by RIPSmithianEconomics » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 06:47:20
I guess I'm very unusual amongst my generation (those born in about 1986 or later) in that I've lost almost all interest in passive entertainment. However, I do like to attack the TV (mentally).
TV is an inconsistentt source of information. You can go from watching a Church program full of people that would like to see homosexuality banned (latently, of course) to Will And Grace, which commends the relationship between a gay male and a heterosexual female.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who think that sex before marriage is wrong, yet never miss an episode of Friends. And of course, if you've ever watched the ITV news and compared it to the Channel 4 news, even though they are both produced by ITN, they have different, shall we say attitudes to events.
So, when I was given some History past-papers to grade in order to improve my essay writing skills, I wasn't too surprised to see inconsistencies in many of the essays- even those that would otherwise be A level. As the book Amusing Ourselves To Death says, the "that was there and this is here" attitude that is prevalent amongst much of the TV generation can lead to acceptance of distortion of facts. Few in the UK can even remember why we went to war. As soon as the media gave up on Weapons Of Mass Destruction, then so did everyone else.
But there are other problems with the television. One is, as has been pointed out earlier, the news. Unless you record it, and play it back repeatedly, you are unlikely to conciously exorb much information from the TV news. Perhaps you'll get an attitude towards issues, but you are unlikely to really become much more informed than you would be if you hadn't heard about them at all. This is the glory of newspapers, and by that I mean real newspapers, not tabloids. In fact, my favourite newspaper has to be the Times, circa 1930's. My father studies History in this period, and he's got roles upon roles of old backcopies of the Times. The main thing you realise is the almost complete abscence of pictures. The other thing you notice is the amazing standard of English. The language used is berefit of cliches, and full of words like berefit. When was the last time you saw a word like axiom appear on the TV news?
Which leads us on to the final and, if you ask me, one of the worst faults of the TV, and this is the dumbing-down. Now, I know that you can't expect everyone to understand a word like axiom. But many old newspapers used it, and they weren't just read by the intellectuals. The problem is that with a newspaper, if you come across a word that you don't understand, then you can check its context. For instance, with axiom-
"We cannot hide behind the axiom that the Conservative party appeals purely to the Upper-Class. We must accept that they appeal to the working class as well, and as the Labour party is for the working class, then we have a responsibility to find out the reason for this appeal etc. etc."
I think just about anyone who can read would be able to find out the meaning of axiom from that written passage. But if it flashes by in a second on the TV news, then it means nothing. Therefore it isn't used, and I can't think of any simple equivalent word with the exact same meaning. As a result, people are unable to denounce something as an axiom, and you have a problem. Individuals are shaped by language more than they shape language, and as a result, the abscence of any word limits a person.
In conclusion, John Bonham and Keith Moon were right in throwing hotel TV's out of the window.
There'll be war, there'll be peace
But one day all things shall cease
All the iron turned to rust
All the proud men turned to dust
So all things time will mend
So this song will end
- "most people" are thinking, "not in my lifetime", and "it's too far away".
