I know we have touched on this in class, and that we have touched on much more that should perhaps be far more troubling, yet I keep coming back to TV. So, forgive this post for not being on the readings themselves, but it’s been on my mind. I have to wonder, is TV really destroying my ability to retain information? Is it really so simple that, as we heard growing up, television rots your brain? I have to admit that I watch a good deal of TV in a week—at least an hour a day and much more on the weekends. I eat dinner in front of the TV, and my breaks from studying tend to be curling up on the couch and watching a TIVO’d episode of House. Since TV first came up—I’ve been telling myself that I should go a week without watching it just to see what happens. But I haven’t, and when it actually comes down to it, it feels a lot harder than I would have thought. I was at first skeptical in class of the claim that TV is addictive (because, of course, I’m not addicted—the classic response). But this weekend I found that I’d gone through all my episodes of House, and ended up watching a show that just wasn’t good, and that I didn’t even like, just because I wanted to watch something. Google searches actually reveal quite a few websites on the topic, and some contain “survivor” stories of the cured. So I have to wonder, am I really addicted to television?

Some rehab programs ask you to list the benefits you receive from using your substance of choice, and then to list the negative effects it has on your life. Then, you “rate” how great the benefits are, and how high the disadvantages (say, on a scale of 1-5). The goal is to show you that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits (though I always wonder what the counselor would say if your benefits came out stronger). I won’t bore you with my list, but I’ve got to say that my benefits aren’t sounding that great. Is spending an hour not thinking really such a benefit? If we truly believe that cognito, ergo sum what exactly is going in our brains on when we stop thinking entirely for sometimes hours at a time? One of the google results suggests that (and please forgive me if you have any more of a biology background than myself) TV-watching turns off your analytical left brain and on your emotional right-brain, which releases endorphins. The endorphins not only make you happy (and addicted), but because of that happiness, make you particularly susceptible to advertising. It all sounds like some huge conspiracy theory. TV makes happy citizens and strong consumers. But is it possible that there is some truth in it?

My “disadvantages” list is somewhat uncertain right now, and I can’t really evaluate it because I’m not sure what I’m losing when I watch TV. So, I know the answer is to just give it a shot, which I think I finally will. Any other TV watchers up for the challenge?

-- EllaAiken - 02 Feb 2009

During the class discussion of the evils of television, I couldn't stop thinking about Malcolm Gladwell's chapter on the mechanisms of Sesame Street in his book The Tipping Point. He discusses the history of the show - how it was established in order to spread the "virus" of literacy to poor children. Her partner in this venture, a psychologist named Gerald Lesser, was skeptical of the potential of such a thing, noting that "television has no potential, no power" to be engaging or interactive. Gladwell goes on to explain that "educational experts describe television as 'low involvement.'"

The moral of the story is that researchers developed Sesame Street in such a way that children would feel engaged in, interacted with, communicated to, and according to Gladwell, scientific studies on the show seem to find that it "increases the reading and learning skills of its viewers."

I wonder if this is different from mindless, addictive television, or if it is still addictive but it yields some positive educational outcomes. Perhaps I'm overlooking some huge negative here that pushes the show away from positive-but-still-an-addictive-medium to just plain negative.

-- MolissaFarber - 02 Feb 2009

While watching the Superbowl this evening, I couldn't help but think of this conversation during an commercial for Hulu. Alec Baldwin might as well have been Professor Moglen, warning the audience of the evil motives of the television networks and the transformation of our wonderful brains into green mush. The sample viewer was giggling softly while watching an episode of Family Guy while an MRI-like image showed his brain disintegrate. Baldwin mocked that even if we (the American public) could turn off our TVs, we could never switch off our computers as well; we will never be safe.

Everyone that paid attention (none of whom are in our class) laughed exactly as did the sample subject. The irony was startling. With this empirical evidence, I must admit I do believe in the mind-numbing power of most television.

But the next step in my thought process was, to what extent is television worthless? I began to formulate three possible benefits (I wonder if you share some of these Ella):

1) Visual transmission of important events - I believe television has the tremendous ability to give billions of people the opportunity to witness great moments in history (i.e. the recent inauguration) at a relatively low cost. Note that all the commentary, superfluous coverage and the like add nothing. This benefit is derived from television purely as a medium.

2). Useful sharing of ideas - Television has the power to be a "marketplace of ideas" and allow useful exchange. However, the prohibitive cost of appearing on television seems to greatly hamper this objective. Also, the ability to converse online (allowing for true interaction) seems more aptly suited.

3) Useful Education - As you alluded to, Molissa, I do believe that programs such as Sesame Street that place an emphasis on interactive learning (not only for children) can serve a useful purpose.

I must admit I do not really use television to achieve any of these goals. I tend to hold onto the "but without it, we'll go bonkers" claim, but I do see the inherent weakness/close-mindedness in this. Maybe today can be the beginning of the end. After all, Alec Baldwin told me so.

-- KeithEdelman - 02 Feb 2009

Ella, I too have considered "experiments" into television abstinence, with a similar lack of resolve best characterized in the classic addict’s statement of "I'll try it tomorrow." From your entry, I would estimate that I am about on your level of TV watching, and I am quite familiar with the frustration that comes when the DVR runs out of fresh episodes and you end up getting sucked in by a series of reality shows, HSN (Sham Wow!), and Food Network until you realize that you’ve spent two hours doing something unproductive and not particularly enjoyable. This leaves me no doubt that television, or rather my choice in watching it, is capable of holding me back from my more fruitful endeavors, but I disagree with Professor Moglen that I should smash my set with a hammer.

Professor Moglen suggested that we use television as an easy escape from the high level of pressure and stress we experience as law students. In this regard, I don’t think this discussion is far removed from the one on WhyIAmReluctantToTalkInClass? and our fear of being wrong. Both in class and at home, we find ourselves making decisions that are not necessarily in alignment with our otherwise better judgment. For example, I hypothesize that if I spent less time watching television and more time studying, I would feel more prepared for class and be more willing to volunteer answers. However, my fear of being wrong, feeling embarrassed, or wasting precious class time discourages my participation, which leads me to say “what’s the point” as I close my books to take in this week’s two hour episode of Biggest Loser. Sadly, I don’t see an end in sight for this causal loop. As a lawyer, being wrong can be career ending, and spending 10-12 hours each day making decisions under this pressure would surely take one to the limits of sanity. Professor Moglen touched on this and went on to suggest that the role of television is often replaced by booze as we age. This is an unappealing proposition, but I am still not sold on an alternative to having something in my life which allows me to “zone-out.” I am either too afraid of what that might mean, to ignorant of what options I could explore, or too stubborn in my preconceptions.

As an alternate viewpoint, I see television as a popular unifying device for society (in concurring with what was said in class by someone whose name I regretfully do not know). I remember reading a quote from Stephen Dubner, one of the co-publishers of the Freakonomics Blog, saying that he would rather read than watch television because it makes economic sense as he reads faster than the average person, but is forced to watch television at a standardized pace. Sure, this makes perfect sense if you commoditize television only as a source of information, but I think the value lies elsewhere. As a law student, I often feel isolated from my family and the friends I had before enrolling. I quickly become self-conscious when I start off on another rant about “this great case I read today in Property.” Television provides me a way to relate with the people I know and people I meet. I propose that an explanation for the success of reality tv, is that viewers feel an intimate connection with the participants by living vicariously through their trials and tribulations and empathizing with the genuine emotions they show in the process. There is value to this human aspect, even if my left-brain fails to recognize it. If this wasn’t true, gaining social clout through water-cooler talk about last night’s game or episode of The Office wouldn’t be so closely connected to workplace success, even in law firms.

So how can we reconcile this situation in which television is an important part of our lives but we suspect if of precluding our achievement of greater things? I think that moderate television watching will be shown to have unique benefits, when prioritized correctly and combined with other endorphin producing activities (namely exercise and interpersonal contact). I just turned 24 years- old, and it’s probably about time that I took a hard look at how I structure my life. If I can utilize non-work related activities, like television, as rewards for getting my work done in a timely and thorough manner, perhaps a radical change will not be necessary. So I am not going cold-turkey on the tube, but rather scaling back my usage to a reasonable amount. I am interested to hear if those of us who have already established a routine incorporating a small amount of TV have found success doing so (recognizing that this might have come at age 12 rather than at 24). If not, I will report back soon, hopefully with good news.

-- JonathanFriedman - 02 Feb 2009

Isn't the modern problem unproductive web browsing, not TV?

It's very easy to let the hours slip away with the mind turned off, reading news, politics, and celebrity gossip. Reading can be active (trying to fully comprehend every sentence in a casebook) or just as mindless as TV.

Of course, the REAL problem is going to turn up when we get legalized soma. No side effects or overdoses, just pure pleasure. Or the orgasmatron from Sleeper. What happens when artificial pleasure is better than living in the real world? If it takes measurable willpower now to keep the TV off when you should be studying, then how much will you need to avoid popping a soma pill when you should be researching something for a client? We're already seeing a lot of this with World of Warcrack addiction...

-- GavinSnyder - 02 Feb 2009