Less Television in Online Homes 142
Shaheen writes "USA Today has an interesting report about how homes that have an Internet connection watch an average of %13 (about an hour) less television than other homes each day. You can read about it here. "
What about those of us who forget to turn the TV off while
we read our email? The scariest thing to me is that 13% is
an hour. Who is watching 10 hours of TV a day?
Try again. (Score:1)
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
TV is for video production... (Score:3)
Thad
Re:Nielsen Homes (Score:4)
You've just hit the nail squarely on the head. The Nielsen Group doesn't want a representative sample of all TV viewers - only the ones that advertisers can sell stuff to. People who watch TV for content aren't part of that group.
More to the point - the purpose of the Neilsen ratings isn't to tell TV producers what they need to get the eyeballs of the die-hard fans who watch one or two programs religiously - it's to tell advertisers where their dollars will be best-spent. Better to ignore the Babylon 5 fanatic who makes $80K/year and ignores the advertising in order to get the family of four making $30K and spending all their disposable income on the crap that Bratleigh and Snotley see during the commercials (er, the 30-second ones between the 30-minute ones!) every Saturday morning.
The TV viewer who changes channels when the commercials come on, or who only watches a few hours a week, is like the web surfer who turns off images and/or blocks banner ads. He or she who ignores the marketing is, perforce, not worth marketing to. By contrast, the people who sit, slack-jawed, through every commercial displayed, and who spend several hours a day doing it, regardless of whether the programming is worth watching or not, are a very sought-after market.
What this has done to the quality of programming is left as an exercise to the reader. Which, of course, is why many of us have abandoned television for the 'net.
Speaking of which - I loved being able to read a few articles about the 30th anniversary of the moon landing without having to sit through six hours of unending coverage about an inexperienced pilot [slashdot.org] who Darwinned himself out of the gene pool by being too stupid to trust his instruments instead of his vertigo-addled inner ears.
But back to your Nielsen experience - it's clear that TV advertisers are just as happy to not have to put up with people like us as we are not to have to put up with people like them. They go where the money is, we go where the content is. 10 years ago, I'd have been worried about this - after all, where do you go for content once all media have been dumbed-down for the slack-jaw set? Thankfully, the answer is right in front of us - we just make and distribute our own damn content, and to hell with anyone who tries to get in our way.
Re:Why I watch less TV (Score:1)
Now, for more money, you can probably get composite inputs (perhaps outputs as well, for recording the screen, or for a projector). Just get a deck without a tuner...
The problem with having a "drive" is that the mechanical components won't fit in a normal size bay (open up you VCR to see what I mean). Now, what they might be able to do is an 8mm or VHS-C drive, but you can't get any movies in those formats (that I know of)...
Re:You can both be on the net at once - with linux (Score:1)
That new win98 second edition thing comes with 'internet connection sharing' which for all intents and purposes is IP masq with a dns server, although it wants to use the 192.168.0.0 subnet w/ a netmask of 255.255.255.0 but with some creative registry editing it can work for other configurations
Re:Both? (Score:1)
Re:If you don't mind my asking... (Score:1)
-Imperator
Re:Why watch TV when you could be reading? (Score:1)
Not quite (Score:1)
They must have some sort of tech back there, beacuse there able to give companys *per minute* ratings on shows and other things, even local "news"
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
It's intelligence (Score:1)
Re:Try again. (Score:1)
The article further states:
Two hours, while not the same as 70 minutes, is closer than 7.7 minutes, which fits the statement Additionally, from a purely grammatical viewpoint, the first comment would normally be interpreted as being equivalent to "Wired homes watch an average of about one hour daily, or 13% less TV, than others..." Admittedly, none of this is as clear as it could be.
Can anyone dig up the AOL/Nielsen study itself? That would eliminate any and all ambiguity.
Re:How True (Score:1)
You forgot the little Trademark (TM) sign next the "Future of Our Country" phrase
Only ½ hour/day here, maybe. (Score:1)
I really haven't watched much TV at all since the early 80's - always feel like I'm being slyly programmed and subliminally manipulated by some evil psychologist planting subtle subconscious ideas against my will. I give a lot of attention to Old Time Radio [yesterdayusa.com] via RealAudio, some 70's Saturday Night [70ps.com] (too much disco, actually, bletch), reading Linux Journal (on dead trees) or old magazines.
Chuck
Proxys.. (Score:1)
the you and your husband can have Cyber-sex!
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:Canned Laugh Tracks suck!!!!! (Score:1)
Or are you still watching "Bewitched" and "M.A.S.H."?
Why watch TV when you could be reading? (Score:1)
Why would I put up with having to follow someone else's schedule when I can find all the information I would get from TV and more whenever I want it?
Yay, fast connections!
Poll? (Score:3)
Sounds like a Slashdot Poll to me.
--
10 hours a day? (Score:1)
Makes sense if you read "person-hours" for "hours" (Score:2)
13% of eight person-hours is "about an hour."
13% less (Score:1)
Re:Why watch TV when you could be reading? (Score:1)
Because the average viewer likes the feeling of his/her brain turning into mush.
--
Math not your stong suit, Rob? (Score:3)
If 13% is about an hour, 100% is about 8 hours, not ten.
Doug Loss
Why I watch less TV (Score:2)
Grandma's home cookin' (Score:2)
Who is on the internet 24 hours a day
Re:Canned Laugh Tracks suck!!!!! (Score:2)
It seems that most people need someone to laugh with them.
Oh well... i like the net better anyway... tv entertainment pretty much gears towards the lowest common denominator. The shows offer no real life situations, real value, or challenge people to think in any way.
They also serve to promote the "right" issues. Don't have sex, dont use drugs, smoking is bad, act like everyone else, and you'll be popular.
Like we need more robots around here.
Reminds me of a local newspaper article that asked kids what the most important thing they learned in school was this year, and one of them said that, knowing how to say NO to Drugs was the most important thing that they learned.
Really? Reading, basic math, Science, Real History, all took a back seat to the Anti-Drug message. There's your tax dollars at work!
uncontrolled study? (Score:2)
Jalen
Math not your stong suit, FascDot? (Score:3)
Downfall of TV news? (Score:2)
In a similar vein, I think that news shows are becoming more and more entertainment-oriented and less informational. Shows like "Hard Copy" have already crossed the line; I hardly count them as 'news shows'. Again, it seems to be a ploy by the networks to attract more viewers, by presenting what they think will be a more enjoyable broadcast. This is also responsible for the high number of 'local interest' news stories, like "Child Athlete of the Week" or somesuch.
Is this because more people are turning to other sources for their news? Possibly. Personally I find 20 minutes of NPR on the way to work in the morning to be significantly more informative than watching the morning news. Otherwise, if I want headlines, I can find the wire services on several web sites which will also offer basic (or sometimes detailed) analysis. If I want sports news, I can turn to ESPN or their web site. NWS weather is available on many different web sites, usually in more detail than a 20-second weather forecast. It seems that perhaps network television (and newspapers) is becoming outdated as a source of 'hard' news. The only interesting information left for local news shows to cover is local news, which is only of interest to the community.
Alas, television is still the most commonly available source of information that can be updated instantly, and therefore it remains important. However, we are rapidly reaching the point where as many people have televisions as have Internet connections. I suggest that once we reach that point -- or even before! -- the need for news shows on television drops to near zero.
As I think I've made clear here, anything that you can get from a television news broadcast, you can get on the web, and usually in a more timely fashion. Network television needs to stop trying to do everything, because they do it all, but they do it all poorly. Stop broadcasting news, because there are plenty of other, better sources. Instead, let's try paying network executives to come up with some actual entertainment.
Re:Reading not your stong suit, Doug? (Score:3)
Wired homes watch an hour a day, which is 13% less than non-wired homes.
"Wired homes watch an average of 13% less TV -- about one hour daily -- than others, says the study"
So... (dusts off calculator) one hour a day being 87% of the 'others' total viewing,
(lessee 60/x = (100-13)/100
an hour a day is 13% less than 70 minutes a day?
I find that a lot easier to swallow than people are watching 8-10 hours of tv a day on average!
TV in an Online World (Score:1)
Oh well.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
And which is your problem, FascDot? (Score:1)
Should be a boon for on-line ad rates... (Score:1)
if the Advertising Agencies take this to heart.
Should make it easier to turn a profit out of
your site just using ads...the study is probably
a good thing.
Mmmmmm (Score:1)
TV is still usefull. (at least with a VCR) (Score:1)
Eh? (Score:3)
lynn:~$ less television
television: No such file or directory
lynn:~$ _
Methinks I need to get out more...
TELEVISION IS DRUGS (Score:2)
Commercials and Advertisements are only for unnecessary items. If you need the item, you would go out and find it. Advertisers must create an artificial desire or need for something that you have no need for. Do you see more TV commercials for Coke or for water? You need water to live, you don't need Coke to live. Do you see more TV commercials for Doublemint gum or for vegetables? You need vegetables to live, you don't need Doublemint gum to live.
Re:Brave New World (Score:1)
It's the thing you watch DVD's on
:)
I watch an hour or so a week - usually the X-Files or to surf around before I get bored and do something else.
Re:TV in an Online World (Score:1)
You should see the what happens when you tell them you don't own one. It's like you told them you're dying of cancer "well we have an old one we don't use anymore, you could maybe use that..." I have had people give me this reaction almost verbatim. If I told them I didn't have money for food what would they do? Probably shrug, act embarassed and change the topic of conversation. God Bless America.
Re:It's intelligence (Score:2)
Using computers and the net doesn't make you any more intelligent unfortunately. Someone who spends 12 hours a day in IRC and Quake isn't someone I'd rate higher than a TLC/History Channel junkie.
The tool makes no difference. It's what you use it for.
Re:Why I watch less TV (Score:1)
So I would recommend tossing the antenna and the cable connection and all that miserable content they provide -- and keeping the TV.
Jim
can't listen to music (Score:1)
- I can listen to CDs while I'm online. I can't listen to CDs while I'm watching TV. I'm very passionate about my music.
-
- Lots of people have already made this point, but 8 hours of TV watched per home, with an average of 2.5 people/home (guess) is somewhat over 3 hours per person. I'd buy that.
[TMB]
What about me? (Score:1)
Perhaps the survey needs to measure the attention percentages between both mediums..
Subject verb predicate. Repeat. (Score:1)
Re:Why I watch less TV (Score:1)
I bought an old commie-64 monitor for $50 a while back. It has a composite video in jack (RCA cable from the VCR). So I can watch movies without a television. Once I get my TV card working in Linux, I can ditch the commie monitor.
misinterpretation, perhaps? (Score:1)
To me, at first, that meant that Wired homes watch 1 hour of television. Non-wired homes on average watch 13% more? Sure, that's 68 minutes of TV instead of 60, but it makes a bit more sense to me. :) (or not)
Funny Math (Score:1)
Check your math Rob.
1 hour being 13% of the daily tv watched in a home, means that 7.6923076923 hours of TV is watched in that home per day.
With my job I get hom from work at between 6:30-7:30 pm, I turn the TV on when I get home and turn it off when I go to sleep at approximately 2:00am. That's 7 hours and 30 minutes of the TV being on, granted I only watch 2-3 hours actively, but the TV is on for that time.
That's not unrealistic.
LK
6th grade reading level: why (Score:1)
Accually the reason that the 6th grade reading level is used is that with english you don't really gain anything with higher levels. By 6th grade you can read. Granted you couldn't read a medical text book intended for grad students, but then again those students can't understand computer text books like I can. A lawyer deals with complex language all day, but he can't read either the above, and neither the med student nor I can deal with legalise. (I can wade through it and figgure out, but it isn't easy)
Byond 6th grade you specialise as needed. Your vocabulary is good enough that you can read.
Interestly enough, in Japan the news appers are written at the 9th grade level, and despite the 20 hour a day study habbits less japanise are equiped to handle newspapers. This is not becuase the japanise are stupid, but because the written language there is so much more difficult.
Re:Canned Laugh Tracks suck!!!!! (Score:1)
Even though they're taped before a live audience, they're still laugh-tracked. It's just added in post production or played right there in the studio.
It's hard to find enough people to laugh in front of some current shows.
Re:Reading not your stong suit, Doug? (Score:3)
Heh, not in the least. You are going by Rob's synopsis of the article, and not what the article actually said, for one.
>From this we know that there is a 13% decrease in viewing time, and that this 13% decrease is equal to 1h.
Nope, the wired family watches an hour a day, which is 13% less than everyone else.
At least that's the way I read the article.
IP Masq/Proxy for Windows (Score:1)
I've known about remote host for a while, and I don't find it to be a particularly good solution for me. Quake doesn't run nearly as well
But yes, if it's just web browsing/mail, that's fine. You could use Unix or Windows (with an X server, there are free ones here and there) on the second PC.
Windows CAN do this, try X-WinPRO for example. It works beautifully. No offense, but that was just plain bad research.
The Internet is DRUGS! The Web is CRACK ROCK! (Score:1)
True, just because we do not need computers or the Internet does not make them bad. We just don't need them to physically survive. That is why we see advertisements for them. That was my main point. The difference between a TV and Web advertising is tricky. Yahoo does exist to show us banner ads or to help us search the web? Both, but whether Yahoo's services are better or more useful than TV's "services" is probably a personal value judgment. I find the Web is more educational and mentally engaging than TV, and and physically less hypnotic.
Here's the raw URL. Slashdot seems to be eating embedded HREFs.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/06880827
BTW, I never said drugs were bad.
TV - the great mind waster (Score:1)
Re:Nielson Homes (Score:1)
Re:Downfall of TV news? (Score:1)
I don't think this is accurate. I believe more homes have TV's than have telephones. (I saw something somewhere that said 96% of homes have phone service and 97% have a television, or something like that.)
Re:The next vegetarians (Score:1)
I know quite a few vegetarians. They arn't weirdos or anything, at least not the ones I know. Personally, however, I would never be able to be one.
Anyway, I don't watch much TV. I'd rather be...
And doesn't "TV-phobe" imply a fear of TV? I don't fear TV, I just find little reason to watch it.
The Television: The Bummer of All Times (Score:1)
When I moved away from home, I made it a point to move in with people who didn't own a television, and who didn't want to. It was very nice. On evenings with friends, we would talk around a good Led Zeppelin CD instead of gaping at a box of lights. I learned so much about those people. I think they are some of the best friends I have made, and they know me better than my own family.
Then, when I moved again, the apartments had free cable hookup, and most of the roommates had their own TV. This was very annoying. With it on all the time, it was all I could do to remember their names, much less learn anything about them. The semester ended, they went to a new place, I went to a new place (in the same free-cable complex), and I've never spoken to any of them since.
During this summer semester, the same thing is happening. This time, however, I have a person in my room who owns a television. It's programmable, so he has it set to go off at eight every morning. I dread the weekends now, because (using this last one as an example) I wake up to a journalist trying to be all dramatic and informative about a man I never personally knew, and about an accident I didn't particularly care to hear about. Of course, sometimes it's the Home Shopping Network selling things to hapless buyers across the country, but more often than not, it's the "news".
I don't know why I'm against television in such a bad way. Maybe it's because I read Farenheight 451. That book really wakes you up, especially the part about the television going blank, and all the lady had to stare at was her own blank, ruined reflection in the vast emptiness of her world. I don't remember it exactly, but it sent chills down my spine.
And now I'm off to endure the torments of my television afflicted roommates, while I try to concentrate on a good book.
Bubye.
iad (the man who 'misplaced' his password, again...)
Re:Still high, even with "person-hours" (Score:1)
Re:TV in an Online World (Score:1)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
No TV for over two years.. (Score:1)
Television is Xenocaine for the Brain. (Score:1)
Seriously, who cares? S*itcoms are pandered to the lowest of mental classes. The overworked woman-in-distress movie gets the female part in. Guys (in theory) watch Sports. (Granted, I gave up Monday Night Football years ago.) At least we have the net, where we can interact in places.
Re:Try again. (Score:2)
So, yes, it is one hour less per day.
[TMB]
Re:TV in an Online World (Score:1)
My only TV set right now is a little one with a 2-1/2" Active Matrix LCD display. (there's also a 19" black and white portable wrapped in plastic out in the garage, though) I call it "The TV set built into a remote control." Still, it would be fun to have a cable TV installer come out and plug a set top box into it. The set would sit on top of the box.
Re:Should be a boon for on-line ad rates... (Score:1)
Re:misinterpretation, perhaps? (Score:1)
[TMB]
Re:Could this be simply corilated with class? (Score:1)
It could be that there is a skew resulting from income and education level among net users. Busy professionals who do not have time to watch Seinfeld reruns possibly find it more convenient to get information from the net. It could also be that there are TV people and there are net people, regardless of education or income.
Personally, I am glued to net, print and TV about equally during my waking hours.
Why Advertising Doesn't Work on the Web (Score:3)
TV vs' Web (Score:1)
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
The GNU is coming, are you ready?
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
Big Brother is watching, vote Libertarian!!
TV in the home... not any more! (Score:1)
Long life the NET!
Musicmaker
NLE... (Score:1)
This is the best NLE you're going to find for the money.. consumer-level PC stuff just doesn't cut it (unless all you're going to do is editing footage of your Kid's little league games.)
If you want to be a video hacker, then use Linux, if you want to be a videographer, use something else; someone has already invented that wheel.
zero hours (Score:1)
I might be driving down the average.
Bill Watterson put it best... (Score:1)
"It means that Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet."
--
Re:TV in an Online World (Score:1)
Amazingly, not less than 2 minutes after I wrote my comment, a co-worker asked me "Do you watch Save by the Bell?" And of course, I told him "I don't watch TV." Needless to say, I received "The Look." Absolutely Incredible.
I get the same look. Mind you, saying "I don't watch TV" to your workmates maybe seems a little odder when you work for a TV station, like I do. :-)
Nah, one or two rented videos a week, and maybe one movie at the cinema, that's enough to satiate my passive entertainment desires..
Re:Reading not your stong suit, Doug? (Score:2)
Thank you for clearing that up.
10 hours... (Score:1)
--
Nielson Homes (Score:3)
I was once part of the Nielson "family" for about a week. They kicked me out of the program since I wasn't the "typical television viewer". (Anyone who's ever studied statistics reread that last sentence
Now ask yourself, if you were a TV producer, wouldn't you be interested in which shows people tuned into if they only tuned into one show? Who cares about people who change to a program just because the previous one went to a commercial break.
I no longer own a TV. I suddenly realized that I hadn't turned the thing on in six weeks, so I sold it.
How True (Score:1)
On another note, yes, I can say I know people who watch 10 hours of tv a day : ) Most of them are my age (high school kids), so I suppose that's not saying much for the Future of Our Country, is it?
miyax
is it really watching ? (Score:1)
if you want to reduce your "watching" time just do like me : put the TV set in another room and buyb no tuner card or by one not usable under linux (like me)
well... music is better than junk shows on TV
Both? (Score:1)
Re:Why I watch less TV (Score:1)
My wife and I watch 2 or three hours of TV a night. We watch while making and eating dinner, maybe a primetime show, and M*A*S*H in bed. We do not get our news from television. I'd rather spend some time online than wait for the news to give me something interesting.
get rid of that TV! (Score:1)
However, I spend hours on the net every day, and so do my wife and kids. More power to the people! We can make our own programming, and mostly prefer information over 'shows'.
For movies we go to the big screen and pay a few bucks.
The boredom factor (Score:2)
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
Re:Why I watch less TV (Score:1)
SHUDDER
I hadn't seeen any television for about six months and then I watched some night time news show. It was some national news show, I couldn't even tell you what it was. I felt like a 12 year old, at least that seemed to me to be their target audience's education level. I was mesmerized by just how awful the news was. Also how biased and useless the content was. Does it surprise anyone that the lexical analysis of TV news shows it having a content at about the sixth grade level? Ughh.
Now I get most of my news from The BBC and various others. I certainly can't depend on the local paper's (very heavily influenced by local business interests[not in a good way]), both of which are owned by the same company. I haven't had a television for about six years now. I really do feel it's good to throw the old telly out the window, kinda like giving yourself a mental enema.
Re:Poll? (Score:1)
Gimme a break. 10 hours?!? I'd love that sort of hack time at home.
Re:It's intelligence (Score:1)
As for TV insulting the intelligence of the people... ask an average American viewer how insulted he feels. Chances are the TV is playing right to his IQ not insulting him...
The next vegetarians (Score:3)
If you thought the vegetarians were fun, just wait until you meet the TV-phobes.
True confession: Sometimes I like to drink and smoke while eating deep-fried meat in front of the television.
Re:misinterpretation, perhaps? (Score:1)
now the "one hour daily" refers to the total viewing time, not the less time.
-k-
Re:TELEVISION IS DRUGS (Score:1)
By the way, the link doesn't work.
Re:Still high, even with "person-hours" (Score:1)
Yeah. There`s one we use for an anchor for the sail boat.
Re:Reading not your stong suit, Doug? (Score:2)
>Wired homes watch an average of 13% less TV -- about one hour daily -- than others, says the study, commissioned by America Online
Bullshit. That's exactly what that says. I admit that its worded kinda wierd. Wired homes watch about one hour daily, 13% less than others - would have made more sense.
Not, Wired homes watch one hour less tv per day than others, 13% less. Makes no sense.
Only way to know for sure would be to look at the actual study. Anyone have a link?
Re:Downfall of TV news? - FREE THE CONTENT (Score:1)
C'mon! They're always good for a laugh. Their absurd brand of humor is at least as good as the Onion or Segfault.
Wait -- you're saying they're expecting me to take them seriously? Sorry, I'm not falling for that one, buddy.
Re:Downfall of TV news? - FREE THE CONTENT (Score:1)
The pseudo-news crap like HardCopy, Dateline NBC etc. have to be about the most annoying shows on television to me these days. Guaranteed to trigger an instant channel switch when one of those comes on. The false drama in those programs is pretty sickening, and is often exploitative.
I agree that there are many good news sources, for me the television is rarely where I learn things first. Reading the local newspaper every day has been a touchstone for me since I was little, and is still my most consistent source of world news. I listen to a local AM radio news station for about half an hour each morning getting ready for work. The rest gets filled in by the net and the TV I guess.
I'm not sure if the trend of TV toward entertainment is all bad. I think it was John Laroquette who really didn't like TV, felt that it was very poorly suited for serious topics and that the best it could really provide was a smile or a laugh.
For me, the television is on most of the time that I am at home on weeknights. However, the television is not the focus of my activity, it's something there in the background while I work on my computer or work on other things. The only programming that ever gets my full attention is a live sporting event involving a team that I care about a lot. (Read: Broncos Games
I pay $43 a month for cable service and use at most about five or six of the available stations. My TV is generally on HBO or a sporting event, possibly a network comedy.
As far as I'm concerned, there is one thing that seriously needs to be done, and that is to divorce the cable wire from the content passed over it. I never liked the AOL sort of model where the connectivity and the content are provided by a single monolithic provider. The exclusive rights to provide content over their wires was given to the cable companies as part of their monopoly status necessary to get the infrastructure built.
With cable being deregulated and opening up to other avenues of making money from the infrastructure, I think it is well past time to eliminate the monopoly on content provided through cable television. Let me buy my information access by the piece. If I had the ability to tailor the content coming into my TV rather than being forced to swallow (and subsidize) the same least common denominator of pablum as everybody else, the TV might get more of my interest. The cable company can charge me for the line capacity, and even make money as a middleman for content providers as far as I care... just let ME choose what I am buying.
Re:Why I watch less TV (Score:1)
Sifl N Olly? (Score:1)
I haven't seen it since last summer!
*pants expectingly*
Non-Linear Editor (Score:2)
Good advice I am sure. I've been a fan of the video toaster for years. And yes, I am probably reinventing the wheel by using linux to do something that has already been done on other systems... but that is kind of my point. I would like to make a killer video editing setup on Linux exactly because it appears to be unexplored territory. Linux has been successful at the number crunching side of some amazing movie affects... why not the visual side? It seems the only thing lacking is a specialized video card, and I would be very suprised if something suitable has not been created. I just have not yet discovered it. My only hope is that the hardware is accessible via an open API of some sort. It is very important to me that I can *lift the hood* on my editing system and customize the software.
Still hoping for some more hardware pointers...
Thad
Internet Scares in the News (Score:1)
--Zax
Re:Downfall of TV news? (Score:1)
Once upon a time, TV newscasts showed us things that the networks thought we should hear about. (Granted, their opinions on this weren't always entirely unbiased.) Now, TV newscasts tend to show us things that the networks think we want to hear about.
It's the path of least resistance. The same thing has happened to the movies -- sequels and remakes galore, and fewer original storylines.
Heck, it's even happened to dictionaries. Dictionaries used to be prescriptive -- they told you how words should be used. Many current dictionaries are now descriptive -- they tell you how most people are using the words these days (no matter how bizarre said usage may be). "Hey, if most people think that 'impact' is a verb, far be it from us to tell them that they're wrong."
I don't know if there's any way to change any of this. Probably not. Perhaps someday there will be only one news story, and it will be covered 24 hours a day on every channel. Everyone will find this story irresistably compelling. Legions of people will spend their entire lives glued to their screens, unable to summon the will to do anything else. Aieee.....
---
Still high, even with "person-hours" (Score:2)
Thad
Or total hours TV is on (Score:2)
Christopher A. Bohn
Re:The next vegetarians (Score:3)
*LOL*
And if you think that's fun, try having to read them for classes. (Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death etc.)
I'm not a huge fan of the "idiot box" and I also don't eat a whole lot of meat, don't smoke, etc. But that's my thing, that's MY moral code, and I wouldn't impose it on anyone else (except perhaps whatever spouse and children I may or may not end up with).
Besides, I've got my stumbling-blocks, like net-addiction, and caffeine, and chocolate, and spending too darn much money on Starbucks.
TV isn't pure evil any more than the net is all-porn-and-hate-speech, all-the-time. The problem is that, like with so many things, the tripe dominates and the good stuff gets pushed aside.
I didn't have cable until college. I was grateful for being able to veg out in front of *gasp* MTV the semester I broke my leg and wasn't going out much for obvious reasons. (Though I *did* hobble up to the weekly open-mic coffeehouse.) Later, I discovered the Sci-Fi channel and specifically Ray Bradbury Theater.
But as a kid, I watched: Sesame Street and lots of other PBS shows (any other Square One junkies out there?), the news, Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy, occasionally certain series (The Wonder Years and I'll Fly Away come to mind) when I happened to be home, and VERY occasionally Saturday morning cartoons on the RARE Saturday mornings I didn't have art classes, swim meets, etc.
If any single activity is sucking up all your time, there's a problem. And I don't care if it's TV, the Net, good old-fashioned reading, the SCA (guilty!), AD&D or some other roleplaying game, exercising, or working ridiculous amounts of overtime. Or anything else. And TV is particularly problematic because it tends to encourage uncritical acceptance.
But like I said, TV isn't inherently bad any more than the Net is. Generally speaking, I have better things to do, but if I happen to be home and Star Trek or anything else I like happens to be on, I can veg out with the best of them.
Interactivity! (Score:2)
I know, in our household, the number of hours of TV watched would probably be even fewer if my husband and myself could both be online at the same time!
YS