Hacker News Reader

Comment by malfist | Hacker News Reader

The average 65 year old consumes 6 HOURS of TV a day? Jesus. No wonder they have a warped perception of politics. That little fearbox is controlling their lives.

View on HN

Sad indeed. Many people waste the last 2-3 decades of their lives on TV. I’m not entirely sure why, but an assumption is that they prob didn’t live a very sovereign life in their younger years, have grown increasingly disconnected from themselves through life, and by the time they’re older have completely lost track of what makes them come alive/is healthy.

Plus it's cheap, easy and stimulating.

> No wonder they have a warped perception of politics. That little fearbox is controlling their lives.

Ah yes, unlike us enlightened younger people who choose to spend our time in fancy online echo chambers.

My grandma probably watches about that much TV, but it’s mostly quiz shows and live sports. Not sure I’d leap to the same conclusion as you here.

Your grandma watches live sports? So unusual and yet so intriguing. Which ones are her favourites?

My grandma would watch cricket (which is the whole 6 hours sometimes...), snooker, tennis, cycling and Formula 1.

My dad would watch the cricket by seeing the TV to the Teletext page for the score, and watching it refresh every minute. (If you're young or from America, this is life watching a Web page refresh.) There is only slightly less movement than watching actual cricket.

Cricket, tennis and rugby union are her favourites. But she’ll watch whatever’s on if there’s nothing better to do. She’s loving the World Cup at the moment…

Edit: Incase anybody’s wondering, I don’t think Symbiote and I have the same grandma. But I don’t know for certain.

My grandma absolutely loves watching (American) football.

Same goes for twitter. Gosh I hope nobody uses 6 hours of twitter a day.

I wonder what counts as 'watching'. Like if you measured it I probably spend ten hours a day 'listening' to the radio - as in it's on in the background in the kitchen most of the time. I'm not sitting there intently listening to it and not doing anything else. Probably the same for this TV statistic.

Do you really think watching TV vs internet usage really different for warping political views?

It has the potential to be different, absolutely.

You and I are having a conversation about politics. I assume you think you have some fairly moderate views and you aren't being funded by a media mogul with billions of dollars.

How would you and I talk over the TV?

IMO unidirectional media is worse in a lot of ways; it trains the counterparty they have no say and they are a passive receiver of information with the only speakers being an extremely narrow selection of paid parties.

Also, written media is inherently superior to animated media in my opinion, if you want something else than entertainment and factoids.

I mean, i like alternative history, and even history channels on youtube or the television. But i would never form an opinion from them. I would rather read, even old and criticized Paxton books, because i know i would stumble on some stuff, sometimes rightly, often not, and the lecture of newer books will confirm, or infirm my original thought, and allow me to form better one (not a WW2 nerd by the way (i really prefer the 16th to 19th), but i think Paxton should be the most read historian on a non history-focused forum. And he was my entry point into the science).

How many people actually use the comments vs just consuming the content? Even if many people read the comments (which I doubt) the majority of the comments aren't insightful and don't provide any contradiction to the point of the video. I don't have any evidence, but I think this may even make things worse. Since many people like to be apart of the crowd if all they are seeing is everybody agreeing it could solidify their views.

Also, when it comes to TV and radio some shows have callers to the show. It does make it interactive and can provide alternative points. This appears to be falling out of favor though.

I think that video media is for reasons I cannot explain, a far more effective persuasive tool than written media. If your internet diet is YouTube/TikTok you're definitely just as vulnerable.

Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman addresses this; it's more or less pre-internet but it speaks to how different media forms work quite differently due to their inherent nature. TV inherently is the way it is (and lectures, and newspapers, and all other forms of media) because it cannot be anything else.

I think we are agreeing. I think many people who consume a lot of TV media would be the same people who consume a lot of YouTube or TikTok. If the internet didn't exist heavy YouTube users would be watching hours of TV. This causes me to think the problem isn't so much TV causing distortions, but other factors that are not unique to TV.

I think they're both a contributing factor. But I think long viewership of one channel is particularly dangerous. When you watch something like Fox news or MSNBC, you're getting only voices in your echo chamber and perspectives from one company alone.

The internet has somewhat of the opposite problem, it has an echo chamber for every niche, and gives a platform to every voice.

I think spending more time with people, or in projects is a much more healthy way to entertain yourself, and doesn't as easily lead to view distortion.

You can be in just as much of an echo chamber online. I think you are overestimating how much people really expand themselves online (or maybe I'm underestimating it). I know a lot of people who basically just get the same as Fox or MSNBC, but online. If they see something they don't like they block the user or unfriend their friends if they start pushing politics they don't like.

I guess my real question is if there is just a problem with being in an echo chamber or if TV is uniquely worse.

Even then, typical TV content is still very middle of the road compared to online content.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com