Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Media Television

Youth Spend More Time on Web Than TV 285

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the choosing-one's-poison dept.
ChopsMIDI writes "According to a survey of 2,618 people, aged 13 to 24, teenagers and young adults spend more time on the Internet than watching television, indicating a shift in media consumption for a demographic prized by advertisers. On average, young people said they spent nearly 17 hours online each week, not including time used to read and send electronic mail, compared with almost 14 hours spent watching television and 12 hours listening to the radio."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Youth Spend More Time on Web Than TV

Comments Filter:
  • good! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by js7a (579872) * <james@b[ ]k.org ['ovi' in gap]> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:54AM (#6539529) Homepage Journal
    Lets hope they are using interactive forms (like this comment form) and not just wathing flash movies or playing mmorpgs.
    • Re:good! (Score:3, Funny)

      by rokzy (687636)
      all my nephew does is play flash games like "spank the monkey".

      I spend a lot of time downloading TV programmes, so what group does that count as?
    • Re:good! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lu Xun (615093) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:03AM (#6539567)
      mmporgs are interactive! You have to keep clicking on the Ugly Rat-thing to kill it, before going on to kill something else. That's as interactive as it gets.
    • Re:good! (Score:2, Funny)

      How is Slashdot any different than a MMORPG? You build imaginary and real status and communicate with others. There's even downtime at slashdot (I have to wait between comment posts).

      That said, flash is evil! EVIL!

      And so's the cat.
      • Re:good! (Score:3, Funny)

        Not to mention friend lists and people constantly bitching about the administration...

        I could go on, but I think I have made my point.
    • Re:good! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Hadriven (670847)
      Even if they are playing MMORPGs or waiting for some flash to load, this is a victory over global dumbness. I won't discuss the merits of stupid flash animations - I still have to find any ^^;, but as for MMORPGS, they are interesting. TV is passive, but MMORPGS clearly require some cerebral activity - barring Diablo II. Besides, they're often creating parallel small societies (guilds, clans, etc) fueling subcultures and reflexions sometimes spreading out of the game and out in the real world - for now, I c
      • Re:good! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by murdocj (543661) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:18AM (#6539646)
        Anyway, every hour spent online is way better than any hour spent on TV. Being online keeps your brain working, I doubt TV does that very often.

        Well this is the conventional wisdom, and I used to believe it. But having played Everquest off and on for a while, I'd have to say that a decent TV program is at least as stimulating and thought provoking is sitting in place, and occasionally pressing a button or two. And this isn't just true of EQ, many games may be "interactive" but they aren't requiring too many brain cells to fire.

        Personally I put both sitting online and sitting in front of the tv in the same class. I'm glad that one displaces the other, but you'd still be better off getting up, getting outside, and moving around once in while.

      • Re:good! (Score:2, Funny)

        by iantri (687643)
        Anyway, every hour spent online is way better than any hour spent on TV. Being online keeps your brain working, I doubt TV does that very often.

        You'd think, but judging by what I see teenagers doing on the Internet at the local library the most they do is play awful flash games and send IM to each other. i.e.:

        sexy_babe_6969_imsogreat_15_really_long_hotmail_a d address_are_cool_65372_omg_yay@hotmail.com says:

        omg! wtf??!?!!?!!?

        .. and so on. Intellectually stimulating, I'd say. :D

    • Re:good! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord Kholdan (670731) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:08AM (#6539604)
      Lets hope they are using interactive forms (like this comment form) and not just wathing flash movies or playing mmorpgs.

      How is Slashdot any less interactive then any multiplaying system?
    • Re:good! (Score:5, Funny)

      by tankdilla (652987) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:11AM (#6539618) Homepage Journal
      According to a survey of 2,618 people, aged 13 to 24, teenagers and young adults spend more time on the Internet than watching television

      Well hmm...

      and which media has easier access to porn?

    • Re:good! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jonveit (633746)
      I would say they are using interactive forms like instant messaging mostly. Which I suppose is better than your suppossed oppurtunity but I still think socially inverts kids. Its a whole lot easier for a kid to type, 'do u like me?' and push enter to a girl online than it is to actually excercise your vocal chords and ask her yourself. That creates a sort of dependence I've seen in kids where they are afraid to come out behind their monitors.
      And when they are not instant messanging, they are looking at p
  • by handy_vandal (606174) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:54AM (#6539530) Homepage Journal
    On average, young people said they spent nearly 17 hours online each week, not including time used to read and send electronic mail ..."

    What -- reading and sending email isn't "time online" ...? Kids today!
  • by vadim_t (324782) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:55AM (#6539533) Homepage
    I don't even watch TV these days, with the ocassional exception for the Simpsons and maybe a movie or two. The internet is much better. It doesn't show you 30 minutes of ads per movie, content is just available there and not during a specific day and time, and the content is much more interesting.

    Here (Spain) it seems that the producers of some shows are brain damaged. A while ago I turned on the TV to see if there was anything, saw a bit of some "Putin's daughter" crap, and went back to my computer.
    • by JanneM (7445) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:20AM (#6539659) Homepage
      Yes, I've found that out too. I moved to a new apartment two years ago, and didn't hook up the TV for a couple of weeks, while getting the network up and running was high priority. When it was time to actually set up the TV, I realized I really didn't want that big hulking box taking up and dictating how my living room was to be furnished, so I sold it and bought a tuner card for the computer instead.

      About a year ago, I bought a new computer (a laptop) that I couldn't conveniently set a tuner card in. I kept the old computer around to be able to watch TV among other things, but I found that I never bothered to use it, as it was too much of a bother. Today the old machine is in my storage space in the basement and I haven't watched 'real' TV for almost a year.

      If there is some show I really want to see, I can usually pluck them from the net, and watch at my convenience, rather than when the network deigns to show it. News and commentary I get better from online newspapers, blogs and through sites like this one. If I wanted to follow a reality show (yeah, right), most have their own websites with as much, if not more, juicy material than the episodes show. I really don't see what the TV medium really is able to offer that the net doesn't do better.

    • I wish someone would get a clue and provide downloads of TV shows. It's not like you can't record them for free on your VCR on any given day, and a reasonable sized MPEG isn't exactly DVD quality. If they charged a couple of bucks per episode or even cheaper I'd download them in a second. How is it different to paying for and downloading music?

      I personally thinking seriously of selling my TV. I really hate catching commercials that insult my intelligence (low as it is, but ads are even dumber) and the hom
    • I don't even have cable anymore. Occasional episode of Daria or M*A*S*H over at the inlaws' house while I'm there, but even then I bring my laptop along and spend the time mostly online anyway...TV just isn't worth my time anymore.
  • by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:55AM (#6539534)
    I mean, look at all the services that the Internet can provide:

    Chat, Shopping, Gaming, Education, Music, Movies AND TV (I mean, who hasn't downloaded a Simpsons episode or two off Kazaa?)

    Add to that the fact that Reality TV (TM) is killing off all of the creativity in television; I want to see comedies, movies and interesting documentaries. I don't care if Joe Bloggs from London has won £10 000 for pretending to be a chicken in the streets.

    For me, TV can be too much of a passive experience after a short while. If I'm gonna stare at a screen for hours, why not be fragging AND chatting to a few people in Day of Defeat?
    • by msobkow (48369)

      The main appeal 'net-related activities have for me is the need to think. You spend your time reading, thinking about opinions, actually exercising those little grey neurons.

      TV is not interactive, and with the quality of most shows currently produced, it's boring. Often it steps over the line from merely boring to annoyingly bad production values.

      Who wouldn't prefer an entertainment media that doesn't presume one is a drooling moron?

    • I mean, look at all the services that the Internet can provide:

      Chat, Shopping, Gaming, Education, Music, Movies AND TV (I mean, who hasn't downloaded a Simpsons episode or two off Kazaa?)


      Cough. Porn. Ahem.
  • by zephc (225327) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:55AM (#6539535)
    amateurs! more like seventy hours a week!
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @12:05PM (#6539822) Journal
      How exactly do they measure `online time'? My BSD box is always on, and always connected to the 'net, while my desktop is on all of the time I'm awake. While my desktop is on, it is usually running my Jabber client, so I appear online to the outside world. I may, at that time be working on something not directly Internet related, watching TV or reading a book, but I am still online.

      If surveyed, I'd have to reply that at least 90% of my waking life is spent `online', even though the amount of data sent and received may not be more than 1K every few minutes. Since always-on Internet connections started to become common, the concept of being online part of the time and offline at other times is meaningless, the only time I am really offline is when I am outside, somewhere other than my garden.

      • I would define "online" time as time spent actively using the Internet. My boxes are constantly connected via cable modem and my IM software is always online, whether I'm using it or whether I'm defined as away but I would say if I'm using the Internet then I'm online.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:57AM (#6539540)
    Did they count the hours teenagers and young adults spend on the computer, while watching television? If the television and the computer are in the same room, it's not uncommon for them to do both.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Fsck,,

      I went the extra step and got rid of the TV all together and got a TV card for my computer. Much better that way... Although I did want a bit more desktop so I put on a second monitor, and I watch TV on that... Go figure...

      But think about it, at tricked out computer:
      DVD, mp3, cd, tv, internet, gaming machine, record modify movies, radio reciever, streaming video viewer, satalite controller, can hook a vcr to it, hell you can control your room lights with it if you wanted to, web server, file server,
    • Exactly. Tv makes a nice background whether surfing or working.

      Which inevitably leads to someone walking into the room, asking "What are you watching?", and receiving a confused "huh? I don't know..." in return.

  • Ok let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 16977 (525687) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:59AM (#6539550)
    That's about 2.5 hours of internet access per day, plus 2 hours of tv and 1.5 hours of listening to the radio. So either these kids are spending 6 hours a day (after school no less) sitting in front of various electronic babysitters or they've learned how to multi-task.
    • Re:Ok let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:05AM (#6539586)
      I remember reading an article about the viewing habits of young people and it described that many teenagers leave the televison on as background noise while they do other tasks such as read magazines or surf the net. I suppose this is akin to the reassuring sound of our mother's when we are babies, the youth of today have become so used to television that the electronic sound is somewhat soothing, even when they aren't watching it.
      • Re:Ok let's see... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by vadim_t (324782)
        True, after living for so long with 3 computers, one of which sounds like a jet, TV, people walking around, cars on the street, the hum of the fans, computers and air conditioners at work, and people walking everywhere, complete silence is quite creepy.
      • Can't remember where I heard it, but there are two types of people: those that come in a room and turn OFF a TV, and those that come in and turn ON the TV.

        I am the latter. I also have a TV tuner card on my computer and spend most of my time with a TV window running. MythTV captures the twice daily broadcasts of the Simpsons and M*A*S*H, all of which I've seen several times before. The only time TV can be distracting is if it's a show that I haven't seen before...
      • I don't get it. Why turn on the TV? The shows are obnoxious, the ads are really obnoxious. I may not like reading in total silence, but I'll put on something that won't constantly distract and annoy me, like my mp3s or CDs.

        By the way, I don't think I've turned on my TV in months now. There is no reason for me to.
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @12:10PM (#6539841) Journal
        This is actually true:

        One of my housemates has a habit of leaving the TV on to provide background noise. The strange thing is that he will turn the sound down and sit in a different room, where he can't see the screen. Apparently he finds the whine of a 50Hz CRT soothing

        • (Disclaimer: Totally OT) That reminds me of something that happened to me in high school physics class. The teacher was doing a demonstration witha frequency generator hooked up to a speaker. He kept raising the frequency in increments and had the class raise their hands until they couldn't hear it anymore. As he kept testing higher and higher frequencies eventually everyone's hand dropped except mine (i seem to be able to hear white noise and the like better than most). He supposedly went up another s

      • I know plenty of people who can't fall asleep without the TV on. One of my ex's was like that, drove me insane.

      • I think that may be the case when someone is home alone, people become afraid and leave the TV on which alleviates the fear of an intruder. That isn't only the case with youth, but any person of any age. There is no evidence to support television or electronic noise being soothing to youth, even after 3 or 4 generations of people raised on television. I think it does come down to multitasking, and trying to maximize the quality of spare time by not tying oneself to any one form of media.
      • Used to be like that, but now I'm fine. Occassionally need short bursts of music though; helps getting me started off.
    • I'd say they are multi-tasking, look at a teenager's bedroom nowadays: TV and Radio for sure and a computer is very common as well. I'm sure the TV is often on in the background while they are online. Sure they might not be watching it attentively but that doesn't matter. I have to wonder about the radio time though, my guess is that more time is spent listening to MP3s than radio.
    • by snooo53 (663796)

      Considering there are 16 hours of free time on Saturday and Sunday, I highly doubt they are cramming all that activity into weeknights.

      And has been mentioned before you can do more than one thing at a time (ie. listening to the radio while on the internet)

  • by joel8x (324102) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:59AM (#6539552) Homepage
    Will the future generations be more literate since they spend all of their time reading instead of watching TV? Maybe it will make it worse since 3v3ry7h1ng 15 5p3ll3d l1k3 7h15.

    • by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:13AM (#6539625)
      You may be joking but there are actually serious implications of this. My mother is a teacher at a secondary school (a UK version of high school) and she has relayed to me anecdotes about kids using AOLesque language in their exams. Don't forget that the SMS mobile phone text message boom was mainly due to 13 year old girls sending pointless messages back and forth:

      OMG Joe iz so hot! U shud defnatly ask hm out!

      And what do you get, kids replacing 'you' with 'u' in their exam papers and coursework and thinking nothing of it because it's part of their everyday language. We all know how young teens spell things on the 'net....
    • by nomadic (141991)
      IT wa$ TH3 83$t 0f +1m35, 1t wa$ th3 Wor$+ 0pH +1me$, i+ W@5 TEH @GE 0PH W15dOM, IT W@5 Th3 @ge 0PH f00li$Hn35$, 1T W4$ tHE 3PocH 0PH bELI3pH, IT W45 +h3 3P0Ch Of 1ncreduL1ty, iT W45 th3 $eA5on 0PH L1GH+, it w4$ TEh $3450N oF d@rKN3$$, 1+ w@$ +H3 5pR1nG 0Ph HoP3, IT W@5 teh wiN+3R OF De5p@IR, We h4D ev3rY+h1NG 83PHOR3 u5, W3 H4d n0th1n9 bEforE Us, w3 wEre alL 90iN9 D1REC+ +o h34ven, we WEre @Ll 90Ing d1r3cT the O+heR WAY--iN $h0Rt, The p3rIOD W@5 5O ph@R liKe TH3 PR3SeNt p3Ri0D, tH4+ 5OM3 0Ph i+5 no15I35T 4
    • Actually according to a couple of articles and at least one slashdot story that is sort of happening already. At least some students allow their IM shorthand to creap into their academic papers. Of course IM shorthand is just simplified geek where vowels are dropped and combined sounds are sometimes replaced with a like sounding symbol.
    • "Maybe it will make it worse since 3v3ry7h1ng 15 5p3ll3d l1k3 7h15."

      Shit I'm screwed, I knew exactly what you said.

      Oh well, time to update my resume.

      Skillz
      ==========
      n3TSpk.
      Smiley Faces.

      Yo Grark
      Canadian Bred with American Buttering
  • by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:00AM (#6539556)
    95% of those surveyed only spent a couple of hours a week tops but it is alleged that a few Slashdotters bumped that mean right up
  • by GordoSlasher (243738) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:03AM (#6539575)
    It's an easy choice: (1) easy access to free pr0n or (2) "reality TV".

    For (1) substitute whatever interests you. News junkies, humor, multi-player gaming, music swapping, ad infinitum. It's available on demand 24x7. TV forces you to adhere to mostly least-common-denominator programming at the programmer's schedule, unless you fumble with a VCR, or you have a TIVO that your Dad hasn't monopolized. It's not surprising that the kids have gravitated to the Internet as the new entertainment medium, as have many adults.
    • I couldn't agree more. Most of the things I want to watch are on a channel which puts 15 minutes of adverts into every hour. This means that it is only tolerable if you are watching things with friends and can talk over the ads (or read a book during them, although that tends to break the thread of the program more). I really can't be bothered to waste that much of my life anymore. Finding the shows on the 'net is time consuming and so I generally just don't bother to watch them any more. If my cable c
  • by moehoward (668736) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:05AM (#6539587)
    The Internet is a vaster wasteland.

    OK. Yes, it does matter.

    I don't watch TV either. At least, very little. Most days I watch none.

    I like getting news in real time on the Internet and from various sources. I feel much more informed than my in-laws, who religiously sit in front of Dan Rather every night and think that he some how makes them more informed than I.

    I do read local newspapers for more local flavor, though.

    For entertainment, let's just say that the Internet offers, um, more provative content...

    I even listen to radio over the Internet. I think my lifestyle will eventually demand a Tablet PC or something. But, I'll wait until they beef them up a bit on battery life and applications.

    That said, I'm not sure how long all of this free content will last. Given my choice of browser, I don't view any ads. How long can the "system" support this leeching of content?

    The final aspect to my online life is the social one. Email and IM makes life much easier as opposed to the unconnected world.

    So, from an information, entertainment, and social point of view, the content of the online world has finally reached critical mass for me. It may take another 5 years for this to make some drastic change in TV, newspaper, etc. But, I think we have finally passed the inflection point.
    • That said, I'm not sure how long all of this free content will last. Given my choice of browser, I don't view any ads. How long can the "system" support this leeching of content?
      It could last a bit longer if you'd view the ads instead of contributing to the problem. Let the ad banners load, like I do; they're not *that* bad considering they're what lets sites keep free access for that much longer. (I have no objection to blocking pop-ups, of course.)
      • Frequently the ad server is slow as shit. My internet connection isn't blazing to begin with and this stupid adserver is tying it up. I dumped the banner ads and suddenly the internet moves at usable speeds again.
        And to be fair I don't block all ads just the ones not hosted on the same sever as the website (thank you for such a great brouser Moz team).
      • How do they know that I'm not viewing the ads? I don't think they do.

        Anyway, in terms of ads, Internet ads suck. They are never informative, often misleading, sometimes have technical problems, and sometimes link to places you don't expect. I'd say that most Internet ads are out to create name/brand awareness. IQ-of-37 types of ads... I think my kids get "better" ads on Nick.

        I find some ads to be fine. I'll listen to the occasional radio ad or watch a TV ad every now and then. However, I typically avoid b
    • That said, I'm not sure how long all of this free content will last. Given my choice of browser, I don't view any ads. How long can the "system" support this leeching of content?

      The way I see it, people who use ad blockers are less common than TV watchers who use the mute button during commercial breaks. Mute buttons haven't killed TV ad revenue, so I reckon ad blockers won't affect online ad revenue either. That being said, I suspect that this is just the beginning of a shift from "old" media to new. I t

  • Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EZmagz (538905) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:05AM (#6539588) Homepage
    Honestly, this is a good thing IMO. Sitting in front of a t.v. is a totally passive event; the only user-interaction is when the person changes channels...and even then it's usually just to another channel playing commercials.

    The web has the potential to be a very powerful medium. Literally everything you'd ever want to know (from movie reviews to why the sky is blue) is only one click away. I know whenever I have a question, the first place I turn to is google. Kids figured out a while back that it's more fun to have control over the material you're sitting in front of, as opposed to say, watching another episode of Dharma and Greg.

    The only downside to this is that advertisers figured out that a majority of the people in the world use this fancy new "intraweb" thingy, and decided to litter it with their banners and spam. If you can sidestep that little roadblock however, the web is still a wonderful thing.

  • I'd have thought radio surpassed tv...
    I know I've been listening to it for far longer and far more than tv.
    Nearly all of my daily activities take place while radio is on.
    Oh well....

    • I'd have thought radio surpassed tv...
      I know I've been listening to it for far longer and far more than tv.
      Nearly all of my daily activities take place while radio is on.

      That's why they ask more than one person. If they just asked YOU, radio would have indeed surpassed TV. By surveying 2600+ people, they get more than just anecdotal information.

  • I don't know about other people, but it's been true for me - not because I made a conscious choice between internet and other media - but just because the internet has been far, far more available.

    During university, it was there in all the computer labs, and now, when I'm at work, it's right there on my desk for seven or eight hours every day.

    Mind you, even if I did make an unbiased choice, I'd probably still spend more time browsing the web than watching TV.

  • Ever since I wired my house, I almost always watch TV while simultaneously browsing the web on my laptop. That way, I can look up info about shows I'm watching on IMBD.com, AllMusic.com, PBS.org - whatever - simultaneously. Not to mention the tv schedule (which is a lot faster than waiting for Cablevision's channel guide to scroll down!).

    And then there's News - on the Internet you get to seek it out yourself rather than waiting around for some talking head - babbling about topics you don't care about - t
  • Advertising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brinticus (581532) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:09AM (#6539605)
    Certainly this inclination toward the web over TV is one reason that advertising will have to drastically change. As spam filters, and pop-up killers, and page-based context filters develop, it will get harder and harder to put the "sell" on younger people. (All people, for that matter.) I think the P2P vs. filtering evolutionary wars are a harbinger of things to come. Individuals do not like being manipulated by corporate imagery. My fear is that eventually a legal argument will be made that since an advertiser has paid for space on a page, it will be illegal for somebody to mess with that page, since the page is the property of some other corporation and not of the individual who views it.

    Maybe as an analogy, you can imagine some hot-shot electronics guy building a special jammer that only jams beer commercials and leaves all other content in place. Clearly beer companies would hate it, and no doubt the FCC already says they control all transmitting of public content and not just the non-advertising stuff (cmp. the small power FM station fiascoes). Since this is the rule in Wavelength Land, I can see nothing to stop it becoming the rule in Web Land.

    Moreover, if congress is willing to introduce bills to make P2P software illegal, I have little reason to think their $$$ masters will hold back on anything else. I think getting something like a super-Freenet up and running with (effectively) unbreakable crypto is the only hope of keeping us from some weird oligarcic socialism.

    brinticus

    P.S. I don't mind clones, its me being like everybody else I hate.

    • My fear is that eventually a legal argument will be made that since an advertiser has paid for space on a page, it will be illegal for somebody to mess with that page, since the page is the property of some other corporation and not of the individual who views it.

      You fear unnecessarily. They do not "own" the HTML file they send you, and no interpretation of existing law will change that. Arguing that the end user can't block ads is as absurd as saying a newpaper reader can't fold the paper in such a way t

    • Re:Advertising (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 2TecTom (311314)
      In my humble opinion, the shortcoming in this argument is it's Americancentricity. The US is the dominant Internet influence, for now, and yes, even in terms of international governance. However, numerically speaking, this is already a downward trend and one that must continue.

      I predict that many corporate and legal structures will flounder and disintegrate on the rocks and shoals of the one world wired community.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    You have to consider the source of the information. It was pitched to me a couple of days ago (I work in television news), and guess who paid for the survey -- Yahoo!. It's like an oil company commissioning a survey that shows people hate electric cars.
  • by PoitNarf (160194)
    I'd be more interested in how much time these people are spending on an IM service rather than using their phones. For myself, IM is basically my primary form of communication. If only all my friends would keep their machines on 24/7 as well.

  • Where and how... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cold_sake (610411)
    ...were these polls taken? The 13 to 24 demographic is obviously the lower half of the meat and potatos of Yahoo, but I wonder how these polls were conducted.
    Was it outside of a shopping mall? Was it forms mailed out from junk mail lists? What was the income range of the families involved? This would be more interesting to me, as it seems that would tell more about who is moving tword the internet as a whole - when even the lower income brackets are spending more time in front of a computer.
  • Scary Stat. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sirmikester (634831)
    Quote: On average, young people said they spent nearly 17 hours online each week, not including time used to read and send electronic mail, compared with almost 14 hours spent watching television and 12 hours listening to the radio, the study said.

    But what about ripping cds, downloading mp3s and movies, playing games, and doign schoolwork. This is all on the computer as well, so if you add that I'd assume that the number of hours spent on a computer would have to be at least 20-25. Its scary to think t
  • Personally, I think it's much better for kids to be on the web all the time, than watching TV all the time. Mainly because watching TV is a passive activity, browsing the web and using computers GENERALLY require learning and interactivity. Exception to this is obviously teenage girls/boys that sit there and chat on AIM for 8 hours straight.
  • Media Consumption? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stiletto (12066) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:17AM (#6539637)

    It's alarming that big companies like Forbes associate Internet time with TV, using the blanket statement, "media consumption". I don't know about you but as a member of several online forums and an occational website content producer myself, someone who uses the internet as a tool to look up information, I don't really feel like I am sitting here consuming a media product.

    Now, don't mind as I once again don my tin-foil hat.

    You see this language everywhere. We are all consumers. We consume things. That's our purpose. "They" produce product and push it out, and we consume. Is Forbes's language evidence that big media still doesn't "Get It" with respect to the power of creation the Internet provides to us lowly consumption robots? Does the author really believe that Internet use soley consists of consumption of products?

    Or is it one of the many subtle ways large companies push the idea that we are just consuming pac-men, and that nothing we do is imporant unless it involves consuming someone's product.

    I think the consistant use of the word "consumer" to describe PEOPLE is evidence that this is a widespread attempt by those in charge (large corporations) to make their world-views come true through the force of subtle language changes.

    Ok, off with the tin-foil hat! Good day.
    • The producer-consumer labels are just economics terms used to describe how our economy works.

      By definition, as much as you don't like to admit it, you are a consumer - unless you never purchase/use something that someone else made.

      If you're gonna get sensitive about the terminology, how about getting upset when people distinguish between "large corporations" and "people". After all, the former tends to be run by, and employ, the latter. By definition.

    • I don't disagree at all with your larger point, but in the terms of this survey, forbes' use of the word consumer is more precise then is the word People. A person doesn't have to have a Television, a Radio, or a computer to qualify as a "Person". But in the context of this study, you do need to have all three to qualify as a Media Consumer. And Forbes is only speaking about people with all three boxes.
  • by mozkill (58658) <austenjt@@@gmail...com> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:17AM (#6539639) Homepage Journal
    things are changing:

    1. first, the music industry loses its ability to control the marketing of new music to people because the people themselves have control of the distribution technology (i.e. Napster, Kazaa )

    2. then, the television industry loses its control of what people think because the internet allows people once again to control what they read, hear, and see.

    It sounds to me like the whole media industry is losing its control over people and we can thank technology for doing this for us! :-)
  • okay ... duh ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperDuG (134989) <be@eclec . t k> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:21AM (#6539664) Homepage Journal
    Lets see ... you can interact with others.

    See naked people (hell even autopron posts on /.)

    Centrally communicate (anyone from around the world can join the same chat room).

    But let's get into to why when I was a teenager (soo long ago *cough* 3 years ago *cough*)

    1.) Private password protected conversations (no more parents overhearing part if not both parts of a conversation over the phone). You have the ability to talk with others without the fear of the parents figuring out what the hell is going on.

    2.) Sex. While it may seem a bit innapropriate for the older crowd here, most people from the age of 13+ have sex on the mind, either sex appeal or actually shagging. While of course there may not be a whole lot of knowledge in the area, there's still the curiosity and since mom and dad usually won't take the time to explain sex as it might actually lead to little billy and suzie wanting to try it, they turn to the one source they can find.

    3.) Information. Heard something about a war in Iraq, but all you know is mom is indifferent and dad thinks bush is some asshole for it. But you really would like to know what's going on, but can't understand it. Turn to the internet and a search engine, in a few hours you can deem yourself an expert on middle eastern politics.

    4.) Pop-Culture. Want to know what's cool and what's not cool and be able to actually survive highschool? Then you need to know what's "hip" and "Cool". So MTV.com and others like it will guide you through the pains of trying to look "normal" and not be a spectacle. There's three types of people in highschool "popular" "normal" and "bad popular". "Bad popular" is basically the kid everyone knows but everyone picks on, if in highschool you want to avoid at all costs this classification. So best way, spend as much dough as you can muster up and stay "normal" with the cool shoes and correct name brands.

    5.) Homework. Yes it's true the internet is a vast tool of conquest in knowledge. But even better, no more turning to the index of a book. Hop on to your local libraries website and do a keyword search in a book. AMAZINGLY enough you will know exactly where the boston tea party is mentioned in the first 100 books that are the authroity on the subject. All by never stepping foot in the library, opening the book, or god forbid reading the damned thing. You can find someone elses blog/essay on the subject and get it dumbed down enough to where you can "write it in your own words". "Write it in your own words" is a new form of "writing" where you take the same basic concept and write it in a different manner with different words thus negating any type of plagerism.

    All-in-all the TV is there for when someone else is on the computer or there's no emails or active people on your buddy list. Then and only then, you'll hop on the couch and turn on the TV. And what do teenagers watch? Exactly what I said above, but they don't get it in such mass quantities, it's like methadome for a crack addict, keeps ya at bay, but you still don't like it as much.

    • it's like methadome for a crack addict,

      Actually, I think that would be "methadone for a heroin addict". I'm not sure what crackheads use when they can't get crack, but judging from the ones in my neighborhood, it ain't a downer like methadone...

  • Any decent cartoons on this morning?
  • by Chambers81 (613839) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:25AM (#6539676)
    As much as I hate MTV and the crap that they force on the viewers they still have, I find that they are approaching this transition in a positive manner. There are several shows that are utilizing the multitasking potential of the internet with television, in order to receive feedback and make shows interactive. MTV2 does a show that requires viewers to log on and vote for the next video in realtime. This is the way to combine your programming with the power of the internet and not lose out. By making your TV programming customizable to some extent by the viewers, I would think they would be less likely to change channels or even turn the TV off altogether.
  • Im not a key demographic prized by advertisers. If they want me they can come through my pop-up and banner killing software.

    So basically if the general population gets their way, we will have: an un-centralised, un-controlled medium which is advertising and restriction free and allows anyone to communicate anything to anyone else.

    However, if the government/corporations get their way we will have: a controlled and owned medium where advertising and subscription is high and only authorised, monitored and re
  • by Captain Spam (66120) * on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:28AM (#6539688) Homepage
    So, what, is this our generation's "When I was YOUR age" event?

    Previous: "When I was YOUR age, sonny, we used to go outside and play baseball out by the sandlot! Not all this TV watching crap you kids today do..."

    Today: "When I was YOUR age, sonny, we used to watch TV all day on the couch! Not all this new-fangled 'internet' crap you kids today do..."

    Future: "When I was YOUR age, sonny, we used to log onto the internet all the time on the computer! Not this new-fangled starship crap you kids today do..."
  • well.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by oOo Shiva oOo (582339) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @11:37AM (#6539723)
    If television offered free porn to kids who are smart enough to admit to being over 18, television might start being as important is the web is to today's youth :)
  • Internet, scminternet. BAH! I say!
    What's wrong with AOL?
    I mean, look at all the pages they have in their system, like the one we are on now?.
    We have everything that the internet has, and more! I was on the internet once, and it was so boring.
    (think about it:)
  • I don't know why that last word was left out of the title
  • Once you've used the internet enough, watching a TV news program is incredibly annoying, with all the "ok, this interesting sounding story will be coming up soon". The internet spoils you with the instant information, on what you want and right now, compared to TV. I can only see the amount of TV that anyone who uses the web much continuing to go down.
  • I'm Surprised... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BradNelson (549752)
    12 hours listening to the radio

    I'm surprised by that. I wouldn't think teens would listen to that much radio. If they are spending that much time on the internet, shouldn't they just be downloading songs for commercial-free enjoyment? I know I probably put in quite a few hours a week listening to the radio, but that's because I'm a freak who listens to talk radio.
  • RRRR (Score:2, Funny)

    by carrett (671802)
    it's because anything you watch on tv you can download off of the internet anyway. and you can watch it at your leisure too. plus, we're a generation of high-tech pirates. we don't need any of this tv crap. it slows down our ships.
  • ..is anybody REALLY that shocked?

    Not that online is any better, but at least you get to choose the crap that infects you.

    Advice to all generations: Read a book, quite being sheep.
    • I'm sure not. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by oneiros27 (46144)
      It reminds me of a bit from Beavis and Butthead -- they're talking about having 200 channels ot TV, and one of them suggests what if they just had one channel that didn't suck.

      I mean, hell, I admit, I keep on the TV as background noise, but there's just some stuff I have to change the channel for. It's hard finding something on at 5pm EST that isn't an infomercial. If it weren't for FoodTV, BBC America, TLC, Discovery and similar channels, there'd be many more hours of the day when I wouldn't be able to
  • I mean, I don't get free porn on TV :)
  • A likely explanation (Score:2, Informative)

    by MrDickey (653242)
    As a 15 year-old myself, i do spend lots of time on the web, mainly reading /.

    All of my peers, however, are spending most of the time on the web on Kazaa and messenger services like msn messenger and icq. Some of them can waste an entire afternoon just using icq.

    As for the internet replacing tv, I blame it on awful daytime programming. I can only watch family matters so many times before I start mutilating neighborhood pets.
  • by ndogg (158021) <the...rhorn@@@gmail...com> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @01:23PM (#6540221) Homepage Journal
    Hmm...

    Crossing Over with John Edwards...
    Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer, yea!!!
    Big Brother 25, oh yeah
    Pet Psychic?!
    Most Sexy Artists of All Time, sure
    "This girl is going to choose one guy to marry out of a million, let's see what happens..."

    Uh, gee, I can't see why they don't watch so much TV these...
  • by SurfTheWorld (162247) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @10:26PM (#6542630) Homepage Journal
    And this is ... bad? Hardly...

    Sitting in front of a TV, you do absolutely nothing. You slouch, with remote and hand, and stare at the TV while frequently drooling, grabbing one's self, burping, or snacking. This is horrid behavior - nothing positive comes of it. Period.

    At least on a computer, even if playing MMORPGs, the user must *interact*, which is something television lacks. Televions is a broadcast medium whereas the Internet is interactive. The user must do some work in order to achieve satisfaction. With a TV, they must simply watch. On the web, they must read or strategize, or at the very least point and click, which is an exercise of hand-eye coordination.

    I'd take a computer geek MMORPG no friend having dorkahontas over a TV addicted vegaholic that sits around and watches Space Ghost Coast To Coast all day.

Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. -- Arthur R. Miller

Working...