No TV
I have been free of television for three years now. I have been, at times in my life, a total TV freak. When I was a child, I watched TV every night as I was going to sleep—not to mention the hours of viewing before bedtime. I have been a gamer since childhood which further cemented my attachment to the television. I have found that, since that time, I am more productive, I am more creative and devote more of my time to creative outlets (such as this blog!), and I spend less money.
I would first like to acknowledge that I own a television which acts as a computer monitor and a monitor for my Nintendo Wii. I don’t play the Wii much, but I still enjoy video gaming. I do not, however, view television programming. The device itself is not what I oppose as it could certainly be a miraculous tool, but it has become nothing more than a system for delivering consumer culture to the masses.
There are obvious economic benefits to quitting television. Television service is costly. I know very few television enthusiasts who are content with network television. It also has limited reach which means some people who might settle for it cannot get it. I am very familiar with the pricing of television service having worked for Comcast. Here in Knoxville, Tennessee, cable television starts at $10-12 per month. That sounds reasonable until you learn that those plans offer only the network channels you would also get with an antenna. A cable package with true cable channels starts at about $35 per month and goes up from there to over $100 for every station offered. This means at the very least you would save $420 per year by dropping your cable package. Some satellite packages may be cheaper and other cable providers may offer smaller packages, but the savings are still significant. If you carry all the channels you will save over $1200 per year!
Another less direct economic benefit is the absence of television commercials. One half-hour program typically consists of 22 minutes of content and 8 minutes of commercials. Based on data from the US census bureau, the average adult will watch 1,669 hours of television in a year. 445 of those hours will be commercials. The ratio of content to commercials is also increasing every year.[1] This article also notes two observations about the typical TV viewing session which helps to explain the pervasive nature of advertising in this medium.
It has been found that most viewers do not turn on television to watch a specific program. They simply decide to “watch television” and then find a program that looks interesting. This is least-objectionable-program (LOP) model of television viewing we introduced earlier.
…most children and adults watch TV in a kind of relaxed, transfixed state of awareness. In the view of some psychologists the fact that people aren’t critically thinking about what they are seeing while in this state means that situations (and commercials) are passively accepted on somewhat of an unconscious level. Some go so far as to say that because of this, TV has a kind of hypnotic influence.
Advertisers would hope we are not critical of the advertising content delivered to us while watching. If we merely accept their claims that their product is superior to competitors and that it is something we desperately need, we are likely to buy the product. Why else would advertisers have collectively spent $42.5 billion on television advertisements?[2]
Possibly more disturbing than the increasing portions of airtime devoted to advertising is the unification of advertisement with content in the form of product placement. This is a more subtle and sublime form of advertisement. The hope is that viewers have formed some emotional attachment to a character and the emotion will bleed over into the products that character owns. This form of advertisement was at first confined mostly to feature films but is now common on television.
Advertisements not only change television by lessening the time available for content. They also apply pressure to television networks to alter content. The advertiser may choose pressure the network actively by explicitly asking that particular content be censored or not be aired. This was the method chosen by Johnson & Johnson when they asked the USA network not to run a movie based on a true story in which two people died after taking Excedrin laced with cyanide. In this case there are two important facts of note. Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary produces Tylenol, and there was a similar incident which occurred prior to that depicted in the movie in which deaths were brought about after ingestion of cyanide-laced Tylenol.[3] A similar result may also be reached by more passive means. “Advertisers… pay a premium for young, white, male consumers-factors that end up skewing the range of content offered to the public.”[4] The result is that networks must preemptively censor their content such that it pleases advertisers in order to compete. What may be even more chilling is that these types of pressure from advertisers are even used to influence television journalism.[5]
Setting aside concerns about the quality and integrity of content on television, there are also concerns related to health and family life. Television may lead to more aggression and less physical activity. Children watching excessive television are more prone to obesity due to this lack of physical activity.[6] Television viewing time can overtake family time. 54% of 4-6 year-olds chose time watching television to time with their fathers.[7] Addiction to television is a condition that affects many in our population.
Millions of Americans are so hooked on television that they fit the criteria for substance abuse as defined in the official psychiatric manual, according to Rutgers University psychologist and TV-Free America board member Robert Kubey.[7]
These factors contribute to the status of television as a serious health threat to the millions of Americans who watch.
The adjustment to life without television is surprisingly smooth. I didn’t find myself wrought with boredom or aching for something to do. I was instead able to pursue interests which I had been previously neglecting like writing and reading. It also gave me time to find new ways to enrich my life. I was formerly very sedentary, but I now enjoy bike riding and other outdoor activities. There are easy ways to try out this lifestyle. TV Turnoff Week is still several months away, but pick a week of your own to try life without television. You may find it’s not quite the major transition one might imagine.
Notes and Sources
- “The Social Impact of Television.” June 10, 2007. http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/frtv030.htm (accessed July 23, 2007).
- “Statistics About Advertising.” http://www1.medialiteracy.com/stats_advertising.jsp (accessed July 23, 2007).
- “Network Pulls Movie After Advertiser Protests.” December 6, 2000. http://commondreams.org/headlines/120600-02.htm (accessed July 23, 2007).
- Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), “Issue Area: Advertiser Influence.” http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=60 (accessed July 23, 2007).
- Soley, Lawrence. “The Power of the Press Has A Price.” July 1997. http://www.fair.org/extra/9707/ad-survey.html (accessed July 23, 2007).
- American Academy of Pediatrics. “Television and the Family.” http://www.aap.org/family/tv1.htm (accessed July 23, 2007).
- “Television & Health.” http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html (accessed July 23, 2007).
As I always do, I will take up the rebuttal on this issue!
I think your argument rests too heavily on the foundation of network channels and their closely aligned cable affiliates. I find no danger in the commercialism flourishing on network television because I don’t watch network television. I would almost dare to assert that no educated adult watches the ridiculously generic sitcoms and vapid crime dramas that populate every network channel’s schedule. These “accessible” shows breed with each other and produce endless generations of insipid, formulaic clones. I certainly don’t think your personality type is interested in said shows. I’ll even go so far as to haphazardly say that most network programming appeals only to idiots.
What you do miss are important facets of television. PBS’s nightly news programs are the only thing this country has that even come close to rivaling the BBC World News, one of the most untainted news sources in the modern world. If the American versions aren’t enough, then the PBS actually airs the BBC World News! You’re definitely not going to find such important information on ABC. PBS has minimal advertising, but television networks aren’t cheap to operate. If PBS didn’t offer marginally stimulating documentaries on astronomy, evolution, et cetera, then I’m not sure where the layperson would stumble upon them–certainly not on the regularly dumbed down Discovery Channel. HBO, although owned by AOL Time Warner (ick), shows no signs of morality police trespass; their entertainment is almost entirely progressive and atheist-and-gay-friendly. Even in films do you rarely find the adult situations and intellectual fiction found in original HBO programming. It’s nice to sit down once in a while and enjoy something that you know was made for someone your age and no other market. You can’t find this anywhere else. HBO has almost no advertising to speak of.
One thing that I’ve always noticed about your position on television is that you seem to think you will become a helpless victim to flagrant consumerism if you partake in television. As a rational adult, you can reason yourself through Bisquick advertisements without rushing to the pancake aisle, right? As an adult, I find no reason to be fearful of commercials, because I’m capable of rationalizing my finances and actual needs versus wants. There’s no reason to learn to live without something that could provide enjoyment. I could learn to live without chocolate and tell all my friends that I don’t miss it, but I’d still really enjoy it if I ate it. It almost seems as if you are denying yourself something based on principles that apply to other people and not yourself.
Where I do think your point has strength is in the affliction of consumerism and sedentary life delivered to children. Children cannot be expected to make educated decisions, obviously. As you have expertly stated the consequences of this, I have nothing further to add.
I take issue with the notion with many of the statistics you offered, as they apply to people who aimlessly watch television for lack of anything better to do. When I do watch television, I know what I’m going to watch and when I’m going to watch it. I don’t “surf.” I don’t think many educated, intelligent adults meander through the banal network sitcoms and overt celebrity worship of the cable channels. I’m an advocate for people who enjoy that kind of thing to stay exactly where they are. Frankly, I fear the havoc that would be wrecked if stupid people were freed from their televisionic comas and set loose upon the world. Not everyone would become a socialist revolutionary whose potential had formerly been checked by the tube. Some people would be exactly who they were as a television viewer, and I’d prefer those people remain within the boundaries of their homes, please!
The existence of television depends upon ad revenue (except in rare cases you mention such as HBO and PBS). This fact alone means that any television station, if faced with the prospect of losing that ad revenue in response to airing certain content would have to refrain from airing it. No corporate entity will willingly commit suicide.
I don’t believe that I will become helpless faced with TV advertisements, but I do know that my brain is flawed. There are times when logic doesn’t win even though it should. It is weak to repetition. It is weak to suggestions that play on my insecurities. I certainly wouldn’t keep a mental shopping list of every ad I see on television while watching, but I may be subconsciously persuaded to buy things I don’t need or to make poor decisions about what to consume. The human mind is incapable of a tunnel-vision which sees only the most logical choice no matter how valuable that might be in some circumstances.
There are certainly more responsible ways to watch television than many of those outlined in the article. I’m talking about television as a societal affliction. Most people do watch TV that way. Most people do watch it only for a perceived lack of superior alternatives.
Thanks for taking the time to read what I’m writing and comment. I’m looking forward to hearing from you more on my other posts.
I was actually thinking a lot about this topic today as the hours passed by. If the huddled masses were spontaneously set free from their television addictions, wouldn’t the environment suffer incredibly? They would require material goods (cameras for picture taking; wood for building; paint for painting; paper for writing; toys for playing; goggles for bird watching; chemicals for backyard biological warfare testing), and they would require lots of gasoline to motor around and participate in their newfound hobbies. All of these goods would require other resources to be used up for their production, and even more foreign oil would be necessary to transport the goods around the country. It seems like, in a world suddenly without televisions, the entire planet would suffer direly!
Or… with all the TV junkies gone, would the disappearance of the junk food industry create such an abundance of natural resources that it would all balance out in the end? Hehe.
I’ve seen a similar argument against bike riding. One paper suggests if everyone starts biking instead of using cars for transport, lifespans will increase and people will require more food putting significant strain on our planet’s resources. I personally believe we would find some way to sate our increased need if something like that were to happen, but there is no way of knowing.