maplesyrup Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 There is a move afoot to revise the English langauage because apparently it is too difficult. What nonsense. What has happened is that we have created generations now of non-readers because of TV. This is the wrong approach to solving the problem. The solution is to turn off the boob box and return to reading. Why do over eager capitalists have to screw everything up, all the time? Talk about the dumbing down of our society! Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 There is a move afoot to revise the English langauage because apparently it is too difficult. What nonsense. What has happened is that we have created generations now of non-readers because of TV. This is the wrong approach to solving the problem. The solution is to turn off the boob box and return to reading. Why do over eager capitalists have to screw everything up, all the time? Talk about the dumbing down of our society! Why do you have to dumb down your posts and blame everything on Capitalists. That is also dumb and and slightly ignorant. The kid has a choice as to wether or not he should watch the T.V and the kid should have parents who have the ability to say shut the thing off freddy. I know when I was a kid my parents didn't give me free run of watching the T.v and I was encouraged to read, it took me along time to learn to read, however in the last foundation skills assement test I was in the top 10% of the province for reading comprehension. I realise this si just one individual case and I know I don't have a statisticle reference infront of me for making these claims, I will because i feel there is some truth to them. A childs ability to learn, A childs ability to perform and understand tasks, unless impeded by medical circumstances, does not weigh solely on what those capitalist bastards are doing in their big offices. I belive it woudl be mroe correct to say that Parents should try to curb the time children spend watching telivsion at an early age in favour of Playtime or reading. At bed Parents should read to their children (Last study I saw said early expirences of being read to leads to an interest in reading). I also think that it should be something caught and dealt with by grade 1 or grade 2 and a meeting with the parents should occur. After that they should agree to a plan of action and get there *ss in gear to accomplishing it, through direct attention to the child. But I also feel the no T.V line because your bad, will work. In my psychology text it prescribe a reward based motivation for such things. which makes sense, 1 hour of reading gets you 2 hours of telivsion, don't tell the kid how much he can watch let him determine how much he wants to watch, if he wants to watch 8 hours a day then fine he has 16 hours of reading ahead of him. Again it woudl be important to make sure the kid thinks he is getting the best of the deal I.E a 1 for 2 type trade. Basic education for parents about dealing with the problem, plus a focused environment to fix the problem could do the trick. If you want MS, you can put a reading tax on your local Cable provider, to pay for it, no doubt the prices for cable will go up but maybe thats what we need, eh? Quote The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand --------- http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Economic Left/Right: 4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54 Last taken: May 23, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Groups have already organized to have car-free days, and shop-free days, so why couldn't we have TV-free days, weeks, or even years. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 TV is one of the utlimate source of information compared to newspapers. TV can get you news now, compared newspapers which takes a day. Quote And as I take man's last step from the surface, for now but we believe not too far into the future. I just like to say what I believe history will record that America's challenge on today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And as we leave the surface of Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and god willing we shall return with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17. Gene Cernan, the last man on the moon, December 1972. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 TV is one of the utlimate source of information compared to newspapers. TV can get you news now, compared newspapers which takes a day. Watching too much TV means one is avoiding reading. We are now raising a nation of wimps who can't even read or write or spell! Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Groups have already organized to have car-free days, and shop-free days, so why couldn't we have TV-free days, weeks, or even years. There are school sponsored T.V free days, but it involves the commitment of people to it. If you want M.S start one, go through your comunity and try and put together a first anual Vancouver T.V free day (You live vancouver or the vicinity right?). Try newspapers, or even the T.V guide , I am sure if you put the effort in you could play a big role in getting the ball roling, I mean why leave it to a bunch of crystal meth dealeuhmmm.... B.C politicians. Quote The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand --------- http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Economic Left/Right: 4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54 Last taken: May 23, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Groups have already organized to have car-free days, and shop-free days, so why couldn't we have TV-free days, weeks, or even years. There are school sponsored T.V free days, but it involves the commitment of people to it. If you want M.S start one, go through your comunity and try and put together a first anual Vancouver T.V free day (You live vancouver or the vicinity right?). Try newspapers, or even the T.V guide , I am sure if you put the effort in you could play a big role in getting the ball roling, I mean why leave it to a bunch of crystal meth dealeuhmmm.... B.C politicians. It is interesting that in the church I attend very few parents let their young children have much TV. Some do not even have a TV in their homes! Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playfullfellow Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the parents to limit the amount of tv their kids watch and whether they should read a book or not. There is also a responsibility of the parents on what shows their kids watch. Brainless fluff is of course not very good but there are some pretty good educational shows out there too. Unfortunately, the tv or nintendo are too easy a way to keep the kids quiet for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Unfortunately, the tv or nintendo are too easy a way to keep the kids quiet for a while. pff....I think you have nailed the problem. It takes a major effort to be a top notch parent. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 MS...I love the idea of a day without television! Imagine what would happen if it was extended for a week? People would probably go crazy trying to figure out what to think. My father does not own a television because he just could not take the brainwashing and the endless commercials anymore. He relies on books and more "legitimate" internet sources for information. IMO, his thoughts are more refined and logical if seemingly odd at times as a result. Quote You will respect my authoritah!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 What has happened is that we have created generations now of non-readers because of TV. Why do over eager capitalists have to screw everything up, all the time? Talk about the dumbing down of our society! You have managed to be entirely right and entirely wrong in the same post. Congratulations. First, let me deal with the nonsensical way you insist on pulling knee-jerk leftist ideological bleating into everything you post. It is not the fault of capitalists that TV is dumbing things down. It is the fault of society. It is the fault of a society which thought it would be a good idea to "free" women to go and work at mostly dull, unrewarding jobs, just like us men, and create a new term called "latchkey kids". It is the fault of too-busy, or even absent fathers and too-bys, or absent mothers who let the electronics entertain their kids while they work or do chores, who find it easier to let the kid do what it wants rather than imposing any kind of discipline. TV has been with us a while now. It did not really dumb down the previous generation, not to the extent it is doing now. Then again, TV used to be more intelligent than it is now. It is hard to believe that those people who ranted against television in the seventies were complaining about television at its zenith. How low it has since sunk! Television is no longer interested in educating, no longer interested in art, or in making statements about society. Television is now divided into two forms of nearly mindless dross. The first and worst is made up of reality shows which revel in the absolute worst of humanity, and turn everyone into sick voyeurs in a carnival of pathetic human wrecks, is the worst. I am apalled at how many people actually watch this crap; adults who chat about it at work the next day when they should be embarrassed to even admit they watched it. The second are the "old fashioned" television "shows", sit-coms and dramas. Yet there is no originality left to them. Their creators seem incapable of imagination, regurgitating lessor versions of previous shows again and again. Bland and dull, taking no chances, with cliche'd scenes and jokes that scarcely qualify as entertaining. They are, for the most part, written by unskilled people in their twenties, usually their early twenties, who have succeded at sucking up or sleeping with the right people. The reason the writers are so young (and thus incompetent) is the continued desperation to appeal to young people (middle aged people are more set in their ways and less likely to be persuaded by advertisers). Now I'll admit that capitalism certainly plays a part in that, but if young people had been raised properly they wouldn't keep drinking this crap in and demanding more. So it is society which is killing society, dumbing it down. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 I know when I was a kid my parents didn't give me free run of watching the T.v and I was encouraged to read, it took me along time to learn to read, however in the last foundation skills assement test I was in the top 10% of the province for reading comprehension. I don't really mean to be insulting, but this would be a little more reassuring if your post was not absolutely filled with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Note to Argus about written English: Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 Being a "leftie" I would hesitiate before I commented on, or criticised, or complained about someone's use of English. Perhaps it is not his first language, maybe not even his second. It is wonderful to see a language used well, and I commend the people that do it, but I draw the line at critiquing others. I remember when I was learning French. If I had to stop and worry about the mistakes I was making I would never have learnt the language. So for those of you whose first language in not English, continuez, faute ou sans faute! Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 Why shouldn't we blame capitalism for the bad TV. TV's raison d'etre is to sell ads, which is the capitalist's mantra. You know sell, sell, sell! Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playfullfellow Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 In one sense you are right MS, it is a tv stations prerogative to sell ads, it is the only way they can pay for the shows they have. The only other alternatives are PBS or state run television. I have seen PBS, not bad but you can get tired of the asking for money. I have also spent several years watching state run television and that is definately not the way to go. You get to watch what ever the government deems alright for you to watch. So you end up watching lots of political debates that are totally one sided. You get to watch some beaurucrats favorite opera over and over. Not a very pleasant experience. I can even remember that once or twice a year there would be a John Wayne movie on or something and whole families would go to whom ever had the best television and watch it. Made for a nice evening but only once or twice a year. Sure, the commercials suck but a person can always change the channel or just tune them out. At least now there is more variety and choice, trust me, big brother does not always know best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 Why shouldn't we blame capitalism for the bad TV. TV's raison d'etre is to sell ads, which is the capitalist's mantra. You know sell, sell, sell! Of course. TV producers are capitalists, and they try to appeal to the market. They give the market what it wants. If people stopped watching "The Bachelor", the capitalists would stop putting it on the air and try and figure out what people want to watch instead. We can blame TV executives for aiming their programming at what people want to watch, but we can't blame TV executives for the fact that what people want to watch is often depressingly dumb. If TV executives thought that a Jack Layton Fireside Chat would draw huge ratings, that is what they'd put on the air. (but realistically, you're the only person who'd want to see that, Maple. ) If people made it clear that they want more intelligent programming and started rejecting stupid programming, the TV industry would be trying to find ways of satisfying the audience. However, when TV comes up with new and creative shows, they're often cancelled due to low ratings as most viewers would prefer to watch stuff they're more comfortable with. That says more about the collective viewing public than it says about TV executives. -kimmy Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 It is hard to believe that those people who ranted against television in the seventies were complaining about television at its zenith. How low it has since sunk! Television is no longer interested in educating, no longer interested in art, or in making statements about society. Television was at its zenith during the 1970s? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. I was not alive during the 1970s. However, I have seen reruns, and I've talked to people. And I've had the same conversation with people who believe that the movies or the music of their time was the "zenith" of the art. It wasn't. The bulk of what you watched on TV in the 1970s was crap. People have very subjective memories. They tend to remember "Mary Tyler Moore" and "Archie Bunker" and forget about "Love Boat", "Starsky and Hutch", "Alice", "CHIPS", "The Dukes of Hazard", and dozens more that were so wretched they haven't even surfaced as reruns. There is a lot of crap on TV today, but there was a lot of crap on TV in the 1970s too. And having seen some of the shows hailed as the best of their eras, well, I might be biased but I don't think any of it stands up well against the best of today's television programs. -kimmy Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 I wonder if they have shows like Jerry Springer on European TV. I hope not for their sake. I think it is the quantity as much as the quality which is causing the English problems. If one watches 6 hours of TV a day, one doesn't have time to do much reading, or writing. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 I wonder if they have shows like Jerry Springer on European TV. I hope not for their sake. Worse. I've seen French and Italian television. French TV is basically a stream of softcore porn and Italian TV is all sports and game shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 TV is one of the utlimate source of information compared to newspapers. TV can get you news now, compared newspapers which takes a day. But the speed comes at the price of depth, context and information. In the race to get it out first, such matters fall by the way side. To me, the saddest thing about the rise of TV news is that newspapers, instead of playing to the strengths of the written word, which allows more thought and analysis, are instead turning into print versions of TV: superficial and decontextualized, bite-sized tidbits for your infotainment needs. Eisenhower warned of the rise of the military industrial complex. What we have is an even more sinister entity: the military-industrial-entertainment-information complex. Yikes. It is hard to believe that those people who ranted against television in the seventies were complaining about television at its zenith. How low it has since sunk! Television is no longer interested in educating, no longer interested in art, or in making statements about society. the question is "what to the people want?" You certainly can never go broke by pandering to th elowest common demoinator, which is what advertisers (the people who really drive television content) do. So it becomes a cycle whereby people expect-nay, demand!- nothing but drivel from TV, which obliges, which in turn lowers expectations further. The audience and society loses, while the media conglomorates and advertisers make out like bandits. Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 You certainly can never go broke by pandering to th elowest common demoinator... The audience and society loses How does a person lose by getting what they want? The only loss is that which you perceive, not which they perceive, which amounts to "I know what's good for you better than you do", or the road to despotism. It's also foolish to imagine that TV is taking us down some road of crap. We always had crap and the "lowest common denominator" never demanded anything more. Today it's Jerry Springer and The Bachelor, 50 years ago, pin-up girls, trashy pulp fiction and freakshows, 100 years ago, cockfights and bareknuckle boxing, 1000 years ago, bear-baiting and pillorying. Not to mention all the other things that people do and did for fun and escapism - prostitution, drug abuse, S&M, and so forth. TV didn't invent any of those either. Of course, it's only my opinion that that stuff is crap, which is why I'm not about to tell people they should be ashamed to enjoy Jerry Springer, and I'd appreciate it if they'd leave my enjoyment of baseball alone too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 Hugo......baseball for me is the most enjoyable sport because it is a social event, almost like a party. I agree there has always been trash around but the amount of time that people spend watching TV has: 1 - skyrocketed 2 - substantially reduced our being involved with creative activities. It is a major crisis for our society - look at the obesity problems which can be directly related to TV through both their food ads, and sitting on couch for extended periods of time, getting little or no exercise. And not developing reading or language skills. Cartman....your Dad sounds like a smart fellow. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 How does a person lose by getting what they want? The only loss is that which you perceive, not which they perceive, which amounts to "I know what's good for you better than you do", or the road to despotism. Well, the question is is it a real or precieved want? Certianly viewers are to blame for bad choices, but someone else foists these choices upon them. As I said, it's a cycle and there's plenty of blame to go around. It's also foolish to imagine that TV is taking us down some road of crap. We always had crap and the "lowest common denominator" never demanded anything more. Today it's Jerry Springer and The Bachelor, 50 years ago, pin-up girls, trashy pulp fiction and freakshows, 100 years ago, cockfights and bareknuckle boxing, 1000 years ago, bear-baiting and pillorying. But I think TV is giving us a historically unprecedented amount of crap, with a broader reach than ever before. Not everyone went to the cockfighst 100 years ago, but just about everyone has a TV. Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 In MS's opening post he wrote of the dumbing down because of the difficulty of the Language. He did not agree with the assertion but I think it should be explored. Societies for the reform of the English language point tot he 17% rate of functional illiteracy in English speaking countries: a rate that apparently does not exist in other language, advanced socieities. The claim is that the spelling in English does make it too difficult to read and write for many. I tend to give some credence to this. However, I have also read that the English language is superior to others because of its difficulty and its huge vocabulary. Literature is said to be more capable of expression because of the variety available. I do think that there is much to be argued, as it is being here, for the effects of television. I also think that the comparisons are a little more difficult than is being expressed since universal education is relatively recent even in advanced societies. For much of the time we have had that, it was limited in years for most. In the system I attended, I was the only one in my elementary class to graduate to a High school. Entrance then was by examination and the examinations were difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.