It is not called an idiot box because it serves stupid content but it is so non-interactive, short on serious discussion and as brief as profitably possible.
This may sound a bit harsh on TV, or any screen for that matter apart from a book reader in the evolution of media since it began with printing but this is true. And this book even being really old (published in 1985) puts all the right arguments forward. If only he had a chance to rewrite this today he'd have more arsenal in his attack.
TV as a medium could have been a better compared to what it is today only if it had been invented in a different time. It grew to what it is today in the time when everything was expected to be commercialised, and it lost the opportunity of being as meaningful as a book. The commercial aspect moulded its content to be short, fuzzy, entertaining, and eventually serving the wrong sides of business, religion and politics.
A different observation from my side was that all the modern studies show that the TV doesn't have a quality of holding anyone's attention for long unlike books. Which led to the further technological developments of recording, OTT, and what not. But this is still a proven fact that TV doesn't have people's attention for long which we attribute to its non-interactivity. All the stories that we've ever heard are cherished because they were read by us to told to us. And, even when the books don't have the interaction built-in it, it has the higher engagement quotient and depending on the writer's excellence they can stick for real long time.
All the digital mediums don't suffer the same attention span problem. Think of video games which keep the people hooked for days at a stretch but they latch on to a different hook in the brain.
This is worth a read for anyone, and hopefully if you're big on any screens (not just TV) it will give you some pointers on why it is the way it is.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment