What most computer people don't get about TV is that there are millions upon millions of intellectual lazy and/or socially malleable people who would rather follow the tube. It's a demographic, and it's not going away.
I submit that HBO's "Rome" was better than anything youtube has ever produced, and more satisfying to me than many hours spent wandering facebook and social news sites.
I don't have an easy a time judging other people's tastes; I have a little humility.
No, it's not. But the television infrastructure as we know it is designed not for people who enjoy it "occasionally", but for hours upon hours every day.
Those 'intellectually lazy' people watch tv becuase they grew up with it. The new generation is growing up with facebook/myspace/im/friendfeed/twitter.
Its the conversation about the tv show that counts, not the tv show. The main problem right now is that tv still makes up such a large part of peoples lives almost out of tradition, and also becuase TV on the net isn't there yet.
The only valid claim this article talks about is about producers/writers -- essentially production value. Thats whats lacking currently with most online-only things. But when there is money, the writers/producers will follow. And the money is coming, if it isnt already here.
-his cellphone is on speakerphone to a friend he is allied with on the current game;
-his instant messenger client is busily chiming away with messages sent to him, which he'll respond to in between game rounds.
-his browser is doing the whole Facebook/MySpace/YouTube rotation as links to interesting content is thrown his way.
You're right; it's incredible how focussed that generation is on the conversation. They don't let anything get in the way. In fact, they use every technology at their disposal to ensure that the conversation must go on. I'm not exactly old, but I worry about constantly being plugged-in. He and his friends worry about ever being disconnected.
Yep. Never underestimate the rapidity with which a brand new thing can become an ancient and treasured tradition. And never underestimate the rapidity with which an ancient and treasured tradition can disappear.
One of my favorite examples of the latter is billiards. In the first half of the 20th century billiards was one of the most popular spectator sports in the United States. This, mind you, was not pool, a game which was considered shady and low-class -- and still is. This was proper billiards, the kind played on a pocketless table with three balls. [1] The USA harbored some of the most famous, most talented billiards players in the world -- guys like Willie Hoppe and Welker Cochrane -- and as late as the 1940s these guys would tour the country selling out big billards venues. Every town had a billiard parlor.
Billiards died. [2] It died hard, within less than a generation. The prevailing explanation is that it was killed by television. TV gave people something good reasons to stay at home or lounge around in bars, instead of devoting hundreds of hours to mastering a rather difficult game that tends to embarrass any new player. (I tried playing three-cushion billiards once. I couldn't score one point without deliberately setting it up for myself. This isn't eight-ball.)
Perhaps now it is TV's turn to die. The name TV might live on, but only in the sense that the word billiards lives on in American popular consciousness: As a nickname for a superficially similar game (pool) that had better survival characteristics than the original.
---
[1] If you didn't know this you probably didn't understand certain lyrics in The Music Man. Those lyrics are obscure today, but back when the musical came out everyone understood the joke. Indeed, it was barely a joke!
[2] In the USA, that is. In certain other countries there are many more billiards players, though I believe their games have different rules.
I believe the current "passive" mode of TV won't go away. It will coexist with the Youtube mode of actively finding, watching, following recommendations, etc.
Also disabled people come to mind, kids as well. So TV will definetely stay
Giving the creative mind enough time away from a TV to have to earn it's own entertainment is hardly cruelty.
Right, and since everyone else was in a similar position, I'm sure that worked fine. My problem comes when everyone at school is talking about some element of popular culture, and one kid doesn't have a clue what to say because his parents don't let him watch TV.
Everything in moderation though :)
I don't know if that's a common experience though.
"My problem comes when everyone at school is talking about some element of popular culture, and one kid doesn't have a clue what to say because his parents don't let him watch TV."
Forcing your kids to eat unhealthy is cruelty, locking them in a closet is cruelty. Not having a TV is un-American, not cruelty.
What??? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't realy understand what you're trying to argue.
Preventing kids from growing up with experience of popular culture, is what I considered cruel.
You could just as easily argue the opposite!
Do you know what kids do (in my experience, at least) if there is no TV around? They read.
The main problem with having no TV is the risk of it becoming forbidden fruit in the kid's mind and thus becoming more attractive. We hit, inadvertently, on a nice solution to this: we always had a TV around, just a really crappy one. It was rarely on. The kids were welcome to watch TV at friends' houses or their grandparents'. At home, that time mostly went into reading or playing.
Edit: I don't recall any evidence that they felt socially out of step with TV-watching peers. I do remember that when Power Rangers were a huge deal, our daughter became passionate about Power Rangers, so we always let her watch it. Then one day she said: "I don't care about Power Rangers any more. The story is always the same." That was a proud day in the gruseom household! :)
That's a pretty vast generalization and IMHO extremely wishful thinking. Is this from personal experience? eg your own kids?
When mine aren't watching TV, they're doing many other things - playing, reading, screaming, fighting, drawing, etc etc etc.
TV is but one activity, but I believe it's one they should certainly have in moderation.
Yes, when I say "in my experience" I am generally referring to my personal experience. :)
No doubt having a lot of books around, parents who read, and general encouragement to read are all factors as well.
Socially, I'd argue that TV is better for kids than books.