When people say they don't have a TV, there is usually a 50% chance* that someone will respond with "Good for you." However, if someone says they don't have the Internet do people ever say this? Both mediums have lots of worthless stuff, but for some reason TV is considered more of a waste of time than the Internet. I guess clicking on hyperlinks for more celebrity gossip and porn is better than just watching the same on a TV.
Maybe it's the sheer size of the Internet that makes it better since it can have way more educational and thought-provoking entertainment. But as long as channels like PBS, History, and Discovery educate and quality shows like Lost and Battlestar Galactica exist, cut TV some slack. At least until all the shows are "reality" ones.
Just an observation.
*This number is determined by location and crowd type. Your results may vary.
10 comments:
I think it's partially a trendy response (at least in some people's cases, certainly not all) and also I think it's because on the internet you can choose what you look at - more than you can by just passively flipping channels. Sometimes I get "stuck" playing on my computer and I think "why I am I still doing this?" But if I got stuck watching TV, I'd just feel more and more depressed, flipping channels, not finding anything on, but not being able to stop. I haven't regretted selling my TV set. But I also believe I will own another one someday. It was an I'm-Moving thing more than a "TV SUCKS" thing.
Don't know if that was useful or not. But there it is.
OMG, I 100% agree. I have had this conversation so many times with my friends who don't have TVs. I just can't stand to have a TV on, all of that crazy flipping of images and lights and crazy sounds and commercials-- it practically gives me a seizure now that I'm not used to it anymore. I used to watch an insane amount of TV, like 5 years ago, and then I just quit cold turkey.
Also, I agree with Naomi that watching television is much more passive. I also think that I encounter much less advertising on the internet than I would watching television. It totally depends on what websites you visit of course-- those blinking ads on MySpace give me a migraine.
The past several days my internet has been out and I found that I was actually disappointed when I noticed it was working again. Because the internet was out this week, I read and cooked more and spent more time with my roommate and called several old friends that I hadn't talked to in ages and took a walk.
I know people who don't have computers in their homes (I know, crazy) and they somehow manage to get by but it's hard to imagine. I guess you just have to set up your life differently so that you aren't relying on the internet for information. Like you'd need to have a map in your house and a telephone book and cookbooks and a dictionary and thesaurus and encyclopedias and you'd need to hold on to paper user manuals... you know, like in the old days... 10 years ago.
Wow, the more I think about this, I realized that it's really important to me to still have paper versions of things around. I mean, the internet is better because the information is more up-to-date but it's also less reliable-- sites go down, power goes out, people post misinformation. It kind of weirds me out to think that my kids might grow up not knowing what a paper map or encyclopedia set or atlas even looks like. Maybe that's just me resisting change but I like the idea of flipping through books with spines and pages, the act of walking across the house and pulling one off the bookshelf. I also like the idea that you won't encounter advertising in a paper dictionary like you would on dictionary.com and I like spreading out a map on the floor and seeing the meeting of art and information. I like flipping through the stained, dog-eared pages of a well-loved cookbook, seeing the splash of tomato sauce on p. 26 and knowing that it's from my parents' 26th wedding anniversary when I cooked dinner for them.
Wow, thanks for giving me all of this stuff to think about!
Also, I think an argument can be made against the educational value of Discovery and the History channel. They tend to provide mostly trivia-type information and the documentaries that I've seen are usually pretty severely dumbed down.
I also think an argument can be made against the quality of "Lost" (I've never seen "Battlestar Galactica" so I can't speak to that). I mean, it's definitely an entertaining show (most of the time) but I don't personally find it to be that brilliant. I've only seen the first two seasons but it always seems pretty formulaic and the writing and acting are nothing to write home about, in my personal opinion.
I too prefer the physicality of books over reading on a computer. I do not harbor love for traditional paper maps though (at least as far as usability goes, they are still pretty to look at). Maps printed from a map site are much, much clearer and easier to read at a glance. Plus they don't require ungainly folding techniques.
The Internet also provides trivia type information too, and with less fact-checking than goes into Discovery and History channel specials. But of course, that depends on the site and in the end the Internet does win out on the whole educational issue.
I'll gladly argue with you about Lost. I'll concede it's formulaic if by formulaic you mean that it follows the traditional three act structure. If you mean that it is too derivative of other works and doesn't add anything new, then I would like to know what you are comparing it to because clearly I am missing out on some cool stuff. :)
Also the acting I would disagree with (especially the whole arc with the character "Henry Gale").
The Internet also provides trivia type information too, and with less fact-checking than goes into Discovery and History channel specials.
I totally agree. Have you read Bear v. Shark? Anthony let me borrow it (for, um, about 2 years) and I finally read it and it's such, such a good book. It's all about that exact thing and it's hilarious and sad and brilliant.
And you're totally right about the dude who plays Henry Gale / not-Henry-Gale. That guy is a fucking amazing actor.
Nope, I'll add that to my "Anthony-owned books I need to read" list (which is growing steadily).
I heard an interview with that actor and he likes how the fans treat him perhaps with a bit more respect than they would with other actors (since his character has this crazy quiet menace to him). Sometimes it's good to be feared. :)
You guys need to stop talking about Lost, because I successfully weaned myself off that show just for the sheer fact that I was too obsessed with it. But now y'all are making me feel like I made the "wrong choice."
As long as you watch it all on DVD, you didn't make the wrong choice. You just stand a greater chance of being spoiled by others who are watching it in real-time (since it is a documentary you know). ;)
I'm not watching it this season, Naomi. I started to but the first few episodes didn't really grab me so I stopped. But I'm sure I'll rent the DVD set when the whole season comes out.
Post a Comment