"we're robbing children of their imagination"

[Darren Dirt]

fascinating excerpt of an interview/speech by "Utah Phillips", the most famous folk singer you've never heard of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2RJdKTHC0

[Mr. Analog]

Wow, nice enough guy but there were a lot of conflicting messages coming from him.

A lot of what he was saying about television could be applied to radio. Realistically speaking, music hasn't changed that much since the 1930s in terms of underlying structure and instrumentation. Now compare that with the radical changes in music from say 1860-1930 and it's much more diverse, is it because radio changed musical diversity by popularizing certain elements or is it because society itself became more interconnected (desiring the popular over the experimental?) The argument that television, and now the internet, are the root cause to the increase of media consumption and the overall changes we see in society isn't sold so easily when you can turn it around and show it as the byproduct of modern society. A lot of arguments could be made that mediums such as television, radio and the internet create social "feedback loops" where media is consumed and re-consumed in such a way that it becomes a strange new thing not familiar to anyone and what the impact of that in itself might be is not well understood because it is new and unfamiliar. This unfamiliarity no doubt causes fear in people.

I think his comment about Johnny Cash was rather trite (maybe bitter?) and his recovery very clumsy and slightly tainted with what I perceived as sarcasm. The line between being jolly old man and plain old asshole was very thin.

He completely sidestepped the civil rights question and went directly to mechanics, as if how discussion was commenced was more important than what was being discussed. He really seemed enthralled with the procedure and not the purpose. Tacking on the humorous story muddied things and certainly exposed an "us vs them" mentality. Actually I found that a lot of what he was saying was passive aggressive, not exactly the best way of dealing with conflict.

Finally the wrap up with the generalized hatred of big media and the desire to see his own media outlet grow was paradoxical, possibly naive and certainly vanity at its best. If you grow to overtake "big media" you become "big media".

Certainly thought provoking video, thanks for posting Darren!

[Lazybones]

I nearly stopped the video at the point where he was going on and on about dressing his old TV up and executing it.

Hates TV but loves Radio? Why not books, doesn't radio rob you of your ability to read and just passively listen, giving you the voices instead or imagining them?

TV is full of crap, don't let it baby sit your kids... Also don't listen to crazy old men complaining about technology.

[Tom]

Wow, nice enough guy but there were a lot of conflicting messages coming from him.

A lot of what he was saying about television could be applied to radio. Realistically speaking, music hasn't changed that much since the 1930s in terms of underlying structure and instrumentation. Now compare that with the radical changes in music from say 1860-1930 and it's much more diverse, is it because radio changed musical diversity by popularizing certain elements or is it because society itself became more interconnected (desiring the popular over the experimental?) The argument that television, and now the internet, are the root cause to the increase of media consumption and the overall changes we see in society isn't sold so easily when you can turn it around and show it as the byproduct of modern society. A lot of arguments could be made that mediums such as television, radio and the internet create social "feedback loops" where media is consumed and re-consumed in such a way that it becomes a strange new thing not familiar to anyone and what the impact of that in itself might be is not well understood because it is new and unfamiliar. This unfamiliarity no doubt causes fear in people.

I think his comment about Johnny Cash was rather trite (maybe bitter?) and his recovery very clumsy and slightly tainted with what I perceived as sarcasm. The line between being jolly old man and plain old asshole was very thin.

He completely sidestepped the civil rights question and went directly to mechanics, as if how discussion was commenced was more important than what was being discussed. He really seemed enthralled with the procedure and not the purpose. Tacking on the humorous story muddied things and certainly exposed an "us vs them" mentality. Actually I found that a lot of what he was saying was passive aggressive, not exactly the best way of dealing with conflict.

Finally the wrap up with the generalized hatred of big media and the desire to see his own media outlet grow was paradoxical, possibly naive and certainly vanity at its best. If you grow to overtake "big media" you become "big media".

Certainly thought provoking video, thanks for posting Darren!

You got all that out of it? I couldn't be bothered to sit through the whole thing. To me it was a bunch of incoherent rambling.

[Mr. Analog]

You got all that out of it? I couldn't be bothered to sit through the whole thing. To me it was a bunch of incoherent rambling.

As a consultant 90% of my job is deciphering BS, so yeah I guess I got a bit out of it

[Darren Dirt]

Wow, nice enough guy but there were a lot of conflicting messages coming from him.

A lot of what he was saying about television could be applied to radio.

Certainly thought provoking video, thanks for posting Darren!

I've read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Arguments-Elimination-Television-Jerry-Mander/dp/0688082742

and in summary, there are distinct attributes of tele*vision* that make it even more "dangerous" than radio. The big thing is, since it's a visual medium, it occupies your focus a lot more than just radio (I mean, how many of us have audio playing while we code? Compare that to watching a Youtube video while you code -- good luck with that!) ... also it distorts reality, through editing and framing, two things that radio really can't do.

Anyway, the guy in the video above is a folk singer, obviously his mind (presuming it's still functioning 100%, lol) is on a different wavelength than most of us, not sure if that means something bad about us or what, but the general idea -- at least what he started with -- I thought was certainly food for thought. Certainly don't agree with most of the extreme stuff he was saying, I mean c'mon I'm watching the clip on Youtube fercryinoutloud

I didn't watch any of the other interview clips that show up as "related videos", but some days you're in the mood to watch/listen to a lecture by someone who is a bit "out there", I think yesterday I was kinda in that mood. Like some days when I listen to a lecture by Alan Watts -- talk about expanding your mind... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Alan+Watts

[Tom]

Wow, nice enough guy but there were a lot of conflicting messages coming from him.

A lot of what he was saying about television could be applied to radio.

Certainly thought provoking video, thanks for posting Darren!

I've read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Arguments-Elimination-Television-Jerry-Mander/dp/0688082742

and in summary, there are distinct attributes of tele*vision* that make it even more "dangerous" than radio. The big thing is, since it's a visual medium, it occupies your focus a lot more than just radio (I mean, how many of us have audio playing while we code? Compare that to watching a Youtube video while you code -- good luck with that!) ... also it distorts reality, through editing and framing, two things that radio really can't do.

When my focus is really hard to keep pinned down, I'll actually put on re-runs of old shows to watch while I code. Instead of trying and failing to keep my focus, focused at the code, I don't try. I tend to get almost as much done those days as I do days when I can focus with something in the background. I can just switch to watching the show for a bit, rather than get frustrated and stop working all-together.

[Thorin]

+1 to what Tom said about videos in the background.  I usually don't have new songs (once I don't know) playing while coding, because my mind focuses on listening to the song.  It really comes down to whether it hits my subconscious or my conscious.

Having four children who watch TV, with friends who watch TV, and having friends with kids who watch TV, I'm not sure that I agree that they're being robbed of their imaginations.

What bugs me the most about this interview, though, is that basically he's telling us that we're all wrong and that we have to do things the way he's doing them to be right.  Very similar to Jon Stewart's recent vitriolic reviews of Glenn Beck.  And therein lies the rub in this interview - if he truly believed that society needs to be built on the best features of the human psyche, maybe he should stop trying to tell us what to do!  Otherwise he's just another power-hungry politician, who happens to have jumped on a different technique to grow a loyal following.

p.s. blindfolding your tv and giving it a last cigarette shows you're @%&#ING CRAZY.  A sane person would've just sent it to the junkyard, or even had it recycled.

[Darren Dirt]

What bugs me the most about this interview, though, is that basically he's ... @%&#ING CRAZY.

FYP

[Mr. Analog]

I don't know if I buy the whole "danger" expressed through visual medium. Modern theatre and opera have been around for centuries, other than television being more convenient I don't see what the danger is, many plays and operas had messages (both direct and subliminal) for their audiences what was the impact there?

Television is a mass media outlet, I don't see it being any more or less "dangerous" than any other form of mass media.

[Darren Dirt]

re. "danger" I'm talking the unique attributes of the tele-video medium, that are described in great detail (with plenty of scientific analysis) in the book by Jerry Mander mentioned above. It's all about blinking lights, brain chemistry, cognition, etc... especially on developing minds.

[Mr. Analog]

re. "danger" I'm talking the unique attributes of the tele-video medium, that are described in great detail (with plenty of scientific analysis) in the book by Jerry Mander mentioned above. It's all about blinking lights, brain chemistry, cognition, etc... especially on developing minds.

That's an interesting thought but that's still sort of maddeningly ambiguous, how can this theory be tested by eliminating the content and keeping strictly to the biophysical relationship emitted radiation patterns may have on the developmental process? I mean up to now the evidence I've read for or against such an argument is purely anecdotal.

The other intrinsic problem is finding a consistent way of measuring mental development in children, to my knowledge this is still understood to be unique to the individual.

So the theories I've heard so far are (and correct me if I'm wrong):

-Developing minds my lose some ability for creative thought because of easily accessible pre-developed narrative.

-Developing minds are impacted in a physical way by household appliance technology.

Personally I like the second theory best as it is something that could be tested in a scientific way if (and that's a big IF) there could be a common, objective way of measuring mental development in children and if there was a way to transmit the radiation emission from a television without also transmitting narrative / imagery, etc.

I dislike the first theory simply because there is an extended culture of narrative delivery aimed at the developing psyche of children throughout many cultures reaching far back to pre-recorded history. Do we fully understand the impact of this kind of "recreational education"?

I guess what my core question is, is this: is it the message or the medium that has people concerned about the mental development of children, furthermore, what supporting evidence is there for benefits or disadvantages from exposure to a particular delivery type?

I read a lot of anecdotal evidence online both for and against the developmental impact of various forms of mass media (video games, television, rock music, etc) but I see no scientific evidence that a) there is any appreciable effect on mental development or cognition and b) that some forms are intrinsically more harmful than others.

Personally, I think this is a case where technology is demonised to project peoples' natural paternal instincts and fears on something tangible. Again, personally speaking, I see this is a rather unfortunate cultural aspect of Western civilization as we all try to correlate cause and effect, it's certainly the easiest option to place blame on elements over which we have little to no control.

[Thorin]

Personally, I think this is a case where technology is demonised to project peoples' natural paternal instincts and fears on something tangible.

Parents are biologically programmed to protect their offspring, as the offspring carries the DNA.  In days of yore, with many real dangers able to kill said offspring, parents worried about those real dangers.  For instance, crippling diseases, animal predation, starvation, freezing to death.  In our modern world, the child death rate has plummeted and we now have nearly no real dangers to fear.  Unfortunately, the biological programming says we must fear something, and TV is one of the tangibles we can "protect" our kids from.

My example of scared-of-the-wrong-thing is parents who tell their kids they are in no way allowed to ever talk to anyone unless that person is a friend, yet they don't bother teaching them why it's important to look both ways before you cross the street, especially if you have headphones on.

For me, this "Tv Rots Your Brain" ranting that's been going on for the last 15 or so years falls in two camps:

1. People who want to scare you so that you see them as a Saviour and you'll do whatever they command
2. People who are scared of the wrong thing

I place Utah Phillips squarely in the first group.

There'll be a point where those kids that are glued to the screen now will become adults and will figure out how to tune out the screen when needed.  TV's been around long enough to show that occurs - just take a look at your own life.

[Mr. Analog]

Agreed!

Many of these debates were prevalent when television was still in its infancy. There's actually a great B-movie that kind of caters to the fear people had even in the early days of the invading idiot box.

"The Twonky".

[Darren Dirt]

For me, this "Tv Rots Your Brain" ranting that's been going on for the last 15 or so years falls in two camps:

1. People who want to scare you so that you see them as a Saviour and you'll do whatever they command
2. People who are scared of the wrong thing

I place Utah Phillips squarely in the first group.

LOL -- agreed.


btw the Jerry Mander book, key points summarized in 2 different reviews on Amazon:

Written by a former "big six" ad/marketing executive, "Four Arguments" is a book that CONSIDERS the long term effects of television and other post industrial revolution technologies on:

1. The critical thinking skills of human beings
2. Our relationship to natural environments.
3. The physical and mental health of human beings.
4. The knowledge/power balance in a democratic society.
(not in that order)



This book was written over 30 years ago (an age and more, in our fast-changing society), but it may be more relevant today than ever. I have to wonder what the author would make of our current cultural media landscape, with the advent of Blu-ray, TiVo, and the internet?

The author's Four Arguments, in essence, are these:

1. We live in a human-created, artificial environment, cut off from direct experience of anything. Such a disconnect makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between truth and fiction, what is real and what is not; and television expedites this process.

2. Television lends itself to a huge imbalance of power, with a very few in control of giving out the information and the rest passively receiving it (and those few have vested commercial interests).

3. Television produces various neurological, psychological and physiological responses in those who watch it, none of which are healthy.

4. "The media is the message". The very format of television inherently determines its content, what may and may not be communicated through it.
Some elements are distorted, others lost completely.

So now you (and I ) can be aware (reminded) of what the book is all about... maybe at the time I read it I was feeling a bit more "parental protective" than now ; I thoroughly enjoy the emotional rollercoaster of certain films and TV series, and actively WANT to share that experience with my kids.

But it's still a good read even if it angers you and/or stirs up strong feelings of "the author is wrong, and it makes me angry how persuasively he communicates his wrong ideas".

Interesting thing is, a lot of the issues Mander brought up have become either MORE serious (as Big Media has combined into fewer and fewer companies) or else partially addressed/resolved (by the interwebs, and the independent-creative culture that has sprung from it). But "Argument" #1 is covered well in the film "Surrogates", I think. The danger of it.