Re: The troubles

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>]

> > While I agree with your assessment of television and its probable effect on
> > students' reading ability and proclivity (Television is markedly worse now
> > than it was 40-50 years ago, in the sense that most of the stuff that gets
> > widely watched has been "dumbed down" to the point of imbecility. It is so
> > bad that the occasional "average" show stands out in stark contrast.), your
> > reading list doesn't strike me as one that will bring in many takers, even
> > among the scholarly community.
>
> "Time for Beanie"? "Howdy Doody Time"? "Kukla, Fran & Ollie"? "Tom Corbett,
> Space Cadet"? Come on Hugh, does your memory need jogging here? 40+ years
> ago TV's cultural high ground was "Playhouse 90", though my personal
> favorite was "Show of Shows" with Sid Caesar and Imogene Coca. Those among
> you unfortunate enough to have been raised in LA may remember Moto Polo and
> Rasslin' (with Gorgeous George and the raw power of Primo Carnera). Junk
> sports were invented a long time before "American Gladiators".
>
> There is much good entertainment available on TV today. To be accurate one
> would have to say that the worst of TV is worse than what was on more than
> 40 years ago. Parental censorship is far more important today than it was
> even twenty years ago. (The V-chip was invented by a fellow here at SFU, by
> the way.)
>
> It does my heart good to see that parental concerns rise so quickly in this
> discussion in a physics group. It's not just because so many of us are
> parents, either. It is my belief that the institution which is failing most
> rapidly in our society is the family, and this is, at the root of it, the
> cause of our declining student quality. I read lots of scholarship
> applications for one of my committees here. The recurring theme in the
> essays of these, the best kids from our high schools, is the strong family
> background - two parents, lots of family activities like biking and camping
> (and skiing among the more affluent). Family wealth is not the dominant
> common factor across this group; family health is.
>
> Leigh

OK, I'll give you most of that. I probably stepped in where i shouldn't
have because I have never (except for about a 10-year period during the
80's) watched much TV. My folks didn't have it while I was growing up and I
saw my first TV (briefly) in 1955. Sure there was a lot of garbage on back
then, but they were just learning how, too. And there were only a few
channels (usually 2 or 3) available in any area. But the good stuff was
very good, and stations and producers were willing to take a chance on
something different.

Now there are scores of channels and the average quality is dramatically
lower than it used to be. There are good shows, but not as many in
proportion to the total available, and there is so much really awful
stuff-not just poor quality, but even worse: Psychic Friends network, and
all the execrable talk shows, the infomercials pushing any number of shady
schemes or products, pseudoscience and worse being palmed off as fact,
dramatic shows that aren't just amateurish, but that actively insult the
intelligence of anyone with an IQ in two digits or more, ethnic shows that
make Amos & Andy look positively progressive (at least A%A was funny. The
stuff that passes for humor in the current crop of ethnic shows would gag a
maggot), news programs that decide what to run based on ratings, or that
run canned stuff given them by companys or potitical candidates without
checking the handouts for truth or accuracy, and more. Some things are
better. The technical values are immeasurably better, but this technology
is being used to lower the common denominator of the material presented to
an abysmal level. Of course there is one thing that is unquestionably
better-the profits of the station owners.

Enough. I could go on and on. My contention is that 30 years ago it was
easier to find worthwhile stuff on TV. Now it is so awash in garbage that
finding the few worthwhile offerings is nigh impossible. TV may not be the
cause of the problems with the schools, but it sure hasn't helped any, and
my guess is that while it clearly isn't the only source of the trouble, it
is certainly one of them.

Hugh

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>

The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better." So I bought a Macintosh.
************************************************************