far less frequent. I often find myself feeling exhausted after 5 minutes of commercials on television--it feels like nothing so much as being buffeted from all angles.
I gave up on TV and now just watch cat videos on YouTube. Much better.
I stopped watching TV in early 2008. My TV sat for over six months without being turned on. I didn't download, buy, or watch television content online either. My first return back to TV was so I could watch coverage of the DNC and RNC during the election. Late that fall / early winter, I started meeting friends in sports bars to watch KU football and basketball games.
After I stopped watching television, I found that I no longer want to be invested in series programming. Shows that I had watched for years, I stopped watching and I have not picked back up (House was one of my favorites). There are several series that I keep getting told that I should watch (Lost, Heroes, ...) but I just seem them as big chunks of wasted time now. In 2009 I returned to watching TV but I find that I turn on channels like Adult Swim at night and it's more background noise while I'm online.
After I stopped watching television, I found that I no longer want to be invested in series programming. Shows that I had watched for years, I stopped watching and I have not picked back up (House was one of my favorites). There are several series that I keep getting told that I should watch (Lost, Heroes, ...) but I just seem them as big chunks of wasted time now. In 2009 I returned to watching TV but I find that I turn on channels like Adult Swim at night and it's more background noise while I'm online.
I haven't had a TV for three years. The hardest part was giving up Lost in Season Two. I feel lost when friends talk about "The Wire", "Weeds", "24" but I'd rather live vicariously through my own life. I don't even Hulu. I almost feel like TV is a treadmill - just keeping up with show plot trajectories.
Getting rid of a TV isn't a magic solution for life's problems. It doesn't make you more social. It doesn't make you focus on your big projects though. You can easily whittle away free time surfing on your iPhone on your couch (as I do).
I recently saw a two-year old boy whose parents had been raising without TV. They've succumbed. Thomas the Train. Previously, without TV, he would literally cry on the floor for 20 min. straight - because what the heck do small kids do if the parents can't distract them with the real opiate of the masses, in Karl Marx parlance.
Getting rid of a TV isn't a magic solution for life's problems. It doesn't make you more social. It doesn't make you focus on your big projects though. You can easily whittle away free time surfing on your iPhone on your couch (as I do).
I recently saw a two-year old boy whose parents had been raising without TV. They've succumbed. Thomas the Train. Previously, without TV, he would literally cry on the floor for 20 min. straight - because what the heck do small kids do if the parents can't distract them with the real opiate of the masses, in Karl Marx parlance.
There is a point that I don't see mentioned in any other comments, maybe because it applies only in my country (Italy).
The main benefit of not watching TV here is that you avoid the relentless, hidden or explicit, endorsement of our right-wing party and the consequent manipulation of reality.
Happens here in USA all the time.
For right-wing distortion of reality: Fox News
For Left-wing distortion of reality: MSNBC
CNN is a twitter feed. CNN is about news the same way MTV is about music (which is very little, if at all)
Its not news, its a fucking drama.
Thankfully I disconnected my cable TV service since last election.
For right-wing distortion of reality: Fox News
For Left-wing distortion of reality: MSNBC
CNN is a twitter feed. CNN is about news the same way MTV is about music (which is very little, if at all)
Its not news, its a fucking drama.
Thankfully I disconnected my cable TV service since last election.
i watch a handful of tv shows a week through hulu. it's enormously better than when i watched shows on tv. i watch exactly what i want to see when i want to see it. i feel like my brain is destroyed less by not succumbing to additional crap.
also, i read books on my computer. i'm far more likely to read at night (or whenever i want to procrastinate) than watch shows (i don't play an appreciable amount of computer games). the nice thing about reading, other than the story arcs, creativity and writing being far superior to tv, is that it's easier to stop when my eyes and brain get tired and fall asleep.
also, i read books on my computer. i'm far more likely to read at night (or whenever i want to procrastinate) than watch shows (i don't play an appreciable amount of computer games). the nice thing about reading, other than the story arcs, creativity and writing being far superior to tv, is that it's easier to stop when my eyes and brain get tired and fall asleep.
15 years and counting (without a TV).
I get to see some TV when I visit my parents (two weeks a year) but that's it. I've come to think of TV watching as something you do on Holiday when you are just lazing around anyway. The only time I miss it is World Cup Football time.
All that said, I suspect the web can waste more time than the TV, if you are not aware of it. Timing web usage (or alternatively doing without the web for a month or so) can be very educational.
From the article,
"It was only by being away from TV for so long that I saw it like that."
Replace TV with internet ...
I get to see some TV when I visit my parents (two weeks a year) but that's it. I've come to think of TV watching as something you do on Holiday when you are just lazing around anyway. The only time I miss it is World Cup Football time.
All that said, I suspect the web can waste more time than the TV, if you are not aware of it. Timing web usage (or alternatively doing without the web for a month or so) can be very educational.
From the article,
"It was only by being away from TV for so long that I saw it like that."
Replace TV with internet ...
I've been about a year (super-senior in college, now), and it would be longer without roommates. Haven't missed it; Hulu has most of what I'm interested in, and I don't have any interest at all in following what's new on TV. Others, I tend to borrow seasons from friends (which is MUCH easier at college, I'll grant, but still).
It's amazing just how noisy TV is. DVDs / Hulu of the same show are way nicer to watch, because 1/3 of your time (or more) isn't spent watching / ignoring ads.
It's amazing just how noisy TV is. DVDs / Hulu of the same show are way nicer to watch, because 1/3 of your time (or more) isn't spent watching / ignoring ads.
I'd recommend get_iplayer for UK-based geeks who want to have a bit more control over when and how they watch stuff from the BBC iPlayer.
http://linuxcentre.net/iplayer
It's a command line PVR. There's a surprising amount of good stuff on at odd times on BBC Four, like the two science programs he mentioned for example.
It's one more step away from having to watch TV on its schedule and its terms.
http://linuxcentre.net/iplayer
It's a command line PVR. There's a surprising amount of good stuff on at odd times on BBC Four, like the two science programs he mentioned for example.
It's one more step away from having to watch TV on its schedule and its terms.
I think he missed the point to having a tv in this.
Why would you settle to watch your episodes of 24 on a laptop when you have a 42" tv? Your settling for less.
I will agree though I do not like cable tv at all I have not watched it in a couple of months (ever since I signed up for netflix). I however do love my 42" tv. I play games and watch movies ect.
Just because you have a tv does not mean you have to watch cable.
Why would you settle to watch your episodes of 24 on a laptop when you have a 42" tv? Your settling for less.
I will agree though I do not like cable tv at all I have not watched it in a couple of months (ever since I signed up for netflix). I however do love my 42" tv. I play games and watch movies ect.
Just because you have a tv does not mean you have to watch cable.
If he had a TV he'd have to pay the license fee.
I haven't owned a TV in a few years. I used to watch TV stuff online, but rarely do so now. Every now and again, I'd watch an entire show over a weekend, but then nothing for the next month or two. The only TV-like activity I do still engage in is gaming, though thats irregular too (ie obsessively for a month and then not at all for three or so).
My problem with TV is that I turn it on and it just seems to drain my attention. What's more, it actually makes me less creative.
i've probably not had cable more then i have for most of my adult life. I've gone years without watching TV in my house but in recent years with the advent of hulu and other online streaming services, there really no need to pay comcast (or whomever) $100+ a month for something you can get for the cost of an internet connection.
why not hook the computer up to the tv though?
It's been 13 years for me. The funny thing is I couldn't even name a friend from my 'hood that has a TV these days. Turntables? Sure. But a TV? That's so 20th century. Expect a comeback when they're retro and cool.
Talking about not having TV is a way to feel superior.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/26/28-not-having-a-t...
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/26/28-not-having-a-t...
Even in the comments! Love it. "Well, I haven't had a TV in..."
A little over a year for me. Don't miss it at all. A lot of free time in my hands - spending the time reading copious amount of books.
Yes, this will ward off the demons. I am 35 and was raised in a home without a single TV so I know this. I am relatively demon-free to this day.
Ridiculing So You Think You Can Dance for being shallow and pointless while lauding 24 which is filled with completely fake scenes and violence is odd. While the "reality" part of SYTYCD is a little silly, the people on the show are actually doing something amazingly hard in front of quite a few people with no props or fake explosions to manipulate your emotions. And I say this with no real affinity to either show.
In the end, fine, say you've given up TV. But really you've only given up the distribution channel and you have chosen to watch things you like when you like them. But calling one show rubbish and using it as an example of why TV in toto is bad starts to sound like a matter of taste to me. Just because you don't like something does not mean it sucks.