FRUGAL LIVING FRUGAL MINDSET MONEY SELF RELIANCE ASSOCIATES SITE ADMIN
The Negative Influence of Television
The negative influence of television is a concern to me because it has been a key factor in reshaping who we are as members of a family, community and country. Sure, there are the obvious effects of television - the distraction, time consumption, and leading us to be less satisfied with our lives and therefore helping us to be the greatest consumers on the planet.
But there is something more alarming than that.
The big concern for me is how television is reshaping our culture.
It's difficult to escape TV in modern America, and we need to be aware of the negative influence of television so we can guard against it.
Please note that this article digresses from the core theme of frugal living. It gets into some of the political ramifications of television in our lives. I offer this page on the negative influence of television as a way of wrapping up the issue. If I didn't compete this thought, I would feel like the issue wasn't thoroughly discussed.
I know I'll step on some toes here, but I don't mean to. If you're a big fan of television, I hope you'll forgive my transgression.
If you don't mind some politics with your frugal living discussions, then let's divert our attention for a little while and look at the negative influence of television. I think in many respects, TV is an illusion, and just like any other form of advertising and propaganda, it has a lot to say about America. And, it's time we do something about it.
But first, let's take a look back in recent history to help us keep the negative influence of television in perspective.
The Invasion
There are so many places now that have televisions seemingly everywhere. The sports bar, family restaurants, airport waiting areas, breakfast areas in motels, the back of airline seat, waiting rooms in medical offices, and the list goes on and on. Is it necessary? Well, some people think so.
Where did these all come from?
In high school, we had a foreign exchange student from Germany that spent a year in our school. During one of the classes, she was asked about her first impression of America - the single thing that most impressed her.
Her answer was "Fernsehen." In English, that translates directly to "remote seeing." In other words, the television.
Our foreign exchange student was most impressed with the availability of and focus on television - and that was back in 1974.
I also remember in my high school days, a science teacher asked about the number of televisions in our homes. One student remarked that her house had 7 televisions. Wow, that seems like a lot of television sets, even today, but then I'm a guy who has only 2, and neither of which get any TV reception - they are only for playing movies.
So, if America looked back then like we were fixated on TV, what must it look like now - a complete addiction? That's my view of the situation.
So, where did all this come from?
If the truth be known we only have ourselves to blame for the negative influence of television. We are to blame because we watch it, promote it, use it as a babysitter, enjoy it as background noise, use it to "veg out" after work, kill time with it, and use it to keep ourselves company.
We only have ourselves to blame because we're the ones on the receiving end, and we just haven't stopped viewing what it has to offer. For many of us, it's our "window on the world" and that's where our troubles begin - we believe what we see.
The following is a bit over the top, but he makes good points about Americans and our TV addiction. This movie clip is from the mid-1970s, but the points about the negative influence of television are absolutely valid today in the 21st century. Smile at the showmanship but focus on the message.
The message about the consequences of TV were made loud and clear by our preacher friend (played by Peter Finch). His showmanship and passion (and the fact that it's a movie) should not dilute the message - we're starting to believe in what we see, even though it's largely an illusion.
The Negative Influence of Television
Let's look at what I believe should be good examples of the negative influence of television. I'll focus on the most serious ones. My intention here is to get you to think about what TV is, instead of what it appears to be.
TV makes people unimportant. When it's important to have a television on at mealtime, then the people you're eating with are no longer important.
Whether it's the kitchen TV, the TV that you can see from the dining area, or the dozens of televisions at the restaurant, it's clear that TV is every bit as important as those you're having lunch with. And, that makes you less important.
If you leave the television on when company comes calling, then you're sending the message to your visitors that the TV program is more important than they are.
When every airline seat has a video screen that allows us to have a convenient excuse for not engaging our neighbor in a conversation, we're sending a similar message of how important people are to us. We can simply ignore people by watching the video screen, just like we can do the same with a set of headphones.
A negative influence of television is simply that it's presence indicates it's importance. It's ubiquitous. There is hardly anywhere you can go to escape it. And, the more we watch it, the more clearly it becomes that those paid to entertain us are more important than friends, neighbors and members of the family.
If this isn't a serious negative influence of television, then I don't know what is.
TV can stop our thinking. When we have talking heads and news anchors providing us with a constant stream of information, insights and observations, we can easily find a source of opinions that allows us to stop our critical thinking.
I listened to a news broadcast one evening, long ago, and the news commentator noted that people in Poland stood in apparent amazement as an America visitor jogged by. He noted that they must have been thinking about how jogging was such an incredible waste of energy, while they stood in the line to purchase food.
His conclusion was simple: if you want to help the Polish people, then give them food. Wow, what a mindless commentary. He could have said they needed freedom and economic opportunity, so they don't have to stand in line getting food from the communist government, but instead he said they simply needed food.
The negative influence of television commentary like this is that it paints a picture that is irrelevant, unrealistic, and focused on unimportant issues. It's okay that people make mindless comments, but they're being aired for one simple reason - millions are listening and being misled.
TV can limit what we know and what we're interested in knowing. When we watch a 30 minute news cast, we often think that what we see is what there is to see. After all, if there was more, wouldn't they show it to us and tell us about it?
Walter Cronkite used to tell us, "And, that's the way it is on (insert date)...." So, we were assured that what happened that day is what was reported.
It couldn't be more misleading. Remember, the news also includes weather, sports, traffic, entertainment, and sometimes cooking and science projects and commentary. So, how can we be hearing and seeing all that's important? We can't. There just isn't enough time.
So, a negative influence of television is simply that it appears to portray or report reality, but it only gives us a small peek at what's really going on.
Also, if you watch different channels, you'll note many of the same stories are offered. That's because the stories are shared with affiliates and provided through news services. So, if you're looking for a different perspective, a broader view, a story that isn't just "plain vanilla," then you're going to have to search for it.
Searching takes effort, and most of us are satisfied with our evening news as being quite enough "window on the world." Again, it's our fault because we're watching.
TV puts influence in the hands of a few. Television and other forms of media put just a handful of people in charge of "spoon feeding" us our news and opinion, and they have the power to slant it anyway they want. Here is a prime example.
In 2002, the Appalachian School of Law saw a tragedy on their campus. A student opened fire on students and faculty until he was stopped by two other students. Those two students saved lives.
The media swarmed the campus and heard accounts from the two students. More than 30 media representatives were there. In the several hundred news accounts of that incident, the reports explained that two students tackled the shooter.
The real story was that two students ran out to their cars, retrieved their own handguns and held the assassin at bay until two other students tackled the shooter.
I think this is a perfect example of the selective nature of news coverage that is influenced by the few that control the editorial process. Yes, the whole story got out, but it was purposely watered down by most of the newsrooms.
The more complete story can be found in only a few places. I remember it discussed by Alan Keyes on Making Sense, and in a newspaper account in North Carolina, once in The National Review, and as a lead story in the NRA's First Freedom magazine.
Out of hundreds of stories, only a handful of reports told the most important story - if it wasn't for armed students, there would have been more deaths and injuries. Clearly this perspective on firearms isn't shared by a majority of editors and story writers, so it just didn't get through.
"The man behind the curtain" didn't want you to see something, and so you probably didn't. The negative influence of television is that we're given half truths, and rarely do we get "the rest of the story."
TV dumbs us down. This claim would appear to fly in the face of all of the educational programs on television. To be fair, there really are some fascinating and educational programs on TV, but the overwhelming majority of television programming is designed to "spoon feed" entertainment, information and news (in that order).
There is scarcely a program out there that requires us to think.
Most of what we see is rapid fire information that gets little discussion to generate real rational thought. If you sit down with friends to talk about abortion, gay rights, gun control, foreign intervention, or the economy, you could go on for hours and hours on any one of the topics.
On television, you're lucky if you get just a few "sound bites".
The simple fact that programming is designed to match our attention span means that we won't be able to provide any decent thought stimulating discussion in a 30 or 60 minute program. And, if you watch any program of any length, they rarely dedicate the entire program to a single topic.
A negative influence of television is that after watching it, we're only armed with enough information to be "dangerous." Again, it's our fault because we're watching.
Wrapping it Up
I'll get off my soap box now and make this my last article on the negative influence of television. Thanks for getting this far down the page. I hope that I have at least awakened some new perspectives on TV.
When you boil it all down, the negative influence of television is something that we control - simply because we're the one's watching it. If we all stopped watching, it would all go away.
There isn't a better demonstration of our power as viewers than Fox News. They are popular with a large segment of the country because they represent a different slant on things - a slant that many folks have been looking for.
I've never seen networks calling one another names and making remarks about employees of the other networks until Fox News became popular, so you know that their viewership is creating lots of pressure on the traditional networks.
It's all because of us. It's all because of what we watch.
My message to you is to be selective in what you watch, how much you watch, and in any event question everything you see and hear.
For me, my solution to the negative influence of television is to keep it out of my life. I rarely find anything on television that requires me to take action, so I choose not to watch it.
This won't be a desirable option for many people, but I hope my views have given you something to think about. Perhaps the best solution is the old "everything in moderation" approach. It seems that it might be a good place to start.
