In class we discussed two theories about the cognitive requirements of contemporary TV.
The first theory discussed was the Sleeper Curve (2005), conceived by Steven Johnson, who argues that television DOES make us smarter, not because of it's content but because of its complex structures. He states that today's TV shows, which often have multiple plots of equal importance going on simultaneously, "require us to have to pay attention, make inferences and track shifting social relationships." To further back his theory, he states that contemporary TV avoids obvious cues (flashing arrows, he calls them), that used to hold the hand of TV watchers, constantly reminding them of what exactly was going on. He then argues that if TV watchers in contemporary society were to watch an episode of "Bonanza,"for example, we would most likely be bored.
The second theory, is by media theorist, Neil Postman, author of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (1985). In the text, Postman argues that television is ultimately the death of our intelligence. He argues many points, some of which include the idea that 1) Television has an inherent bias for entertainment which therefore turns the serious areas of our culture (news, religious broadcasting and educational programming) into branches of show business 2) Television causes a disconnect (from truth/fiction, each other, ourselves to the information we receive). One example he gives of this is the layout of newspapers, in which each story is juxtaposed between other stories that have nothing to do with it. He also mentions the distanced cause by the glut of information, i.e. the more information we receive, the less we care about it. 3) Commercials manufacture desires other than products that meet genuine needs. No longer is the buyer well informed about the product, they are entertained and amused into buying it.
The similarity between these two theorists is that both focus on the medium itself, NOT the content of the messages.
For this post, please write your thoughts as to which theory you agree with. Please use your text for at least one source. There is quite a bit on this topic in there.
Due Wednesday, April 24 by 10 PM
OtherPossible sources:
A summary of Johnson's theory as seen in his book :
OtherPossible sources:
A summary of Johnson's theory as seen in his book :
Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. Published in the New York Times, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0
A decent online summary of Postman's theory: http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
Steven Johnson and Neil Postman each have very different theories about the way television effects our minds. Johnson believes that the structure of TV today actually makes us smarter because it is more complex now compared to the way it used to be, also known as the sleeper curve. Postman believes that TV uses topics, such as religion or news, as a means of entertainment and will eventually lead to the death of our intelligence. My thoughts on the matter, however, are that I agree and disagree with certain points of each theory.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the structure of TV today is definitely more complex but I don’t think it necessarily makes us smarter. I think that the complex structure does exercise our brains because it is making us use them to analyze the show but I think this is just exercising the knowledge we already have and not really making us more intelligent. I do believe there are exceptions, though. Shows on channels such as the discovery channel allow us to gain knowledge, which ultimately is making us smarter but I don’t believe the structure of a show does. Many people have claimed the use of brain training, which supposedly is supposed to make you smarter in all aspects. Nintendo claimed at one point that their games were boosting the blood flow and increasing practical intelligence. “The problem with all this brain-training stuff is that you might get better at doing puzzles, or remembering number sequences, but no one has found the Holy Grail of brain-training – 'far transfer', where you practice one thing and get better at an array of very different things.” In other words, the structure of a show is not really making you smarter in other aspects. You might become smarter in solving puzzles or predicting how a show will play out but you won’t all of a sudden become smart in science or a high-level math.
On the other hand, however, I don’t think TV is making us dumber and leading to the death of our intelligence. It is true TV can be used for entertainment and that there is junk TV out there but I don’t think we can lose intelligence because of this. Sometimes it is good to just have entertainment. I honestly think we need some form of entertainment in this world in order to stay sane, no matter what it is. Also the complex structures of today’s television are allowing us to use our brain in some way. It may not be making us smarter but it definitely isn’t making us dumber. In Steven Johnson’s theory he explains that, “The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwinings, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play.” This means that our brains are working with these more complex shows or forms of entertainment. If our brains are working and we are using them in some way, we can’t become less intelligent.
In the first comprehensive study of children and television scientists found, “For most children, under most conditions, most television is probably neither particularly harmful nor particularly beneficial” (pg. 459). In other words, television makes us neither smarter nor dumber. So in conclusion, our brains are working with these shows but they aren’t necessarily making us smarter and because our brains are working we can’t really become dumber.
Works Cited
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/can-you-really-train-your-brain-1936510.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&
Media and Culture Textbook
Steven Johnson and Neil Postman have established two very different theories over the years. These theories referred to television and the kind of impact it posed on society as a whole. Steven Johnson’s theory, also known as the sleeper curve focuses on complex structures in shows rather than the content. He states that multiple plots of equal importance going on simultaneously causes the brain to think critically. Postman however believes that television will ultimately be the death of our intelligence. He expresses this notion around introducing issues as entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with points brought up by each theorist. I agree that having a complicated structure with multiple plots gets a person to think critically but I disagree with Johnson’s take on content. Content has a lot to do with the accumulation of knowledge because inevitably there is a huge difference from watching the discovery channel compared to watching SpongeBob Squarepants or 16 and pregnant. Content however has one huge critical aspect both theorist didn’t even touch upon which is age. Age depends on the accumulation of knowledge simply based on experiences. When a connection is made to television, a three year old watching Sesame Street learns a lot based on its content and structure. A three year old is learning how to read, count, and write where compared to a nineteen year old he/she is aware of the what the world has to offer through their experiences and nothing presents itself as new, this notion that they’ve been there, done that, and seen that. “The hypodermic-needle model, sometimes also called the magic bullet theory or the direct effects model. It suggests that the media shoot their potential effects directly into unsuspecting victims” (458 Media and Culture). This connects to age because who is more unsuspecting than young children. When taking age into consideration content and structure can have a deep impact on ones knowledge.
I disagree with Postman’s belief on television making people less intelligent merely because no matter what, we tend to use our brains in anything we do, say, or watch. “At certain moments in anyone's life, such as when we are simply at rest and thinking, we may be using only 10 percent of our brains”(Scientific America). At worst we use about ten percent of our brain, therefore if we constantly use our brain it is impossible for a person to become less intelligent. I agree that television can be used for entertainment but I also believe there are a lot of shows that are content based specifically on knowledge, information, and unknown facts. More importantly I believe that if there were no form of entertainment in television people would reach high stress levels, which could eventually lead to a detrimental breakdown. “In this modern age of extreme pressures where everyone is expected to deliver results way beyond their capabilities, one has to have a way of defusing the pressure. This can be in terms of hobbies, various forms of art or entertainment.” Having entertainment is a good balance and it keeps people from losing their minds. Overall both theories have some points I disagree and agree on.
Media and Culture
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain
http://tamaram.com/uncategorized/why-we-all-need-entertainment
When thinking about the debate on whether TV is making us smarter or not, I find it challenging to come to a complete decision. Both arguments have valid points that I agree with and I think that it’s possible that it is making us both smarter and stupider at the same time, in different aspects. I find it interesting to compare this to the difference between reading a book and watching the movie version a book. The visual culture in general is a form of entertainment in some way or another, and I believe that it requires much less effort to watch something on TV rather than read about it. When I want to relax and be entertained for a short amount of time, I will choose to watch something on screen. But, when I am really interested in a storyline or its content, I will choose to read the book to be able to think critically about it while creating my own images in my mind. You can think critically in both mediums I believe, but the written word requires more energy, thought, and imagination.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think TV is making us stupider, though. I think that it provides us with a way to be entertained and think about things at the same time. The textbook Media and Culture explains that, “In such a heterogenous and diverse nation, the concept of a visual, affordable mass medium, giving citizens entertainment and information they could all talk about the next day, held great appeal. However, since its creation, commercial television has tended to serve the interests of profit more often than those of democracy” (Campbell 180). In other words, television has given people a system of entertainment and a medium to receive information in a way that many people find enjoyable, yet the need for money is part of its corruption. Although watching TV does not require as much thought as written mediums, it does require some thinking which varies mostly by the content of the television show. Steven Johnson explains in his book “Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter” that some television shows give us more to think critically about than others. He says, “What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind” (Johnson 5). I agree that some shows that have a more complex structure have the ability to engage our minds, but most of the time books engage our mind more, although this may not always be the case.
An article by Mary Ann Watson had an interesting take on the importance of analyzing television. She says, “Critical analysts of popular entertainment are often accused of being judgmental censors. Instead of complaining, we are told by those who profit, just turn it off. It is a tiresome and arrogant piece of advice. Questioning whether a media production causes harm to the common good is a form of civil thinking. And more of it needs to be generated in American universities, affording current students the opportunity to be even more media literate and humanitarian in outlook that their predecessors” (Watson). Analyzing the effects of television is extremely important, as well as consciously thinking about what we choose to watch or read and what we choose to avoid. Whether television makes us smarter or not, it definitely has quite a big impact and is a valuable thing to keep in mind when looking for information or entertainment.
Works Cited
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media and Culture. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.
Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter." New York Times 24 APR 2005, 5. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.
Watson, Mary Ann. "Ethics in entertainment television." Journal of Popular Film and Television 31.4 (2004): 146+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.
TV has always been a huge part of American culture. TV has always been a way for individuals to escape a tough day, a source to view educational programming and a place to receive essential information regarding the community and the world at large. Today it seems TV and the way we view it has changed and not for the better. TV is no longer a smart and useful way for an individual to spend their time. I agree with media theorist, Neil Postman and believe that TV does not make a society smarter. Postman believes that there are three things that are not increasing peoples knowledge and they are 1) TV turns serious areas of culture into show business, 2) TV causes disconnect and 3) commercials give into desires rather than real needs. I think that all these statements attribute to the fact that America is given the stereotype dumb Americans. The TV has now become a place were almost anything goes. When “smart” programs are on TV, their message and significance seem to disappear. Nowadays everything on TV somehow references back to Hollywood. Politics, education, and religion are all being mocked while sex, violence and language are key ingredients for a hit show. Although Postman only focuses on the medium to distinguish smartness, I believe content is essential to look at when evaluating intelligence. Today’s TV is glamorizing health problems, Hollywood obsessed and targeting younger audiences than ever before. Our youth are becoming corrupted. What kids see on TV is what they believe to be reality; so modern shows are influencing our youth in all the wrong ways. I believe the decline of intelligence also goes back to the content within the medium. The shows on TV are doing nothing to increase intelligence. Watching a show with an intricate plot by no means should be considered smart; not everything that gets your brain going is intelligent. Shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians and Fox News are some prime examples of why our society’s knowledge of important things is declining. Media and Culture states “television does indeed improperly influence its viewer” (page 457). TV is absolutely making society dumb and at a very fast rate.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.
Television today has transformed mass media and how we receive our information. It has widely been accepted as the number one trustworthy source of information, as well as the most popular. These days, it is much more simpler to click the power button to a television set, and sit back and relax, rather than picking up a paper and reading it. There are often arguments over if TV is making us smarter or “dumbing” us down. “Television has been accused of having a negative impact on children and young people, influencing their intake of sugary cereals and contributing to increases in teenage sex and violence” (Media & Culture, 165). Contrastingly, it makes us think, and requires our attention. Steven Johnson and Neil Postman have both established their own views on the topic. Personally, I do not even have to think twice about which side I take on this one.
ReplyDeleteSteven Johnson conceived the Sleeper Curve in 2005, an argument which states that TV actually makes us smarter because of the complex structure of many programs which require us to think and pay close attention in order to keep up and understand. Johnson questions if what you are watching is
“a single thread strung together with predictable punch lines every 30 seconds? Or does it map a complex social network” ? He claims that if it is the latter, it is worth watching. I do not agree with this being enough of a requirement to make TV worth watching. He advises those to watch Law and Order over an episode of Bonanza. I do not think there is too much of a difference between the two. Of course there is different subject matter, but they are both purely for entertainment. Just because an episode of Jersey shore contains not only Snooki’s conflicting love interests but an intense series of girl-fights we need to pay attention to keep up with, does not mean it is a program worth watching, and most definitely does not make us smarter. He almost insults all popular sitcoms, saying that the characters are too predictable. The characters of Friends are extremely predictable, each with their own identifiable personality. This show was on of the most successful of the 90s. People enjoy these because they get to know the characters, but at the end of the day these shows are made for entertainment. I feel like what Johnson is overlooking is that all non-fiction shows are for entertainment. Whether it be the most intelligent, in depth doctor show or just another episode of Friends, it is made for entertainment, how the entertainment is presented is just a bit different. It is like movies- whether a comedy or sci-fi, made to make you think or laugh, it is all for entertainment. No need to look deeper into how these forms of entertainment make us think because people are not walking away from their television after an episode of Jersey Shore proud of themselves that they kept up with all the “social conflicts”.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel that Postman, author of “Amusing Ourselves to Death” (1985) makes a more thought out, intelligent argument. “He does not even acknowledge TV made for entertainment. Postman is quick to point out that he is not condemning television in general or any of the countless trash programs that are designed purely for entertainment and are understood not to be
taken seriously.” I respect Postman for this, other than Johnson who is attempting to look deeper into these very “trash programs” for underlying social complexities. Instead, he looks into how important events and news are reported to us. He also takes note on how TV as a whole is more than anything, trying to make the most money possible in whatever way they can. “Since its creation, commercial television has tended to serve the interests of the profit more often than those of democracy. Despite this, television remains the main storytelling medium of our time.” (Media & Culture, pg. 180) Johnson means that the industry of TV over time has focused less on actually getting the message out there, and more on making a profit. How TV as a whole effects the population if something that should definitely be studied so that people are able to veer away from what TV often tries to do. No matter how much a lucky few are able to see past TV’s tactics, it will only keep increasing as a media source billions look to for information. He also talks about the news, and how we receive too much information irrelevant to us. TV most definitely reduces our attention span with all of this so-called “news” flashing at us every minute. If we hear about an earthquake in Japan that killed hundreds of people, we do not really think much. Slap some images on there, and all of a sudden we do, it is all about the visuals yet after they are gone, we continue not to care. Between all of the commercials and the fact that news stories are often less than a couple of minutes, we often have information go in one ear and out the other with the amount of it that we receive. “Facts push other facts into and out of consciousness,” says Postman, “at speeds that neither permit nor require evaluation”. Media these days is clearly about making a profit. Commercials come on so that people can buy things, transforming expensive cars from a luxury into something that all beautiful men and women must have if they want to be noticed. It is much more important in my opinion to dissect the ways TV is delivered to us rather than what Johnson was concerned about. I definitely agree with Postman because how TV is presented to us changes us with how it is presented, without us even knowing. It really goes back to the original question of why study media? Postman points out exactly why it is important to study media and how it is delivered, we must look past the power it has on us. According to Postman, “Our entire worldview hopelessly distorted because it is in the nature of the medium to suppress the content of ideas to accommodate the requirements of visual interest to the people”.
Media & Culture Text
http://www.cracked.com/article_18856_6-shocking-ways-tv-rewires-your-brain.html
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0
Over the past few decades, television has become an extremely large influence on American culture. Today, television impacts our lives in such an extreme way that watching TV is a significant part of many American’s daily routines. However, the more increasingly influential television becomes, the more the arguments the subject sparks regarding the impact television has on our culture and society. One of these arguments is whether or not television is making us smarter. This debate has been challenged by media theorist Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, and supported by Steve Johnson theory of the Sleeper Curve in 2005.
ReplyDeleteIn Steve Johnson’s Sleeper Curve theory, he argues that the complex structure of TV programs is making us smarter, rather than the content of the programs themselves. Johnson believes that shows which have multiple, simultaneous plots of equal importance draw viewers in and forces them to pay attention in order to keep track of what’s occurring in said show. In addition to the complexity of plot set-ups, Johnson also states that contemporary television no longer has obvious cues to constantly remind viewers what’s going on in a program. This therefore keeps a viewer’s attention throughout an entire program and allows them to be continuously thinking about what they’re watching.
I disagree with Johnson’s argument in that I feel the content of a specific program would increase viewer’s intelligence much more than the structure of the program. Obviously, this is extremely dependent on the program. For example, a viewer will undeniably intellectually benefit more from watching a news report on CNN as opposed to watching Jersey Shore on MTV. According to Richard Campbell in chapter 5 of Media & Culture, broadcast news has topped print journalism as a more trustworthy news medium source in research polls. Also, the development of CNN in the 1980’s notably changed broadcast news by offering viewers breaking new information and stories in a continuous loop all day long. I feel watching the new and staying updated on current events, financial statuses, and national/international affairs is more intellectually valuable to viewers because it offers the opportunity to gain knowledge about what’s going on in society and in the world. In addition to news programs, there are now an abundance of educationally based programs on cable science and history channels for viewers of all ages.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteThis being said, I agree more with Neil Postman’s theory about television being the death of our intelligence, but to an extent. As stated previously, I feel that specific content of certain television programs can be intellectually beneficial, so I don’t completely agree that watching TV is killing our intelligence. However, I do agree with Postman’s argument that all aspects of TV are becoming much more show business based than they have been in the past and that a significant portion of everything on TV is commercially and financially influenced. I think that the TV industry has increasingly become more dependent upon money; not in the sense of producing programs, but more in that actors, news anchors, etc. have become obsessed with the life of luxury they’ve been introduced to through the industry and more recently have been expecting higher salaries and more compensations as a result. I believe that this is gradually shifting the focus of television off of the content of programs and more towards materialism and consumerism, which is consequently decreasing the intellectual value of these programs.
Media & Culture text
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0
Underneath a picture of JFK on TV in our text, the quote, “ The bottom line is that television, despite the audience fragmentation, still provides a gathering place” illuminates an important aspect of television that most people never really think about. (181) Anecdotally, a co-worker of mine is obsessed with a new show, The Following, and even more obsessed with who else might be watching it. My pet theory is that the violence and thoughtless gore are a bit too much for her but she is socially nervous to admit it. It’s not a “nice” show. And, in fact, it is hard to find a “nice” show on TV anymore unless you count the food network and the Hallmark Channel. What is mainstream is often not nice.
ReplyDeleteWhat may be obvious now is that I am taking the side of our elderly friend form the eighties and his theory that we are Amusing Ourselves to Death, Mr. Neil Postman. Reality TV is perhaps the best example of idiot brand TV. It is popular because it is cheap for the networks to make. They don’t have to design and build sets and they don’t have to pay real actors. They just have to keep the cameras rolling no matter what. What is often a nebulous subject is the effect the idiocy and violence now so pervasive on TV have on our society. It is often hard for an average American (including myself) to admit that TV can have an effect on anything much less national culture. Easier for me is to see a connection between violent thinking in kids and strongly violent and demeaning video games. The two mediums, video games and TV, can be compared to one another easily though. Especially when, “Every channel, it seems, is lining up to showcase the very worst of human behavior” (Bennington) In her Huffington Post blog, Bennington also describes the downward shift that has taken place in recent history, in the cultural decency and educational worth of TV programming.
We can even quote Ray Bradbury weighing in on this issue. Ever wonder if he was thinking about TV a lot or a little when he wrote Fahrenheit 451? Here he is in 2001:” "I wasn't worried about freedom. I was worried about people being turned into morons by TV." I myself share that worry every once in a while. Luckily I don’t have time to watch it. But, from a personal level I can say that two of the times I felt smartest in my life (by my own count) were when I had sworn off TV as a time waster. There are even moments when I am embarrassed to admit that I watch it as much as I do, which I hope isn’t a lot. Here is another quote from a former chair of the FCC: "In the 1930s and 1940s, television's creators expressed their hope that the new medium would be the greatest instrument of enlightenment ever invented, a blessing to future generations. They were wrong. . . . No other major democratic nation in the world has so willingly turned its children over to mercenary strangers this way. No other democratic nation has so willingly converted its children into markets for commercial gain and ignored their moral, intellectual, and social development."(Newton Minow quoted by Kaufman) I have to say I wholeheartedly agree (but only in my lucid moments.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteAgain, from a personal perspective, perhaps it is the idea that getting rid of the TV to some people means getting rid of entertainment. Since, that is one of the only forms of entertainment we can think of anymore. But, as almost everyone knows there are other ways to entertain ourselves. A good example of the culture shift TV has caused is a book I’m reading now (picked up at Sojourner Truth) titled, Mark Twain and The Colonel about two of the cultural titans from the turn of the century, Mark Twain and Theodore Roosevelt. Just what struck me so clearly in the opening chapters was the adulation that each man received. Kind-hearted and grounded admiration and attention diverted to each for solid reasons and based in reality is a far cry from Justin Bieber sneaking past the paparazzi in a Chanel ski-mask and Billy Joe and Eminem ending up back in rehab again. The point being that TV exposure is not the same type of famous that famous once was. We now delight in the destruction as well as the stardom of certain individuals. Look at the utter confusion of Lindsey Lohan, a girl who once epitomized wholesomeness in this country. Tv can turn anything and anyone into a monster because of our sheer obsession with it and because it tries to appeal to the stupidest common denominator. Again, I am backed up by Kaufman: “TV is simply a video advertising display that panders to the lowest common standard in a effort to sell products for private commercial gain.”
TV can make us smarter, but we have to want that enough for it to happen. There are a few countries that have banned advertising to children. Perhaps that is a place to start, it may even have some further effects, like lowering our collective weights once kids stops begging mommy to take them to Wendy’s or by the sugary breakfast cereal. It’s important that we start somewhere. Fahrenheit 451 might just come true after all if we don’t
Bennington, E. (2010) Does Reality TV Make Us Stupid?. The Blog, [blog] 15th March, Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-bennington/does-reality-tv-make-us-s_b_496084.html [Accessed: 23rd April 2013].
Mark Twain and the Colonel: Samuel L. Clemens, Theodore Roosevelt, and the Arrival of a New Century by Philip McFarland ©2012
Kaufman, R. (2007), A Nation of Morons: Is Television Making Us Stupid?. Available from: http:http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/morons/stupid.html [Accessed: April 23, 2013].
When it comes to the argument of whether or not television makes us smarter or stupid, I am undecided. However I recognize that there are many factors that go into each. I believe that both of these theorists make valid points although, I have not been able to reach a final decision for myself. I do not think that television necessarily makes us smarter but that does not mean that it is making us dumber. In an article by Nigel Barber, Ph.D. he brings up the fact that it is not the television make us dumb but the effects of watching too much of it. It is recommended that children do not watch more than three hours of television per day because they need to have enriching interactions with their parents and this is key to the argument. Also when children or adults watch too much television they take valuable time away from other activities. My conclusion is that it is not television that makes us dumb because someone can give you a gun but you do not have to shoot it. People have made the decision to watch too much TV and the outcome is lack of interaction with others or opting to ignore homework, which then has detrimental effects on intelligence. There is an interesting point in the textbook “Those who complain about a lack of community among television viewers might pay attention to the vitality and interaction of TV sports watchers wherever they assemble” (p 181). For me personally, I know this is true because I am a huge Giants fan and when it comes to football in general anywhere I go to watch a game there is a large amount of interaction and sense of community. However, I believe that sports are the exception here because I cannot see people getting together to watch the Big Bang Theory and interacting in the same way. As for now, I am not willing to blame the medium for lack of intelligence or gain.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200903/does-watching-tv-make-us-stupid
The two theories opened on the topic of whether television makes the viewer more or less intelligent opens up a very interesting debate. The first theory introduced by Steven Johnson claims that television does make us smarter because of its complex structures.
ReplyDeleteHe states that today's TV shows, which often have multiple plots of equal importance going on simultaneously, "require us to have to pay attention, make inferences and track shifting social relationships." Another theory by Neil Postman states the contrary. He states that television is ultimately the death to our intelligence. One thing that these two theories is that have in common is that they examine to medium in which the content is coming through and not the content itself.
I personally believe that the medium in which we view a show has no correlation to ones intelligence so I would not agree with either theory. Although some shows may have multiple plots and cause a viewer to stay on their feet, I dont think it will make someone more or less smart. One of my favorite all time shows, Lost, was a show similar to this. It had multiple plots going on at once and much of the show was base around social relationships. I did have to think and follow closely to every episode that the show was presenting but in the end I dont think I became smarter or dumber.
I believe that if there is anything that will effect a level of intelligence it would be the the content. There is a huge difference between watching a meaningless cartoon show and perhaps and investigator show. So in conclusion i do not agree with either theory and believe that the content if anything will affect the viewer. In the first comprehensive study of children and television scientists found, “For most children, under most conditions, most television is probably neither particularly harmful nor particularly beneficial” (pg. 459).
Being smart is something that you are born with. It is not a matter of how much information you can acquire, rather if you are smart it is just the way you are. It is up to the individual to decide if they want to dedicate their lives to learning information and abstract thought. With the matter of television it is not so much if we are becoming dumber, rather it is all of the social consequences television does that makes its influence most evident. It is the fact that when you read a book, there is a sense of imagination that lets your brain work. Television distracts people from reality on a daily basis. The same could be said with every form of entertainment. The difference though between going to a Broadway show and television is that TV is so easily accessible. Just punch a number and images pop up. There are thousands of channels out there that if you want to watch something you can find it. It is feeding you images you want to see, you are choosing how to be entertained. From there products are sold to you and you become your show. This is true for everyone in the 21st century. I watch sports, listen to music, and enjoy stupid cartoons. My figure and clothing resembles this. It is no coincidence to see an image of someone and not be able to figure out what they enjoy and what entertainment they find fun. We were given this image and we are trying to copy it in every right. We have lost our individuality and this is horrible to say, but somewhere in the world there is someone just like you. Television has brought upon these unified characteristics of people that are evident everywhere. Go into a high school, its exactly what Mean Girls or The Breakfast Club depicts, there are jocks, popular kids, cheerleaders, nerds, freaks, every typical high school stereotype you could think of. Of course this is an off tangent, but it is a negative effect of television.
ReplyDeleteThe most striking example of television having an impact of how society has “dumbed down” is by looking at the example regarding the Lincoln and Douglas debates. Television has made it so that public leaders display themselves only how they want. Constant commercials that often displays misleading information has had its negative impact. Politicians are not really held responsible for their actions more so than the fact that television has let them get away with providing the truth. Political debates on television are democracy at its worst. Take for example the first ever Presidential debate on television. In the 1960 election John F. Kennedy went up against Richard Nixon. Kennedy won the debate because of his good looks and his calm collectiveness towards the television audience. Nixon looked awful, the key word is looked. We shouldn’t be living in an age where we chose politicians based on looks; we should be picking leaders based on their qualifications and actions. Television has allowed a figurehead become the leader of the free world, more so on their qualifications.
In conclusion, television has not made us dumber or smarter more so than ruining our political process and forcing us to lose our individuality.
Sources
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/sixties/essays/great-debate-kennedy-nixon-and-television-1960-race-for-presidency
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
Continued:
ReplyDelete. In an opposing article summarizing Postman’s Theory, the author explains “The more information that one receives, the more irrelevant it all becomes. “Facts push other facts into and out of consciousness at speeds that neither permit nor require evaluation” (70). We now had access to scores of information, but it was all mostly useless information.” (http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm). While it makes sense that too much information can be a bad thing as things begin to ‘go in one ear and out the other,’ this statement seems to forget that it is not necessarily the content or the information going in that is what makes our minds begin working, but it is the way that our minds begin processing that information. We may try to make sense of something we heard on the news earlier, even if at the time it seemed irrelevant and we quickly changed the channel. Or, we may try to figure out a riddle we heard on a talkshow, or even try to find out why the guy in Law and Order would do that to his family. Whatever the case may be, our minds are working when we watch something on T.V. As the opposing article continues on, the author explains “…there can be no perplexity, meaning even if there are unanswered questions and difficulties within the topic being explored by the program, they must be brushed over or ignored entirely, as a confused or perplexed audience is likely to change the channel. Finally and most importantly, there can be no exposition. The facts must be stated with as little analysis as possible, as the medium does not easily lend itself to in-depth discussions and detailed debates. (http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm). While I agree that television shows, especially ones meant to teach us or share information with us, do not give us a chance to interact and ask questions, they still give our minds the stimulation explained by the Sleeper Curve. We may try figuring things out on our own by searching it up through a different medium, or by talking with others, and in either case, it has followed through with getting our minds to first pay attention and focus, then process the information, and then decide what to do with it from there. I agree with one of Johnson’s concluding statements, “Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1).
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
Media & Culture Chapter 5
Steven Johnson and Neil Postman have introduced two different theories on the impact of television. Johnson argues that television does make us smarter and requires us to pay close attention to the things going on in the shows. Postman argues that television is “ultimately the death of our intelligence.” He believes that the bias opinions lead us to a disadvantage in life and that television causes a disconnection to the information we receive.
ReplyDeleteWhile both theories are intriguing, I have to agree with Johnson. While television can have a major impact on someone’s life, I see it as a positive way. Johnson focuses in on the mind and how television can effect the brain. Whether you think a show is dumb or not, it still makes you think and it still has an imprint in your brain. He gives an example such as something as simple as predicting what is going to happen in the upcoming scene or the upcoming episode. By watching shows and by providing your own experiences and thoughts, you are smart enough to figure out complex shows and their underlying theories. He then goes on to describe how video games make us think like adults. As a frequent gamer of sports video games through the years, you have to register the moves in a game and remember that. For example, the Madden franchise is the top selling football franchise. During a pass play, you have to think about who is going to be open and what routes the receivers are going to run. With correct timing, and the press of a button, you should have a completed pass. While one might argue that anyone can press a button and complete a pass, it essentially takes good memory and smarts to know what you’re doing. Same goes for playing defense in the game. If you can understand what the other offense is trying to do, you can match it with a good defensive structure to stop the offense. Games are so advanced these days that it is hard for anyone to just pick up and be good. Essentially, it’s like having the mind as a coach. Also, as an athlete back in high school, I was able to watch what they were doing in real life on Sunday’s, see the things they could do in the video game, and try and improve my game on the field and take the little things. Watching sports take up a big chunk of my life. The NFL Draft is coming up thursday night and it is a pretty exciting event for sports fans. Watching sports shows that are available through the television and internet, I have a pretty good idea of what to expect when the draft starts. The guys who do their jobs are considered “experts” and while one might think that it is a silly job that shouldn’t be taken seriously, you can’t deny their ability to correctly predict what they believe. It takes a smart person to take into account all the aspects of an organization and then predict what the general manager of the team will do. General managers are pretty smart if I’d say so. My point about sports is that by viewing what you enjoy, whether it be a radio show or a game, you gain an advantage and are essentially smarter than you were before watching them. A play as simple as a block in basketball, can lead you to wonder all the different things a player could’ve done to avoid getting blocked.
In the textbook, Campbell states, “In such a heterogenous and diverse nation, the concept of a visual, affordable mass medium, giving citizens entertainment and information that they could all talk about the next day, held great appeal. Television wants to appeal to the its viewers and in order to be successful, they wanna provide the viewers with a satisfying program. You look at programs like the History Channel, ESPN, PBS, and Disney Channel, they can all benefit a person and the way they think. PBS has been paving the way for educating young kids for years and years. Even if you might think Jersey Shore is a detrimental show, it can make you think how dumb people can be and that the things they do on that show do exist in the real world. A show like Mad Men can make your mind race and think all these different things. Is Don Draper a boss? Or is he a sneaky jerk? Or both? The show has been very successful because of all the underlying themes and the way that it is presented to the audience. When arguing for Johnson, I can’t help but think about our first post that asked why it was important to study the media. This is exactly why. People can obtain the information they want and choose what programs to watch. Watching a commercial and not understanding the use of the product and only how appealing the commercial was, doesn’t bring you at a disadvantage if you understand what the media is trying to accomplish. Thinking how a commercial uses rhetoric to persuade, shows how many smart people are out there by not falling for their tricks. I didn’t study the media, but I understood the concept of rhetoric without even knowing what rhetoric was. I gained a knowledge by my experiences watching television.
ReplyDeleteTextbook
Mad Men
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&
For many decades television has been a huge part of American culture. In 1998 Frank Rich of the New York Times stated “Television is the medium from which most of us receive our news, sports, entertainment, cues for civic discourse, and, most of all, our marching orders as consumers” (Campbell 145). Today television holds a bigger role than ever in our day to day routine. There are many theories as to what kind of affect this influence has on Americans, sparking repeated arguments about its social and cultural impact (Campbell 145). When it comes to the argument of whether or not television makes us more or less intelligent, I do not completely agree with either Johnson or Postman. I believe that the answer to this question falls in a gray area, depending on what kind of television we are watching, what an individual takes away from it, and what we consider “intelligence”. There are so many factors that go into this question that there is no way to come up with a clear answer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Johnson’s idea that modern television can help with our attention and analytical skills when it comes to shows that you have to follow closely such as Law and Order SVU or LOST. These shows get the gears turning in your head and make the viewer use their mind. It can also be argued that shows on cooking channels or History channel provide us with knowledge that can be difficult for us to gain elsewhere, or that sitcoms can help you improve your sense of humor and wit. Then again this raises the question of whether or not being funny could be considered a form of intelligence. Even with shows that seemingly provide no mental stimulation, such as Jersey Shore or Teen Mom, it could argued that they educate the viewer on how not to behave if they want to be taken seriously in society.
Postman’s idea that television makes even news broadcasts into branch of show business is also a valid argument. It is difficult to recognize real life news when it is sandwiched between an episode of Seinfeld and Family Guy, but does this necessarily mean that we are becoming less intelligent by watching it? I know not believe that there is any way of proving that television is good or bad for every person, because each individual will take away something different from the television they watch.
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media and Culture. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.
I agree with the theory of Steven Johnson, but he focused on just medium. Actually I think we cannot decide TV shows make us smarter or not by thinking about only one factor. We should consider such factors as personality, age, content and so on. Combination of factors will lead good result. However, at least I believe TV has a possibility to make us smarter.
ReplyDeleteAs an important feature of TVs, they will combines pictures and information unlike radio. This will stimulate our thinking. When we think about something, just listening to a story is not clear, but if there is a picture which complements a story, we can have a clear image. For example, we feel like as if we went to abroad after we watch the TV program of trip. TV shows realized the proverb; seeing is believing. What I want to say is that TV shows will provide us clear image of a story and make us think more about the story. They give us more chance to think about something.
When we think about globalization of the world, TVs are important devices. We can know if the North Korea prepare for the nuclear bomb. We can know if terrorism happens in Boston. TV shows enables us to know every events, accidents, and incidents in the world. I talked about something bad events, but we can share the knowledge such as development of new medicine. TV shows fundamentally provides us much information. We will choose which information is useful for us from many kinds of information. If we can get information, we may be prompt to talk about other people. Knowing much information will make us richer and improve talking and communication skills in the end.
TV has a big impact on the society, so it will watch out the politics. By watching TV shows, we can analyze the policies of the country. TV plays an important role in the world of politics. Not only politics, but also controversial topics can be discussed by watching TVs. These days, there was a controversial discussion about gun shooting. We thought about it deeply, and analyze it. We can have skills for logical thinking and analyzing.
Of course, there are some bad points like Neil Postman said. TV culture distortion mislead teenagers understanding of the real world，people rely too much on Audio-visual senses, and it has affected people's creativity and independent personality. But good points will excels bad points.
Works cited
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/1a4fa3c208a1284ac8504398.html
Media & Culture Text
Both Steven Johnson and Neil Postman have distinct ideas on how television affects our brains. In 1985, Postman, in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, argues that television is making us dumber. He suggests that television is the death of our intelligence, as it is aimed strictly for entertainment purposes (Media and Culture, 24). On the other hand, in 2005 Johnson argues, in his book Everything Bad is Good for You, that television is actually making us smarter. As the structure of the television programming is becoming more complex, audiences must pay more attention to detail and are involved in problem solving (Media and Culture, 24-25). While both arguments seem plausible, when I play “Devil’s advocate,” I find myself agreeing more with Postman’s argument that television is making us dumber.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Postman’s argument that television is making us dumber. “Postman worried that an image-centered culture had overtaken words and a print-oriented culture, resulting in ‘all public discourse increasingly tak[ing] the form of entertainment’” (Media and Culture, 24). As a viewer of television programs, ranging from soap operas, to children shows, and to the news, I agree that the main purpose behind the programming is to entertain the audience, who in turn, affect the program’s ratings. In class, many students argue that the news is too subjective, an opinion in which I share. My aunt works for The National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) as the Senior Vice President of Strategic and Primary Research. One of the many areas she is involved in is researching how viewers experience NBC’s programs, whether it’s their sitcoms or their news programs. She is involved in trying to develop how NBC can increase their television ratings, which I would argue is through entertainment tactics. The news is not necessarily geared at being an objective source of information, rather it seeks to attract viewers, mostly through entertaining subjects, however disconnected and irrelevant they may be to our daily lives.
While I do not totally disagree with Johnson, I believe he has a good argument that the structure of television is overall, more complex; however, that is not to say that it is making us smarter. Johnson states, “The mind likes to be challenged; there’s real pleasure to be found in solving puzzles, detecting patterns or unpacking a complex narrative system” (Media and Culture, 25). Johnson makes this argument in reference to television shows such as Mad Men, Dexter, and 24 (Media and Culture, 25). As a viewer of these shows, I agree with Johnson that these particular shows require us to analytically think about the content, as compared to the television show Bonanza (Media and Culture, 25). However, I do not believe that the more complex structure attributes to increased intelligence.
While I can dabble with both arguments, I find myself agreeing more with Postman’s rationale that television is making us dumber, as the main purpose has become to entertain rather than inform viewers. By mistaking entertainment for intelligence is a reflection of the lack of intelligence of society.
Campbell, Richard, et al. Media and Culture. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2012. Print.
Both Steven Johnson and Neil Postman present valid arguments about the impact of television on the human brain. However, I cannot say that I agree with either of the two media theorists. As Johnson argues that television makes us smarter, Postman believes the exact opposite—that TV contributes to “the gradual dumbing-down of our discourse” (kemstone.com). Personally, I do not believe that watching TV makes us neither smarter nor dumber.
ReplyDeletePostman embodies the theme in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World that “We have not become slaves to higher authority, but we have allowed our society to deteriorate into a spiritually and intellectually dead environment” (kemstone.com). This quote is nonsense, Postman is stereotyping our generation, implying that we all have minimal attention spans and our only interests are superficial. I am sure that yes, with the rise of technology many people now desire instant gratification and ignore “spiritual and intellectual” aspects of life. However, this is not the case for a large number of today’s population. Postman emphasizes his belief that oftentimes, television exemplifies important/serious matters in a “show business” type of way. But I do not think that this makes us inherently dumber, maybe just less informed. However, this is why there are classes like Media & Society, the Internet, and books. People who truly value serious intellectual matters will take the time to educate themselves through mediums other than television. Therefore nobody is becoming “dumber” from watching television. Those who are inclined to strive for knowledge will continue to; and those who do not care for subjects that Postman deems “important and intellectual” will continue not to care—television has an insignificant connection to “smartness” and “dumbness.”
To address Johnson’s stance, I think that yes, complex TV shows can provoke our minds to think and analyze. However, I’m not sure how this ‘makes us smarter.’ By saying, “Smart culture is no longer something you force your kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It’s something you share” (nytimes.com), Johnson explains that complex shows can lead to natural, not forced, discussions which provoke brain activity. But brain activity does not necessarily mean ‘smarter.’ He says parents should encourage shows like “Survivor” over shoes like “Fear Factor” because it promotes learning about problem solving. However, I think that can be said about almost any show. It is doubtful that most viewers of “Survivor” will ever be in that type of situation. I think it is just as beneficial to watch a show like “Teen Mom” to learn about problem solving because although both are “reality shows,” the problems of a character in “Teen Mom” are much more realistic than those of “Survivor.” Although most people would consider a show about teen pregnancy “trash TV,” it is popular because the “characters seem more like us and less like celebrities” (Media & Culture 163). Johnson argues that some shows are more thought provoking than others, but I think almost any show can teach viewers life lessons if presented in a certain light.
Sources:
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&
Media & Culture Textbook
Whether or not television is affecting society positively or negatively is a topic frequently debated in our society. Both sides of the argument have solid points of view and are very plausible. In my opinion I feel that television can have both positive and negative affects concurrently. I feel that watching something on television usually can be classified as entertainment. It is not as strenuous on the mind as reading a novel and most would agree that it is far more relaxing. Individuals choose novels in most cases to challenge the mind or to immerse themselves deeper in a subject. I feel that television can challenge the mind and trigger deep thought as well but significantly less amount however in comparison to to reading a novel. “Television has been accused of having a negative impact on children and young people, influencing their intake of sugary cereals and contributing to increases in teenage sex and violence” (Media & Culture, 165). When debating whether or not television is affecting our intelligence negatively, I feel that it depends heavily on the subject matter of the television show or movie. Some television is ignorant and for comedic purposes. This type of television shouldn’t be taken literally and is simply for entertainment. There is plenty of educational television that can trigger thought and enhance the mind. CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteSteven Johnson digresses on the heavily debated topic in his book “Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter” Johnson feel that some television shows challenge the mind more then others. In his book he states, “What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind” (Johnson 5). In Johnsons “Sleeper Curve” theory he argues that it is the complexity of some television programs making us smarter rather then the actual content of the show itself. I agree with Johnson’s theory, but feel that it cannot be applied to all of television, which ranges dramatically in its content. Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, argues that television has become much more of show business focusing on entertainment. I agree with Postman’s argument and feel that the industry and its outlets focus more on the revenue and ratings than anything else. This focus has altered the substance of television programs tremendously and in most cases has significantly reduced intellectual value. This topic of debate will never be ceased, but unless a significant portion of the television industry somewhat alters its focus, it will continue to be scrutinized.
ReplyDeleteCampbell, Richard, et al. Media and Culture. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2012. Print.
Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. Published in the New York Times,
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
I have to admit that I’m the one of many people who are addicted to watching TV during meal time. The TV can bring the whole world to you, but that doesn’t mean it could make you smarter. However, there are too many things on the TV can help you and make you smarter. Yet, nobody likes to watch science show or educational show and they think they’re boring. People are more attracted to see movies, plays, music clips, news … etc. It means people like to watch TV just to entertain themselves.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, most young people forget about TV, because they’ve got internet, YouTube and Netflix. According to Campbell, “Unlike their parents and grandparents, young people growing up on TV today are accustomed to watching videos online, on their phones or iPods, and to the convenience of watching programming when they want, not just when it first airs”(Campbell, p.145).The TV became an old style of watching. I don’t personally use a TV at all, but I use YouTube through my laptop. I’ve learned a lot of things such as cooking. So people can still learn something through a small monitor. It doesn’t matter if it’s a TV, PC, smart phone or a laptop monitor, unless it will help you to learn something new in this life and that will make you smarter. I believe that the TV could make you smarter when you use it in a smart way. I didn’t mean do not watch movies at all, but you have to set up a TV schedule including any science show or educational show. However, that will make you feel bored. How about if they mix it with a little of an adventure, fun, action and education together. I’m assuming they did that, but why TV still can’t make us smarter than we expect? Simply, because TV is not made to educate us. However, it’s made to entertain us.
If we used to watch the TV just to entertain ourselves, it will be harder for us to make the TV into an educational machine. Actually, some schools are using TV to teach students. However, most students will fall asleep after few minutes of watching, because students used to entertain themselves by watching their favorite TV show, a movie or a music clip and so on.
To sum it up, people become addicted to watching something and entertaining themselves during meal’s time. I knew some people who it became hard for to eat something without watching TV. It’s hard to quit something that you used to do daily, but my advice is to try something else before you get addicted to it. For example, instead of watching TV in your room during meal time, you can go and get food from outside and enjoy a beautiful nature view. The TV didn’t make us smarter, but it taught us how to get addicted.
Works Cited:
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina G. Fabos. Media And
Culture, An Introduction Mass Communication. 8. BostonBedford/stMartins, 2012. Print.
During my elementary school years, my parents watched the Sopranos. Sometimes, I would watch it with them, but I never understood what was happening. The plot was too complex and interrelated. I, a ten year-old at the time, could not keep up with the ever changing relationships between the characters and the addition of new characters. So instead I began watching Full House which did not matter if you never saw the first or second season. With any episode, it was easy to pick up that Danny was the clean-freak father of DJ, Michelle, and Stephanie; Joey was the corny funny one; Jessie was the “bad boy” uncle. And none of these characters’ problem ever extended into more than one episode. All of the problems were resolved within a 30 minute time frame. Nice and easy unlike life.
ReplyDeleteHBO changed the style of TV shows to reflect the complexity of relationships and issues seen in life. The days of the Sopranos were also the days that HBO was still a part of basic cable. After, however, HBO continued to make complex TV shows like Six Feet Under and the few that paid for the network were able to watch them. Not my family. No, we watched the greats of reality TV: American Idol, all the seasons of Flavor of Love, Real World, and Rob and Big. And as for written TV shows there were always reruns of Boy Meets World, Malcolm in the Middle, and the Fresh Prince of Bellaire. It wasn’t until a few years ago that basic cable networks caught up with HBO and started creating their own shows (Media and Culture Text pg. 144). I don’t think it was until ABC came out with Lost and AMC came out with their hits, Mad Men and Breaking Bad that basic cable caught up with HBO. But these shows and their complex nature changed TV shows drastically. Instead of playing reruns of sitcoms, ABC Family even put out their own complex TV shows like The Secret Life of the American Teenager and Kyle XY. Despite how ridiculous the writing may be to you, these shows are way more complex than the sitcoms of the 90s. Eventually other networks caught on to this trend.
The growth of these complex TV shows, despite their content, has improved the minds of the viewers. I remember being in middle school, watching various reality TV shows and FOX News in the morning, but could not remember anything my teachers’ said. It wasn’t until I watched shows like Lost and Mad Men, where I paid close attention to the conversations between characters and various symbols that weren’t addressed until future episodes, that I began to focus. I noticed that I could recall exact quotes from my professors and friends from conversations that occurred weeks prior. Steven Johnson’s Sleeper Curve addresses this phenomenon. He states that the complex structure of TV shows increases our ability to focus. But this, in my opinion, is only good for complex TV shows. Like Neil Postman’s theory, scattered and irrelevant structures (like in some reality TV shows and FOX News) injure our ability to focus. Due to the shift in TV shows, there are now both complex shows like Mad Men and scattered stories in the news, letting these two theories coexist. Neil Postman’s theory came out way before the Sopranos, but is still relevant to reality TV and the news. The news has too many stories to report on that we disconnect from them (Postman). The news needs to progress like TV shows to stimulate our focus by focusing on a few stories instead of multiple. Overall, it is up to the viewer to decide what they are going to watch: complex, mind stimulating shows or entertaining and scattered shows to tell if they are going to become smarter from watching TV.
Works Cited:
Media and Culture Text Book
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
People watch a lot of television every day of their lives. Some people, like Steven Johnson, believe that watching all this television makes a person smarter, while other people, like Neil Postman, think that television is dumbing down our minds. In Johnson’s argument, he states that the reason television makes people smarter is because people tend to think more about television programs. It makes them pay attention to plot lines and what is going on in the show. It also makes them pay attention to the multiple plot lines going on during a show. Having a long series show or a long season of a show makes people stay interested and pay attention and keep asking questions about the show. It makes the viewer wanting more. Now, in Postman’s argument, he is saying that when people watch television shows, they get the sense that their life has to be like a character in one of the shows, when in reality, it is never like that. It gets people thinking that they can do what television actors do, and become successful.
ReplyDeleteThough both these beliefs are true, I agree more with Steve Johnson. I think people definitely obtain knowledge when they are watching television. It helps people with their thinking skills and their problem solving skills. The more television people watch, the more they will learn how to solve problems and think ahead. It helps them focus on whats to come in the future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0
The theories that Steve Johnson and Neil Postman had about how TV affects our minds were very different from each other. Johnson believes that it will make us smarter because of how complex the TV shows are. On the other hand, Postman believes everything on TV will eventually be the death of our intelligence. I believe that Johnson’s theory is correct, in that it makes us smarter.
ReplyDeleteEvery show makes our minds work differently. These different structures of the TV shows make us think more and pay attention to what we are watching. The more plots a show has, the more you have to pay attention. By watching characters and their actions, you can infer certain things and figure out what’s going on before things are said. “Much like viewers of soap operas, sitcom fans feel just a little bit smarter than the characters, whose lives seem wacky and out of control” (pg. 155). When I’ve watched a show for a few seasons or so, I can get to understand the characters from passed shows and know when things will be all right, and when things will not be going well. Shows like The Mentalist and Dexter show how characters can be perceived differently. Patrick Jane, someone who is believed to have the ability to read minds but is just a good observer, uses strange tactics and some unpleasant comments and actions to catch the bad guys. Some people can think of him as a great help to the department, while others think he goes too far and shouldn’t be allowed to do the things he does to suspects. In Dexter, Dexter Morgan is a blood spatter guy for the Miami PD who kills bad guys outside of work. To some, he’s a savior that gets rid of the scum on the street while others believe that he should be put in prison. Watching shows like these make you think more during the show about all the characters. I’m not saying that a lot of shows make you smarter, but your brain is active during these shows and makes you think about what is going on. Some shows like the history channel and animal planet make you smarter because you are learning about animals and events in history. “From pop culture to world history, you’ll be full of fun facts after watching Jeopardy for a week.” Some clues on Jeopardy are easier to remember than others though. If you have a good memory, than go watch Jeopardy and learn some things. Use the things you learn from watching TV to try and improve your life.
http://www.thefoundist.com/2011/10/17/top-5-tv-shows-that-will-make-you-smarter/
Media & Culture Textbook
The first theory and second theory about television argue against each other. The first theory says television makes us smarter. The second one says television is for our entertainment and causes a disconnection to reality and fiction. In my experience when watching television, I almost always learn something if I am watching something informational. I do believe that television makes us smart it only depends on the content. According to Aletha Huston, a professor of child development at the University of Texas "I used to laugh and say, 'I did 25 years of research on children in television, and I can summarize it in one sentence: It's the content that matters”. If someone is watching MTV then they wouldn’t really be learning anything but if you’re watching the national geographic channel they will probably be learning something about some animal. However, since the United States switched from an analog signal to a digital signal the televisions quality has change to high definition (Campbell 148). In my opinion that just made it easier for the non-educational channels to have more channels to air on.
ReplyDeleteCampbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina G. Fabos. Media And
Culture, An Introduction Mass Communication. 8. BostonBedford/stMartins, 2012. Print.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-10-22/entertainment/0810210307_1_sesame-street-aletha-huston-chicago-study
As we become more technologically advanced, more research is being conducted on the effects of media. The television has been around since the early twentieth century and has made a 180 degrees transformation. The television has become an act of entertainment and to solve boredom. As a result, different opinions of the effects of television has varied. According to Steven Johnson’s Sleeper Curve, he argues that television makes us smarter. His argument is that a television has complex structures forcing us to pay attention. On the other hand, media theorist, Neil Postman, argues television is the death of our intelligence. He argues television turns serious issues into show business, causes a disconnect, and buyers are no longer informed, they are entertained. Personally, I agree with the both of them. The Sleeper Curve demonstrates a strong argument. Television does have complex structures and multiple plots. Thus, the viewer is keeping the activity in the brain and forcing it to pay attention. Memory is something that your brain can loose if not kept active. Television forces the viewer to keep up with the channels, the commercials, and the various plots. Therefore, the person is engaged and keeping up with the changes. However, television can also make society more dumb. Due to its addicting ways, television occupies us forcing us into an almost trance. In addition, serious news that comes on during the news is often glorified and is turned almost into positive news. It also disconnects us from socializing with other people. The textbook discusses various models of early theories of media effects. The gratification model states people have employed the media to fulfill their needs. That study proves negative effects of television due exist. If people are using television to fulfill their needs that means we are entering a dilemma. It will cause people to communicate less and use the television as satisfaction. This idea shows how the television can brain wash us and minimize our intelligence. Therefore, both theories make powerful points forcing me to be stuck in the middle.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is really hard to debate whether or not TV actually helps, or destroys us. I am pretty biased because well, who does not like TV? Honestly? Both arguments sort of caught my attention because both had extremely valid points that make either side true. Although, I have realized a trend about TV that is pretty misleading, yet helpful.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel as though that TV is really making us stupider, I just think it is a different way of viewing a piece of art. Although there are many stupid shows such as Jersey Shore being the lead one, there are many different TV shows that can help us understand todays American Culture. Take Criminal Minds for example; not only is it an amazing show entertainment wise/mysterious wise, but it is a show that can teach someone something. There are many crazy people out there who would do anything to hurt someone, and this show is a perfect example to showing someone different scenarios in which they can be disturbed, but create a storyline that helps create a bubble on how to go about these situations smartly. According to Steven Johnson, TV actually makes us smarter because of the complex structure of many programs which require us to think and pay close attention in order to keep up and understand (Johnson).
While debating whether or not TV is making us smarter or stupider, I take into account the news. Many people can read the newspaper, but to actually watch what is going on the world makes us ACKNOWLEDGE what is going on, and actually think logically about situations in proceeds to creating a better, and smarter environment. "I think there is another way to assess the social virtue of pop culture, one that looks at media as a kind of cognitive workout, not as a series of life lessons (Johnson) .
I personally believe that TV does not make us smarter, or dumber, I just think it is another way to look at a piece of art out there, and another way for us to look into things in a logical, yet entertaining way. I agree with Johnson with the above quote because although many shows incorporate life lessons, that is not what the point of television is; it is to make us more aware so we can possibly manage a logical environment.
Television is one of the things that have revolutionized society. There is hardly anyone who isn’t sucked into this phenomenon. I have been a victim of this. As a child my mother sat me in front of a television set as some sort of “babysitter”. It is truly sad how people try to substitute television for education or real life companionship. Steven Johnson argues that TV does in fact make us smarter. This theory was discussed as the Sleeper Curve. The book wants to prove that we are getting smarter because “our media is getting more complex and deeper.” Neil Postman believes that TV is the death of our intelligence. A quote while researching that I found to be informative was, “When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.” (Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business) In my opinion I agree with Postman. Our society is changing for the worse and I truly fear for the generations. Currently I am disgusted by what we have become and wish we went back to the simpler times before all of this technology. Yes of course television is a stress reliever and a source of entertainment, but at what point to we pull ourselves away from the television screen and start interacting with people? What is even todays TV? Celebrities? Sex? Violence? These shows do not stimulate our brain and provide us with new information we already know! Oh and the news, the news has become very corrupt in the fact that nowadays the biggest concern is when Kim Kardashian is having her baby. I’m not saying TV should be banned or anything, because I do enjoy an occasional show, but TV is not helping us in any way.
ReplyDeleteCampbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina G. Fabos. Media And
Culture, An Introduction Mass Communication. 8. BostonBedford/stMartins, 2012. Print.
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2337731-amusing-ourselves-to-death-public-discourse-in-the-age-of-show-business
Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. Published in the New York Times, 2005
The more I thought about this argument, the harder it became to choose one side or the other. I can agree with Johnson’s points on how the complex structures can make us think while we watch TV and be a little more interactive in the process. I know that I pay more attention to shows with complex plot lines like “Game of Thrones,” and I definitely enjoy it better. However, I disagree that it isn’t the content that makes us smarter. There are some shows that have a lot to offer when it comes to life lessons and problem solving.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel the same way about Postman’s argument and how it is the end of our intelligence. There are a lot of shows that can manipulate the way we view important subjects in every day life like religion and the way we are informed by the news. In his book, Postman mentions the “glut of information” which I can see problematic in the sense that there are many news stories that should be more important than others. Instead, the news in newspapers and on TV make us believe that a bombing is just as important as the story following it which could be about a cat that walked 1000 miles to its home. I do disagree with this argument as well though because I think the news does a good job at spotlighting the news stories that are more important. I also believe that shows do a descent job at inspiring viewers to have an open mindset when it comes to many problems we face.
Overall, my opinion isn’t that TV is making us smarter or not, but I believe that TV makes us lazy. I’m sure it was a lot easier to go and learn about things with books back when TV wasn’t so entertaining. However, now I have a problem where I want to watch one more episode of “Breaking Bad” before I start on my assignment for class or start research on a topic for my own knowledge. I also believe it has taken a lot of imagination out of everyone’s lives and has made creating your own story and scene a lot of work when it’s so easy to just wait for a movie to come out about a book that you might read.
I think that Steven Johnson and Neil Postman both present very valid points to back up their theories, and I can clearly see both sides of the argument. Overall however I don’t really agree with either of the theories. I don’t agree Johnson’s theory about television making us smarter but I also don’t agree with Postman’s theory about it making us dumber.
ReplyDeleteOn Postman’s end the disconnect he speaks of--from each other, truth and fiction, and bulks of information-- to me does not necessarily make us any less intelligent than we already are (Postman). I feel that we as a society have in some ways, generally developed a “get straight to the point” attitude about things. We want the information, the feeling, the result, immediately. I think it has more to do with American’s need for instant gratification than the depletion of their intellect. One could even argue that as a nation we have become relatively impatient people, but in no way does that mean that we have become dumb people. Postman’s point about “consumers being entertained and amused into buying products” has some validity to it, but it is also our job as consumers to analyze the media and advertising aspect of the product (Postman). Everything that we are learning in Media and Society--the ability to place a critical lens back on the media-- prevents informed and analytical consumers from buying simply because they are amused and instead makes them purchase the products that meet their genuine needs.To an ignorant consumer, yes the entertainment factor could pull them in, but no one tries to, or is intentionally, that person.
On Johnson’s end the more modern approach to television with the lack of “flashing arrows” and hand holding, to me does not particularly make us any smarter either (Johnson 2). It simply forces us to pay closer attention which makes us more attentive, but even complete idiots can be attentive and focused and nothing will come from it. That being said it does not require much intellect to pay close attention to something, making the idea of us getting smarter seem far fetched to me. Johnson’s other point about digesting multiple plots simultaneously made more sense to me. That ability actually requires specific strategic analytical skills that would indeed force you to get thinking and put different points together in your head. It also compels you to think ahead and exercises skills your skills of memory and logic.
As far as tv making you smarter or dumber I’m not sure I have enough proof to agree with either theory, but I do think that as of now with contemporary television shows, it has both its entertainment value and maybe sometimes even a little bit more its all dependent on the show.
In the fifth grade, I’d come home from school everyday and was expected to follow a strict routine: Spongebob, Fairly OddParents, Dinner, Harry Potter.
ReplyDeleteIt was 2005, and the sixth Harry Potter book was due out that coming July. But new episodes of Spongebob and Fairly OddParents were coming out weekly, and I had to make my queue. Not to mention book reports on The Bridge to Terebithia and Esperanza Rising, re-runs of Rugrats, reading and re-reading Tuck Everlasting, and hell, I even tried to fit in a little Nick News with Linda Ellerbee every so often, even though her overly casual cross-legged sitting position made me feel more than a little uneasy.
In short, my childhood was a melange of mixed-media. According to media theorist, Neil Postman, about half of my childhood was somewhat wasted, and I’m left the all the stupider for my taste in television. Fine, he doesn’t think that shows for entertainment’s sake are that detrimental, and so I’m somewhat in the clear. But that still leaves all of the shows I watched as a preschooler, the ones that taught me to read, and every educational episode of Mythbusters or Bill Nye, where I learned not only the laws of physics, but maybe something somehow more important: how to be funny.
Neil Postman takes an issue with the mixture of entertainment and education that exists in television, which seems a little silly when you look at the development of the written word, which met the exact same criticisms. One can imagine: “No, don’t write that down,” a nomad father shaking his head at his nomad son, “your brain will turn to mush unless you can recite every bit of our 9000 word history from memory.” This seems ridiculous to use, and you don’t have to travel far to see the same golden-age-thinking fallacy in Postman’s argument, too.
Because just as the written word led to great works of written fiction, television is leading to its own genre of masterpieces; different, of course, from the books that preceded them, but not necessarily of less value.
And although I’m a bit biased, I don’t feel overly stupid. In fact, Steven Johnson argues that the new breed of complex-structured television shows can actually “make us smarter.” While I don’t think it’s very prudent to use such a vague phrase, I think there is something to Steven Johnson’s argument: that we can get something out of television, that it isn’t just merely melting our brains and expanding our stomachs, as all of modern society would like to think it does.
continued. . .
ReplyDeleteShows like MadMen or the Sopranos, dramas that are creating a new path for television, deliver complex story lines, physically working our brains, Johnson asserts, and beyond this, exceptionally developed characters, clever, whip-smart writing, and intriguingly subtle themes: not unlike your favorite classic novel.
But who knows? Perhaps, if I’d devoted myself to a strictly word-based brain diet, I could have been the next Stephen Hawkings or Sylvia Plath. I could have written a masterpiece, or pieced together an earth-shatteringly important equation, shattering the very definition of what “intelligence” is, or once was. It’s a little silly to argue points like these, though, and to be honest, it makes me a somewhat uncomfortable to view my life in light of its unattained successes.
Don Draper would say, “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.”
So I will.
Ever since I was a kid I can remember phrases being tossed around that watching too much television will “fry” my brain. Why? Television as a medium of information is like a newspaper that reads itself to you and brings you to the source, much like a newspaper you would find in the world of Harry Potter. However, one of the differences here is that the television isn’t just useful or relevant information spewing out of it’s speakers. Hence, the reason why Steven Johnson and Neil Postman have conflicting theories on the question of does television make you smarter?
ReplyDeleteSteven Johnson argues that due to the complexity of tv shows today, as compared to shows in the past, it deems itself beneficial to watch because people must pay close attention to truly understand what is happening. This causes people to link occurrences, spot social change, and make inferences as far as the show goes. He talks about how that there is no need for tv shows to tell us exactly what happens anymore because people will naturally pick up on the changes and figure it out for their self.
Neil Postman argues that no matter what is on tv there has to be some sort of entertainment bias, which makes programming that should be naturally not entertaining seem forced. Another argument he makes is that there is simply too much information and that people will care less as the amount of information grows. Lastly, he argues that commercials no longer inform about the product they are selling but instead just try to entertain and hope that the viewer enjoys the commercial enough to buy the product.
Though I don’t necessarily agree entirely with either of these theories I believe that Neil Postman has made the better case. Steven Johnson is not wrong about the complexity of shows on TV, however, I don’t necessarily believe it is correct to say that they will make you smarter. If you read a complex work of fiction I don’t think that would make you learn as much as you read a school textbook, you just wouldn’t enjoy it as much. Also, I think his theory is subject to a certain viewing audience because I can’t imagine those who keep up with what happens at the Jersey Shore or Honey Boo Boo’s daily activities have made themselves smarter by watching these shows. I believe you don’t gain smarts just by watching these tv shows but by researching them and learning about them. At prime time the Jersey Shore is just another reality show with a group of proud and rowdy Italians, that make people believe that these people are just living their daily lives. What I believe will make you smart is knowing the behind the scenes of these types of reality shows. The textbook describes reality tv as “..programs that have helped the networks and cable deal with the high cost of programming. Featuring nonactors, cheap sets, and no extensive scripts...” This is what brings Postman was getting at by saying that no matter what, anything on tv has some sort of entertainment bias. For example, if something is not interesting in a reality show they will plan something to happen that will obviously cause chaos.
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina G. Fabos. Media And
ReplyDeleteCulture, An Introduction Mass Communication. 8. BostonBedford/stMartins, 2012. Print.
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The theories of Neil Postman and Steven Johnson both give perspectives on how the change in the way information is presented through television has impacted the public. Johnson’s “Sleeper Curve” explains how complex narratives in TV shows are capable of making viewers smarter, while Postman believes that the medium is responsible for the “dumbing down” of society. I believe that both theories are correct, but I agree more with Steven Johnson’s “Sleeper Curve”.
ReplyDeleteI think that the medium of Television gives us a visual for the many things that we imagine while reading a book. The more complex structure of programs now allows us to analyze what we’re watching, but I think that it builds our ability to analyze more than just that show; It allows us to analyze everyday situations and connect the dots between other situations. In this sense I think the Sleeper Curve is correct. It’s debatable on if it actually makes us smarter, since it’s not like these complex shows are telling us that we need to analyze and relate one situation to the next, but I think that it’s very interesting that we have the option to do so without the answer being given thanks to “flashing arrows”. Johnson states, “…The culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less”, and I agree (Campbell 24). Once the public is exposed to shows that demand that they figure out what is going on by themselves, a show that gives all the answers becomes extremely boring and disengaging, and no one wants to be a zombie watching a television set anymore.
I believe that Neil Postman is correct when he says, “Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing about itself. Therefore—and this is the critical point—how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged”, since television does set high standards for drama and sometimes people re-enact what they see on TV(Kemstone). However, I don’t think the structure of news channels on TV has as large of an impact as Postman states. While the news is very disconnected, I think it would be difficult to hold interest if it was connected, for example, if 5 minutes were spent talking about murders in one area and then in another, I doubt that viewers would have more sympathy than they do with the way the news is structured now. I also think Postman is being a bit overdramatic when he states that television numbs people to the “soul crushing realities of the world” (Kemstone). While watching television can be seen as a form of escapism, some images are known to bring emotion to people, like the animal abuse commercials.
I think television as a medium definitely changes the way messages are relayed to the public. With the various models that use television, like DVDs and video games, it’s even easier to connect the complex threads that connect the show, and this helps us better our skills in analyzing the programs that are being fed to us. I think that in this way, the Sleeper Curve holds truer than Neil Postman’s theory.
http://jameswritingenrichment.tripod.com/id7.html
Media and Culture textbook
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.html
Does TV make you smart or dumb this is a very hard question to answer because I don’t think it does either. The side that I lean too is the side of watching TV makes you smarter. With that being said I don’t believe that watching some TV will magically skyrocket your GPA or IQ, but I one hundred percent believe that watching TV does not make you dumb. One of the reasons why I don’t think you will become smarter is because people watch TV for entertainment and want to relax. When you seek to become smarter or more knowledgeable you study and practice and its hard work and usually don’t see it as relaxing. This side of the argument bases its stance on the sleeper curve. States popular culture has, on average, grown more complex and intellectually challenging over the past thirty years. So watching tv that has complex plots and make you fallow complicated stories can actually make you smarter interesting theory. As said in an article in the New York Times “you have to pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships. This is what I call the Sleeper Curve: the most debased forms of mass diversion -- video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms -- turn out to be nutritional after all”. When I further think about this topic I can’t help to think watching TV makes you think, some shows more than others but you are doing some thinking. If you are thinking then you are stimulating your brain which doesn’t necessarily make u smarter but you definitely are not losing and cognitive skills. In article resources for science learning “The human brain is able to continually adapt and rewire itself. Even in old age, it can grow new neurons. Severe mental decline is usually caused by disease, whereas most age-related losses in memory or motor skills simply result from inactivity and a lack of mental exercise and stimulation. In other words, use it or lose it.” I know in the counter argument they says while watching tv you are not stimulating your brain so there for you will lose it but I don’t think that is the case.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?_r=0
http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/exercise.html
I agree with you that Television may not have a great influence on one's GPA or IQ, but television programs where viewers can relate to characters and understand the thought process of a character, makes us more knowledgeable instead of acquiring intelligence from watching TV, due to the points you bring up. Also the article about the brain is very interesting and provides some scientific proof to the post.
DeleteBoth Steven Johnson and Neil Postman have very different ideas on how television affects our society. Johnson created something called the sleeper curve in which he states that TV actually makes us smarter. In his theory, Johnson’s reasoning for our growing intelligence is due solely to today’s structure in television. But unlike Johnson, Postman theorizes that television depletes society’s brainpower. He argues that television serves merely as a source of entertainment and is never truly informative. Personally, I believe there are truths to both ideas.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Johnson on the fact that television exercises brain flow, but I don’t necessarily believe it makes us smarter, per say. We can learn different ways to go about solving problems and gain different view points on certain subjects, but I don’t think we actually gain brain cells doing this. I just think television can make us think differently, or out of the box. This potential is always there, it’s just up to us to take initiative. The complexity of television structure makes us think because we constantly analyze every single action, character, relationship and sequence of events as we watch. We have to constantly keep up with each new thing that happens in each plot, since current television includes an increasing amount of plot threads in each show or episode. We also have to connect previous episodes as the plotline grows. Fewer shows can stand alone on one episode now and there are no longer any flashing arrows. If anything, television teaches us to always stay on our toes. The entertainment industry does this because they want to create a program that makes us want to come back for more, “revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing,” and essentially attracts customers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&). If TV kept its simple structure then no one would care enough to keep watching.
Television is definitely a main source of society’s entertainment today. However, I don’t think it’s only supposed to dumbly entertain us like Postman believes. TV can be a great source of information if we let it be. Granted we see what people want us to see because everything on the television screen has been edited and filtered through in order to convey a certain idea. But not everything we watch is as corrupt as Postman makes it seem. A television show wouldn’t change my entire opinion on something anyway. Media only tends to effect people’s opinions if they never really had one to begin with. According to Joseph Klapper, “strong media effects largely at an individual level and do not appear to have large-scale, measurable, and direct effects on society as a whole” (Media & Culture page 459). Johnson cannot base his opinions on television merely on individual studies; he needs to broaden his research horizons. Also, unlike what Postman says, “television is the biggest culprit, and those of us who grew up on television have been damaged in ways that are now so universally common that they go unnoticed,” our brain cells cannot die as we watch television because no physical harm is enacted upon us (http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm).
When I hear the challenging statement, “TV makes you smarter,” my first question is, what do you mean smarter? Johnson’s article focuses on what he calls the “cognitive demand” of recent shows as opposed to shows that don’t possess complex plot structures. His “sleeper curve” theory suggests that the latest shows improve our concentration abilities since we are required to follow complex plots. His main claim is that the popularity of complex stories is a recent trend that is making TV shows demand more of you intelligence, and subsequently make you “smarter.”
ReplyDeleteSmart? As in, witty? Sharp? Swift? People like Woody Allen, the inspiration for the “sleeper curve” theory, can be considered smart because they have a quick way with words to make fun of life in clever ways. If we interchange the word “smart” with “intelligent,” perhaps it would make sense. But “smart” could also imply wisdom, which is separate from intellect, (Ask any D&D player.) Johnson is implying that following a larger QUANTITY of plotlines makes us wittier, more intelligent, or wiser? Is this Quantity over Quality?
Let’s break down those implications for a moment. If you watch a TV show with 20 characters, all with their own interweaving plotlines, how are you getting smarter? This scenario begs the question, who are these people? Why should you be watching them? What engages you in their stories? Johnson’s theories speak of TV as though the content doesn’t really matter so much as the complexity and packaging of it. He claims that less exposition and more confusion exercises our cognitive abilities. But here’s my question, does following 20 characters in a confusing mixed bag of events, relationships, and ideas compare to following 3 or 4 brilliantly complex characters in a witty, thoughtful, or even abstract story? It is the ideas of the story that make us “smarter,” not the quantity of plotlines thrown at us per second.
If anything the complexity of recent TV shows is impairing our ability to concentrate since we’re so busy focusing on trivial things such as continuity and plot that we miss the most important elements of the story itself, the ideas put forth. In the case of amusement-based entertainment, it’s about providing either fresh or nostalgic means of amusing the audience – the same basic thing that makes people laugh at jokes – and amusement is just about the most subjective thing on this planet. Stories are hybrids of amusement and education. The “intelligence” part of the experience comes from our perception of the ideas and messages.
There’s really nothing wrong with complex storytelling. If done right, it can effectively express a great number of intertwining ideas while giving us the enjoyable experience of following the story through it’s course. Since the two main reasons people listen to stories are to learn things, and to gain satisfaction, all storytelling really has to do to make us “smarter” is bring something to the table. We can learn just as many things from a simple story as we can from a complex one.
I also don’t understand how complex plots and lack of flashing arrows is a recent trend. Hell, The Iliad had a more “complex” story arc than most recent shows. Stories like Beowulf on the other hand, did not. So is The Iliad smarter than Beowulf because it is longer and more complex? Does Johnson think people get their amusement to perform some sort of labor or duty? If the characters are intelligent, they’ll have something important, or at least relevant, to say. If they’re not, they won’t. Who cares how many of them there are? In the long run, it's irrelevant. Quality over quantity.
I wouldn't watch a show because there are a lot of characters with a lot of different lives to follow. I would watch a show because I LIKE the characters, or because I LIKE the plot, or at the very least find them interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/182448?rskey=yrLCOK&result=3&isAdvanced=false#eid
"Annie Hall" - Woody Allen, 1977
I agree with you for questioning the difference between the words "smart" and "intelligent." They can have different meanings because there are different senses of each word. Smart can mean something entirely different to other people; it also depends what context these words are being used in. I also like where you go with the quantity versus quality debate. It is definitely better to follow a few characters of a series in depth, than scratching the surface with a large amount of characters. This is just how you'd prefer having a good group of friends that you're super close with, rather than just merely saying hi to everyone who you my not know as personally. What draws us to television is the characters, so TV series need to keep us interested and entertained with complicated plots that keep our brain going.
DeleteBoth theories make very valid points, although settling on a decisive factor comes very tricky to me. Television has made a gradual ascension in aims of thought-provoking complexity, throwing away most of the trashy reality TV shows (Desperate Housewives and Finding Bigfoot). Of course, impactful/critical thinking comes from the individual choice of programs one chooses to watch. Balancing the gain of knowledge between watching “Planet Earth” vs. “Jersey Shore”, it is quite clear which show you walk away from just a little smarter. Yet, why is it that “Jersey Shore” has consisted of over five seasons and millions of people tuning in every week, starting verbal trends and contaminating everyone with ideas that everyone from Jersey fist-pumps and lives on the shore (quite wrong indeed). Theorist Neil Postman accurately argues that television possesses the ability to drive away from reality, disorienting those between the aspects of authenticity and fiction, “What you see when you make these head-to-head comparisons is that a rising tide of complexity has been lifting programming at the bottom of the quality spectrum and at the top” (Johnson, Steven – “Watching TV Makes you Smarter”).
ReplyDeleteOther factors: Television is used for informing, entertainment, and a way of procrastination. As theorist Steven Johnson describes, the complexity of shows, such a Breaking Bad, drive us as the viewer to constantly make inferences, pay attention (honing in on all details to create a full, flowing story), and it overall stimulates the mind. Nonetheless, television is only one of a multitude of ways for one to acquire knowledge, novels and newspapers, generate much more stimulation and imagination then that of the tube. A respectable example, the novella “Fahrenheit 451” depicts a uniformed society, driven to android states of halted growth, robotized and entranced by the constant television programming (almost like Big Brother). Proactive action must be taken in order to bring any of this to conclusion, until then they will simply remain theories created to make us step back and examine ourselves. Regardless of the argument on whether television makes us smarter or not, we follow along the timeline of this ever-changing world, and try to create the present media to induce enlightenment and provoke wonder for the upcoming generations.
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina G. Fabos. Media And
Culture, An Introduction Mass Communication. 8. BostonBedford/stMartins, 2012. Print.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
After reading these two theories, I can see pro’s and con’s for both. When we first discussed this topic in class I believed that for the most part TV does not make us smarter. It greatly depends on what the viewer is watching of course. For example, if a person is watching a show such as SpongeBob Squarepants there is no educational value to it. However, if someone is watching a documentary on the History Channel the knowledge they will obtain is much greater. This is where the first theory comes into play. The complexity of the show that is being watched makes all of the difference. People nowadays are attracted to complex shows that are entertaining, cause the person to think a bit, and keep them on their toes. However, the argument of the second theory that I agreed with was that basically all television is a form of business/entertainment. Commercials for example are now used to entertain about an object rather than inform the viewers about its uses. On television everything is a competition with one another. TV is not a tool that people see to inform them, it is a form of entertainment.
ReplyDeletePeople may believe that the news however is not a form of entertainment but as a tool to receive information about the world around us. Although the news does give the public information it is still one of the largest entertainers on television in my opinion. People believe they are watching everything that is going on when in reality they are only watching what will get the most attention. One time when I was watching the news there was a 15 minute story about dogs in an animal shelter that needed homes after Hurricane Sandy. As much as I love dogs, there is definitely more important things going on in our world that could have desperately used that time slot on the news that repeated every hour. However, the issue is that cute homeless puppies are what will attract the viewer’s eye over a dirty homeless man on the sidewalk. People do not want to see these kinds of things and would rather turn their heads and act like they don’t know about it. I think that for the most honest news a person needs to read the newspaper or articles. When the words are in print it is not so much about the entertaining factor but just getting the facts out. However, as it states in Chapter 5, “Most studies suggest this has to do with the television’s intimacy as a medium- its ability to create loyalty with viewers who connect personally with the news anchors we “invite” into our living rooms each evening.” (Media and Society) So even though the information might be more accurate and to the point written in words, people choose to watch the news for a more personal way of getting their information
Nigel Barber, a Journalist for Psychology Today published a very interesting article explaining how children either benefit or are affected negatively from watching TV depending on their social class. “If the parents are middle class, then a lot of TV viewing goes along with lower school grades. Evidently TV time precludes interaction with the parents that may be intellectually enriching not to mention eating into time available for homework.” For children of a lower class the outcome seems to be different. “The more TV they watch, the better their grades. If parents are not stimulating, then the kids do better watching the idiot box than conversing with their parents, sad to say.” (Psychology Today) And Barber is not saying this because of any stereotypes. He explains later in the article how studies have been done to show that parents on welfare spend less time interacting with their kids. I do not agree with this statement because every family is different in the way that they run and that does not depend on their income. However, I believe that TV can help make people more knowledgeable, but using the word smarter is what I have hesitations about. I think that reading a book and having life experiences is what makes a person smart. However, it is hard to define what the word smart really means. One of my favorite quotes by Albert Einstein is “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”. It is hard to define what being smart really is, which makes it harder to decide if TV makes us smarter or not. I do believe that there is a major difference between watching a documentary on TV and watching a show such as Breaking Bad. To me, it all depends on what the viewer is watching and how much concentration and thought is put into understanding a show.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200903/does-watching-tv-make-us-stupid
Television has been a vital part of American society since it was first created decades ago. Through the means of television theories have arisen that describe the way shows and sitcoms influence or affect our lives by watching them. The first theory is called the “Sleeper Curve” created by Steven Johnson, which he believes that TV shows today make viewers smarter due to the fact they contain many plot lines, excluding sitcoms and TV previous to the 2000s, and this “requires us to have to pay attention, make inferences, and track shifting social relationships.” For example, like many of the programs aired on HBO, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men for example. The second theory was created by Neil Postman, having 3 different points to his argument. One, TV is based on entertainment purposes and evolves cultural influences into branches of business. Two, that television causes disconnect from society and third, that commercial shown on television are desired rather than genuine needs of a viewer.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Steven Johnson on this theory of televisions influence on its viewers. First, I tend to disagree with Postman’s argument of that television disconnects us with society. Usually when you first meet someone, or the friends or family you have now you talk about what the shows and events that occurred on a television program, for example the most recent experiences are of Mad Men, and Breaking Bad personally, but because of large followings or “cult fans” TV shows that have ended are being resurrected in other ways such as the revival of the series “Arrested Development” due to the cult like fan base it possess. Steven Johnson says, “for decades we’ve worked under the assumption that mass media culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-common-denominator standards, presumably because the ‘masses’ want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the masses what they want. But, the exact opposite is happening: the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less.” (24) However, society believes watching TV dead activity that one can do, which it can be, but if only an active viewer or viewers who enjoy interpreting characters and understanding psychological aspect of them give them these cognitively appealing aspects of a show. Which Johnson compares “the complexity of video and computer games and many of TV’s dramatic prime-time series, especially when compared with less demanding TV programming from the 1970s and the early 1980s.” (24) These activities, playing video games or watching TV, may seem not stimulating since it not much of our body is used besides our brains and hands, for video games, it stimulates the brain and allows viewers or gamers to interpret what is occurring in an instant or lose the game. “The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play.” In our generation, this information and knowledge is available to us due to the fact of subversive television programs and video games.
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina G. Fabos. Media And
Culture, An Introduction Mass Communication. 8. BostonBedford/stMartins, 2012. Print.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&
Of the two theories, I can’t say I agree with one more than the other. They both seem to have valid points, and even when they disagree there is a lot of evidence on both sides. One example is Postman’s idea that juxtaposing stories and information all over sources like the newspapers (or in TV’s case, commercials) are degrading our intelligence. This makes a lot of sense to me, as such erratic programming lacking a clear and steady focus is sure to have a negative effect on our intelligence or functionality if we watch too much of it often enough. One show that comes to mind is a show on adult swim called Robot Chicken. It’s basically a collection of funny stop motion skits with toys, and it lasts 15 minutes an episode. With such a short runtime, there’s no room for a commercial in it, so it literally jumps from one skit to a completely unrelated one, with the only separation between being a split second of garbled looking TV and sound. I think it’s a really funny show, but looking back on it from Postman’s perspective, I can definitely see his argument holding water. Johnson seems to argue the opposite though, claiming the complex shows where we have to pay attention to what is going on for multiple characters might be beneficial to us. My Roommate watches Game of Thrones, and while I can’t remember so much as a character’s name, he can name them and their relation to all the other characters, and so on and so forth. Things like this lead me to believe Johnson is correct as well, so I’m not sure who is more accurate there. His intense memory of the complex relationships in the show and my not remembering what I had for breakfast seem to each fight for Johnson’s and Postman’s ideas respectively. Both Postman and Johnson seem to agree with the issue of TV turning everything into show business. I don’t think anyone who watches TV could contest that at this point; TV companies want to make themselves more interesting to viewers, so more people tune in and watch. This in turn, boosts their profits, and gets them more money. Recently however, most people are tuning in to the shows they love on the internet rather than on TV. I think it will be interesting to see where TV goes from here, since its becoming available on the internet is most likely going to be a game-changer for TV and cable companies. The effect this will have on generations to come will be interesting as well, since not living in a Our textbook makes a point of arguing this, saying “Unlike their parents and grandparents, young people growing up on TV today are accustomed to watching videos online, on their phones or iPods, and to the convenience of watching programming when they want, not just when it first airs”(Media & Culture, p.145). This gets rid of some of the problems Postman and Johnson talk about, like commercials. While they are finding their way online, there are ways to get around them that aren’t available on TVs. In the end, I think we need to worry less about what TV has done to us as a society, and more about what the internet can potentially do.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
Media & Culture textbook