Television is Bad For You

[Didymos Thomas]

USATODAY.com - Frequent TV watching shortens kids' attention spans
USATODAY.com - Short attention span linked to TV

Both links contain full articles. From the first link:

Frequent TV watching shortens kids' attention spans

By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY


Psychologists and media experts are concerned, but not surprised, by a landmark study suggesting that frequent TV watching by infants and toddlers may shorten their attention span by age 7.


The research, in today's Pediatrics, finds that the more television very young kids watch, the more likely they are to have trouble concentrating and to become impulsive and restless.


Site with information and opinion on the issue:
Kill Your Television TurnOffYourTV.com

And finally, the research itself:
Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems in Children -- Christakis et al. 113 (4): 708 -- Pediatrics

[de_budding]

It is a content problem, television is a wonderful medium for learning and can be used in school because it holds the children’s attention better I'm sure. The problem lies in the nature of programme production for radio, TV, magazines etc. It is competitive, therefore there is the urge to make your programme most eye/ear catching. Its like the influential nature of art with an unhealthy addition of trying to out do each other by relating your production better to the audience, this seems to shadow aiming for superior, original, up to date or more intelligent content. So it's no surprise children’s attention span is desensitized by this aggressively competitive streak, it is reflected in the attention grabbing, colourful, loud and hard-hitting productions of today, from films to children’s television, reality pales in comparison.


Dan.

[Khethil]

I started reading the articles, but had a hard time paying attention

Seriously, agree. I believe that as research in this field develops, we're going to find a lot of neurosis linked to early and habitual couch-potatoing

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by de_budding

It is a content problem, television is a wonderful medium for learning and can be used in school because it holds the children’s attention better I'm sure. The problem lies in the nature of programme production for radio, TV, magazines etc. It is competitive, therefore there is the urge to make your programme most eye/ear catching. Its like the influential nature of art with an unhealthy addition of trying to out do each other by relating your production better to the audience, this seems to shadow aiming for superior, original, up to date or more intelligent content. So it's no surprise children’s attention span is desensitized by this aggressively competitive streak, it is reflected in the attention grabbing, colourful, loud and hard-hitting productions of today, from films to children’s television, reality pales in comparison.


Dan.

Indeed it's the content if you look at a regular Fox programming. TV as a learning medium is - just like the internet - has a high risk factor. The risk factor lies in the problem that both Europeans as well Americans have access to a TV and waste a good deal of time in front of it. This makes for many people the TV a reliable source of information. Same goes for the internet, as the website cracked showed a list of theirs about often quoted but entirely false information, you can see it here.

Another problem with the content is that there is to many of it. A child growing up in the 60's had less shows than a kid growing up in the 70's, 80's or 90's. Also the overall quality is declining pretty rapidly. I guess many other people, and mostly parents will agree with me.

Taken the low quality and many hours of TV together we can make a safe assumption that TV as a medium indeed will ruin great minds and can cause other effects like for instance a low attention span.

[Didymos Thomas]

Content is a problem with television, but I do not think content is the cause of the reduced attention span.

I would cite the quick cuts. Watch some television on mute for a while. Pay attention to how much is going on at once (like CNN's 'The Situation Room') and how often the cameras cut from one view to another, or from scene to scene.

Content makes us lazy, but the practice of not focusing on anything for more than a short moment is the root of the attention problems.

[de Silentio]

Watch some television on mute for a while. Pay attention to how much is going on at once (like CNN's 'The Situation Room') and how often the cameras cut from one view to another, or from scene to scene.

Postmodernism in all its glory.

Content makes us lazy.

Have you ever read Fahrenheit 451?

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Content is a problem with television, but I do not think content is the cause of the reduced attention span.

I would cite the quick cuts. Watch some television on mute for a while. Pay attention to how much is going on at once (like CNN's 'The Situation Room') and how often the cameras cut from one view to another, or from scene to scene.

Content makes us lazy, but the practice of not focusing on anything for more than a short moment is the root of the attention problems.

The reduction of attention span can be lead back to the fact that many shows have only a limited amount of time to broadcast as you said.

The content has an effect on the knowledge of people. Someone reading a random book like say "The Catcher in the Rye" absorbs more knowledge from that 192 page book than someone watching a Marathon of Spongebob Squarepants episodes.

Of course it's not problematic to watch TV once in a while, I for example love to watch Showtime's Dexter and Nickelodeons Invader Zim just to relax a bit. But like everything you have to watch yourself not to get addicted like many people are these days to TV and watch about everything.

[de_budding]

I would cite the quick cuts

That's what I was trying imply with most 'eye/ear catching'; one of my biggest gripes with modern cinema is that I see a complete lack of story telling, replaced with camera angles, but also constant sting quartet drones to keep us constantly on edge (Lost) or whatever.

I for example love to watch Showtime's Dexter and Nickelodeons Invader Zim

Ye I delve but I'll extract what it is I appreciate first, Ed, Edd and Eddy has the funniest soundtrack and that alone is enough to draw me in, it's artistically slapstick in composition. I’m a cartoon-cartoon guy.

Watch some television on mute for a while

It is the sound as well, it is also in the story telling (or lack of). Now-a-days every thriller is an 'on-the-edge-of-your-seat' thriller, every horror is 'this years most gruesome and horrifying feature' etc. I don't think it stops at the editing, the whole production is absorbed in making the programme 'hard hitting', even the script writers will be effected I'm sure.

Yesterday I was in the studio with Cambridge University Radio; we were recording stings and a battle of the bands advert. The advisor who came from University of Cambridge to check that us common ARU guys weren’t messing up there profitability said, when my friend Joe did a voice over for them (on the battle of band advertisement)- 'ooo his voice is perfect, sounds like the demographic' as if that weren't peculiar enough she adds 'but... it needs more energy'.
Energy?! if she means project more from the diaphragm then say it, what she means is 'act like a happy go lucky/drunk student because that’s what the idiots who listen to us need to relate to. We even had to do some takes with a 'common' accent. The whole process was a matter of taking us and making us sound stupid or 'down-to-earth, enough' so the listeners wouldn't be... I don't know, intimidated?

It doesn't stop there though. I will have to ask our production manager to send me this 'radio advert producers' show reel, it is the most excited and fast paced mass of audio I've every heard. If your in Britain think of the BBC radio 1 stings (r-r-r-adio 1-1-1 RADIO, radio ,radio 1,1,1" but x10. Any way point being the production now-a-days controls the content, so I think all the content including camera angles, sound, script and everything else is 'excited'.

Dan

[Didymos Thomas]

Have you ever read Fahrenheit 451?

No. My pessimism and criticism of society and culture is strong enough as it is.

Worth the read?

The content has an effect on the knowledge of people. Someone reading a random book like say "The Catcher in the Rye" absorbs more knowledge from that 192 page book than someone watching a Marathon of Spongebob Squarepants episodes.

I don't have the resources handy, but apparently as television destroys attention span, reading builds it up.

And you're right, we do not learn much from TV. We learn far more from reading.

Of course it's not problematic to watch TV once in a while, I for example love to watch Showtime's Dexter and Nickelodeons Invader Zim just to relax a bit. But like everything you have to watch yourself not to get addicted like many people are these days to TV and watch about everything.

Absolutely. I watch television, probably more than I should, but none the less. It's all about self control.

That's what I was trying imply with most 'eye/ear catching'; one of my biggest gripes with modern cinema is that I see a complete lack of story telling, replaced with camera angles, but also constant sting quartet drones to keep us constantly on edge (Lost) or whatever.

You're right about that. Art has been left behind by money.

[de_budding]

'Art has been left behind by money.' I think this sums up my frustrated sentiment. Sad but true.