0
   

Television is Bad For You

 
 
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:58 am
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
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,063 • Replies: 39
No top replies

 
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 12:34 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
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
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 01:57 pm
@de budding,
I started reading the articles, but had a hard time paying attention Surprised

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
0 Replies
 
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 02:58 pm
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
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
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 08:39 pm
@Vasska,
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
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 08:53 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Quote:

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.

Quote:
Content makes us lazy.


Have you ever read Fahrenheit 451?
0 Replies
 
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 02:27 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 02:53 am
@Vasska,
Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.
Quote:

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
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 03:49 am
@de budding,
Quote:
Have you ever read Fahrenheit 451?


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

Worth the read?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 04:12 am
@Didymos Thomas,
'Art has been left behind by money.' I think this sums up my frustrated sentiment. Sad but true. Sad
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 08:10 am
@Didymos Thomas,
When I was a pediatrics resident, I went to a lecture by an expert on media violence and its effect on child behavior (which is actually strikingly strong). He showed all these examples of violent movies and video games and directly imitative behavior in kids, as well as more violent behavior with more intense exposure.

Turns out that this lecture was from 8AM to 9AM EDT on the morning of 9/11/01, and we emerged from the lecture into the children's hospital waiting rooms where little kids and their families were staring at the TV coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Not all media violence is fiction, unfortunately.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 11:09 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
No. My pessimism and criticism of society and culture is strong enough as it is.

Worth the read?

It's worth the read if you can get a mass-market paperback.

Quote:
I don't have the resources handy, but apparently as television destroys attention span, reading builds it up.
I think the best way to see it is that with a TV the picture has already been colored. If you read a book you get the crayons and can color it yourself, allowing you to fantasize about it, and really absorb it. It's the reason books are still around; they are active while TV is non-active.

I often disliked the book to movie adaptions with the sole exception of Jeff Lindsay's Dexter, who is a terrible writer. But proved to be able to create a great framework for the Showtime Series adaption of Dexter.

Quote:
And you're right, we do not learn much from TV. We learn far more from reading.
TV can be used as a great medium for learning, however even educational channels like National Geographic, Discovery Channel and mostly The History Channel have to hit high ratings, the FBI-Files, Air crash Investigation and other programs are the result of it, I often find myself watching documentaries by the British BBC that are non-commercial.

Quote:
Absolutely. I watch television, probably more than I should, but none the less. It's all about self control.
Self control however has been lost by many people today. And turning on the television and watching the pre-made series is far easier than to order a book and read it for many. Besides watching the latest Tarentino is far cooler and bloodier than read any book, at least i'm the only one in so far two schools (my internship is also at a school) of my age that reads books for the fun of it and really enjoys it. I think reading books proves that you appreciate a form of intelectialism and knowledge.

Quote:

You're right about that. Art has been left behind by money.
I don't like shows like Lost and Heroes, but i think they leave far more to the imagination of people than lets say does Desperate Housewifes of Prison Break.

However you are right that many movies follow the same concept and are made for the money. However sometimes that can be broken, like they did with the James Bond Franchise in 2006 and with the Batman franchise in 2005, still big money earners, but much more "realistic" and fun to watch than their predecesors.

I like to watch Asian cinema since 2002, and found that many Western Movies are nowadays copied from Asia, The Lake House, The Grudge, The Eye, The Ring and future releases of My Sassy Girl and Battle Royale to name a few. This is to make it "understandable" for Western people. I think this 2008 remake of a 2005 movie is leaving art behind for money, and shows like Lost, The 4400 and recently canceled Jericho are original in their own ways. I know to much about TV...
0 Replies
 
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 11:26 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
When I was a pediatrics resident, I went to a lecture by an expert on media violence and its effect on child behavior (which is actually strikingly strong). He showed all these examples of violent movies and video games and directly imitative behavior in kids, as well as more violent behavior with more intense exposure.


I think this is discussable. I did not went on the highway and trow bananas and turtle shells on other cars because i played Mario Kart on the DS.

I give the fact that someone who is "weaker" and has had a somewhat discussable eduction might start to hit people with hammer after playing a game like manhunt. But seen this is about TV we might discuss this in another topic, care to open one?

Aedes wrote:
Turns out that this lecture was from 8AM to 9AM EDT on the morning of 9/11/01, and we emerged from the lecture into the children's hospital waiting rooms where little kids and their families were staring at the TV coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Not all media violence is fiction, unfortunately.


9/11 was passive violence, and far less dangerous to the child's mind than let's say the standard violence you can expect in a Tarantino movie, or a rockstar game in which you are the torturer. I also want to say that people should stop *****ing about 9/11 as if it has been the worst thing in human history, far more worse things have happened. But that is beside the point I'm making here.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 07:56 pm
@Vasska,
Vasska wrote:
I think this is discussable. I did not went on the highway and trow bananas and turtle shells on other cars because i played Mario Kart on the DS.
Neither did I. That doesn't change the fact that on a population level, and controlling for all other major variables, exposure to media violence is an independent risk factor for violent behavior among children. There is a lot of epidemiologic evidence for this. But it's not the only variable, of course, and why it happens to some is an even bigger question.

This comes up with things like Columbine or Virginia Tech. How do you find out which young people are at greatest risk of violent behavior?

Quote:
I give the fact that someone who is "weaker" and has had a somewhat discussable eduction might start to hit people with hammer after playing a game like manhunt.
Well, there are certainly going to be subgroups that are at higher risk than others. ALL children are impressionable, but the ones more likely to be violent are probably the ones who don't have good resources at home to help put exposure to violence in its place.

Quote:
9/11 was passive violence, and far less dangerous to the child's mind than let's say the standard violence you can expect in a Tarantino movie, or a rockstar game in which you are the torturer.
True, except that knowing that thousands of real people had died and feeling vulnerable is something you don't experience in a game. People don't generally end up with post-traumatic stress disorder after playing Doom. But people can end up like that after a minor car accident. When you're scared it has a very different effect.

Quote:
I also want to say that people should stop *****ing about 9/11 as if it has been the worst thing in human history, far more worse things have happened. But that is beside the point I'm making here.
I hope you're not mentioning this because you've gotten that impression from me. As the grandson of four Holocaust survivors I know what the difference is. But be fair -- it was probably the single most memorable news experience in most of our lives -- it stands out the way the Kennedy assassination stood out for our parents. It's altered our culture (for worse) in the last 7 years, not because it was such a benign event but because it really was that traumatic for us.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 01:55 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Neither did I. That doesn't change the fact that on a population level, and controlling for all other major variables, exposure to media violence is an independent risk factor for violent behavior among children. There is a lot of epidemiologic evidence for this. But it's not the only variable, of course, and why it happens to some is an even bigger question.

This comes up with things like Columbine or Virginia Tech. How do you find out which young people are at greatest risk of violent behavior?


If kids don't get told these things are fake, they will believe it as truth. As a parent its your obligation to at least see what your kids are exposed to, and see if they can either handle it or not. Children are impressionable and need to be safeguarded from violence in a safe manner. Forbidding violent games might not always solve the problem. Columbine or Virginia Tech often had a different history, and different trigger. They only were influenced to use violence by external factors. The Virginia Tech shooter for instance had his violence triggered by the Korean movie "Old Boy".

Quote:
Well, there are certainly going to be subgroups that are at higher risk than others. ALL children are impressionable, but the ones more likely to be violent are probably the ones who don't have good resources at home to help put exposure to violence in its place.
You are right, and we as a community, and maybe even the government should keep an eye on these home-situations. Some parents maybe need a mandatory parenting class, others need hints on how to control their kids.

Quote:
True, except that knowing that thousands of real people had died and feeling vulnerable is something you don't experience in a game. People don't generally end up with post-traumatic stress disorder after playing Doom. But people can end up like that after a minor car accident. When you're scared it has a very different effect.
Given rough estimates but there were only a few hundred thousand to a million people in NY at the time. All the other people watched it on TV, and thereby only had a passive experience. Someone who was in the building and got away safely has, and therefore might end up with psychological problems. We got used to seeing people die on TV, either being trough movies or the more an more explicit news. I cannot understand why the Iraqi beheadings were shown on national TV, and are free to view any time you want.

Quote:

I hope you're not mentioning this because you've gotten that impression from me. As the grandson of four Holocaust survivors I know what the difference is. But be fair -- it was probably the single most memorable news experience in most of our lives -- it stands out the way the Kennedy assassination stood out for our parents. It's altered our culture (for worse) in the last 7 years, not because it was such a benign event but because it really was that traumatic for us.
Often 9/11 is used in the form of "Worst thing that has ever happened". I Cannot understand why 9/11 with about 4000 killed is worse than the Holocaust or Stalin's Soviet Russia that killed in the millions, even hundreds of millions.

Not to be offensive, but being a grandson of holocaust survivors does not make you a holocaust survivor too, or even comprehensible of understanding what those people went through. You can only hear their stories and see their scars, but not see the actual picture and feel the pain and humiliation. I'm not an artist because my uncle was,and I'm not a war survivor because my grandfather was. For some people it might be a traumatic event, but not for everyone.

9/11 has indeed changed America for worse, but it has only done that because people were told to be afraid, and false alarms were given. 9/11 was not the traumatic experience that destroyed America, all the hysteria about it afterwards has. 9/11 opened a door for the Bush administration to strip America of all the rights it was build on, hence the patriot act, it made it possible to invade Afghanistan, and just for the heck of it Iraq too. Iraq had no connection whatsoever with Osama or any terrorism but people have been lied to, and people because of fear accepted it. Only now, 7 years to late people start to calm down and to think about it.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 08:45 am
@Vasska,
Vasska wrote:
If kids don't get told these things are fake, they will believe it as truth.
That's not true. Children as young as 4 years old are able to independently differentiate truth from fantasy, which is why it becomes a major part of their play.

Quote:
Given rough estimates but there were only a few hundred thousand to a million people in NY at the time.
Uh, there are 7 million people in NYC proper and about 14 million in metropolitan NY. I lived in Connecticut at the time and there were LOTS of news reports that there were other hijacked planes flying overhead (because we were midway between NYC and Boston, where two of the flights had taken off from)

Quote:
All the other people watched it on TV, and thereby only had a passive experience.
I'd suggest you read the following journal articles. They are studies of the effect of media exposure to 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 2004 Tsunami, and the anthrax attacks on people who were geographically distant from the event and exposed only through the media. There is an unambiguous increase in anxiety disorders including PTSD with exposure only through the media.

[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Psychol Sci.');"]Psychol Sci.[/URL] 2007 Apr;18(4):334-40.
[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'J Anxiety Disord.');"]J Anxiety Disord.[/URL] 2007;21(7):888-902. Epub 2007 Jan 10.
[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'J Anxiety Disord.');"]J Anxiety Disord.[/URL] 2007 Nov 13. [Epub ahead of print]
[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'J Nerv Ment Dis.');"]J Nerv Ment Dis.[/URL] 2007 Jan;195(1):41-7.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Aug;60(8):675-82.
[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am.');"]Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am.[/URL] 2005 Jul;14(3):429-51, viii.
[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Psychiatry.');"]Psychiatry.[/URL] 2005 Spring;68(1):28-42.
Behav Res Ther. 2004 Feb;42(2):191-205.
Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2003 Mar;15(1):1-8.
Psychiatry. 2002 Winter;65(4):289-300.
J Urban Health. 2002 Sep;79(3):364-72.
Psychiatry. 2000 Winter;63(4):358-70.
Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1996 Feb;10(1):55-9. Review.

Quote:
Often 9/11 is used in the form of "Worst thing that has ever happened".
Who said that?

Quote:
Not to be offensive, but being a grandson of holocaust survivors does not make you a holocaust survivor too
I didn't claim I was. But I DO know what it means for someone to be scarred by something like that, and it helps me appreciate the difference between something of the magnitude of the Holocaust as opposed to something the magnitude of 9/11 -- and I understand it well because I've grown up with this omnipresent in our family. My grandparents lost their entire families, they were starved, beaten, tortured, and this was over a span of years. There were no resources for emotional support, no massive sympathy, no war on their behalf. Nothing about 9/11 meets those criteria. But be fair -- 9/11 was not exactly some trivial news story either. It's annoying in that it becomes so synonymized with Bush and the catastrophe that he's created, but it was a tragic and important event.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 08:50 am
@Aedes,
Aedes,
your discussion prompted me to try and find a pyschology experiment on youtube I watched a video about before. It was somthing like-

Children watch parents play with eachother or toys violently through glass. Then the children are left to play and we watch them mimicking the perental violence. Or somthing, any idea what it might be?

Dan.
0 Replies
 
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 11:17 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
That's not true. Children as young as 4 years old are able to independently differentiate truth from fantasy, which is why it becomes a major part of their play.


Tell your kids as parents you don't love them, and they have been an accident and they will believe it if it has been said enough times. This of course is an extreme example, but it happens.

The obligation of parents is to make sure their kids stay away from the stuff the cannot handle. If your kid does not go out to stab random strangers with a knife after playing GTA, Manhunt or any other violent game your kid can handle it. If not its a parents obligation to act accordingly.

Kids of course can independently calculate what is reality and what is not, but a kid cannot comprehend it as educated adults. They will need guidance in the process of it.

Quote:
Uh, there are 7 million people in NYC proper and about 14 million in metropolitan NY. I lived in Connecticut at the time and there were LOTS of news reports that there were other hijacked planes flying overhead (because we were midway between NYC and Boston, where two of the flights had taken off from)
New York is a big place, and the people in the direct area of the WTC were less than those numbers you talk about. There have been around 3000 direct and indirect deaths, which is remarkable seen the numbers of people you talk about. The people directly affected by death of family members or destruction of their work/housing are less than those numbers, I would count the direct victims after 9/11, and now only talking the twin towers to be around 10 000 to 100 000 people, which might even prove to much. All the other people have only had the horror of the collapse and a wake up call.

Quote:
I'd suggest you read the following journal articles. They are studies of the effect of media exposure to 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 2004 Tsunami, and the anthrax attacks on people who were geographically distant from the event and exposed only through the media. There is an unambiguous increase in anxiety disorders including PTSD with exposure only through the media.
As you say; MEDIA EXPOSURE, the fact that your local newscaster says Bush has been the best president ever does not make it true. American news has, in my opinion, always been full of non-sense and during the last 20 years extremely sensational. In the last few years, after 9/11 there has always been a news bulletin about terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan and other "evil" things that Americans should fight against. People are afraid because of this mis-information and without thinking buy the latest protection for their families and send their sons of to war. In this notion the majority of Americans are downright dumb. (no offence towards you)

If you read nineteen eighty-four by George Orwell, you can see were I am going. Controlling people by controlling the past, forcing fear and false information on people, strip them of their rights (patriot act) etc. I don't want to say Bush is the new big brother, but you will get the point.

Quote:
Who said that?
Many, many American I have spoken to in the last few years. If you were to go to the more red-neck parts of America it often gets worse.

Aedes wrote:
I didn't claim I was. But I DO know what it means for someone to be scarred by something like that, and it helps me appreciate the difference between something of the magnitude of the Holocaust as opposed to something the magnitude of 9/11

You can only imagine what it is to be from their stories, you do not know until you are in their shoes. I understand you find both horrible and I do not imply otherwise.

Quote:
-- and I understand it well because I've grown up with this omnipresent in our family. My grandparents lost their entire families, they were starved, beaten, tortured, and this was over a span of years. There were no resources for emotional support, no massive sympathy, no war on their behalf. Nothing about 9/11 meets those criteria.
9/11 was far less worse than WO-II, and both are very different. Your arguments stand, but don't forget that the suppressed Jews got their own country, and to this day are backed up by Britain and America. The emotional support have not been there for Europa had been destroyed. Germany was on the edge of oblivion, America was not for only a very small fraction of the country was hit. Those were wartimes, 9/11 was only an attack on American Soil.

Quote:
But be fair -- 9/11 was not exactly some trivial news story either. It's annoying in that it becomes so synonymized with Bush and the catastrophe that he's created, but it was a tragic and important event.
I do not say it was not tragic and important, but it has been used to much, and without respect for it. 9/11 has from the start been used to push America in an age of an alienated country, terrorised by it's own government, and living in fear for an enemy that has long been gone.

9/11 has been used, without any respect, as an excuse to wage war. It has been done before by America to gain a legal entrance to World War II, that time a Cruise Ship (I cannot recall the name right now) was sunk by guess who, the Nazi's, who in modern times have been replace by Terrorists.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 12:24 pm
@Vasska,
Thanks for the thoughts, Vasska,

Vasska wrote:
The obligation of parents is to make sure their kids stay away from the stuff the cannot handle.
AND to provide a supportive environment to cope with the things they get exposed to anyway, of course. That's what growth and development is -- it's a constant stream of new experiences. But there is no way to make a parent good at it. I mean I now have a 6 week old son, and not even being a pediatrician makes this easy.

Quote:
As you say; MEDIA EXPOSURE, the fact that your local newscaster says Bush has been the best president ever does not make it true.
These studies (the 9/11 ones) concentrate on the repeated images of the towers collapsing. You could argue that it was propagandized and it was certainly overdone, but it's the images and not the loudmouth psychopaths on cable news who really affected people during that first week.

Quote:
In this notion the majority of Americans are downright dumb.
That's a pretty extreme thing to say about 300 million people, even though I realize that you're probably overstating the stereotype. If the majority of Americans are downright dumb, then do you disagree with the oh 75% of us who disapprove of Bush and who think the war was a mistake?

And have you ever considered that your opinion of us is just as distorted by the quality of your news as our opinions are by our news?

Quote:
Many, many American I have spoken to in the last few years. If you were to go to the more red-neck parts of America it often gets worse.
Which "red-neck" parts of America have you been to? I live in North Carolina now, and you may find this hard to believe but there was far more hysteria about terrorism in Boston than there is in North Carolina. I was nearly arrested by the Boston Marine Police for taking a picture of the new bridge on the Charles River. These stereotypes just aren't accurate. The most paranoid parts of the country are the big cities, especially NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, Boston, LA, and San Francisco, all of which I've been to many times since 9/11.

Quote:
You can only imagine what it is to be from their stories, you do not know until you are in their shoes. I understand you find both horrible and I do not imply otherwise.
I'm NOT claiming to have been there. But to spend my life seeing how it's affected them, learning stories that no one else knows, and seeing how my own interface with the world is informed by their lives, is first hand experience, even if their actual lives and survival are second hand.

Quote:
It has been done before by America to gain a legal entrance to World War II, that time a Cruise Ship (I cannot recall the name right now) was sunk by guess who, the Nazi's, who in modern times have been replace by Terrorists.
I hate to be nitpicky, but you're a bit mistaken about your European history here.

Nazi Germany declared war on the United States a day or two after Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan in December, 1941. The US would have probably found its way into the war eventually anyway, but it had nothing to do with a cruise ship.

You are thinking of the Lusitania, which was sunk by a German submarine in 1915 during the first World War, which needless to say was under the Kaiser and not the Nazis. But this was NOT used as an excuse to enter WWI. The importance of the Lusitania was that the US became very polarized against Germany, whereas it had been very neutral before.

The final straw by which the US entered WWI (in 1917) was the Zimmerman telegram in which Berlin tried to convince Mexico to attack the US.

But I'm just a dumb American, what would I know about the history of Europe. Wink
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 12:53 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts, Vasska,

AND to provide a supportive environment to cope with the things they get exposed to anyway, of course. That's what growth and development is -- it's a constant stream of new experiences. But there is no way to make a parent good at it. I mean I now have a 6 week old son, and not even being a pediatrician makes this easy.


I do not state that any parent will become a "super-parent" after the examples of classes and government control, but it should loosen up the situation a bit in a certain amount of cases.

I'm not questioning your parenting in any way, if you between the lines implied that ( I think not, but cannot be sure). Anyhow, a little late I guess, but congratulation's on your son.

Quote:
These studies (the 9/11 ones) concentrate on the repeated images of the towers collapsing. You could argue that it was propagandized and it was certainly overdone, but it's the images and not the loudmouth psychopaths on cable news who really affected people during that first week.
The propagandizing has been overdone. Repeated showing of the images supported by the people talking about all the other terrorist attacks have made it worse. The first week has been an unusual week to say at least, even the New York Stock Exchange had been closed till the 17th of September. However this week has also been the most crucial week. I think the American, as well many other worldwide, media showed images that should not have been broadcasted like closeups on people who were either pushed (by pressure) or jumped out of sheer panic.
These images indeed do have an effect I won't deny that, but it should not have been broadcasted in the first place. I'm not voting for censorship by saying this, but we have after 9/11 broken some limits of what should, and what should not be broadcasted.
I'm indeed blaming the American, but also all other media for exposing the "weak" layer of society to these uncensored graphical images who were not needed in the first place. I can understand someone in NYC has had psychological problems, but someone let's say Texas or Kansas are just overreacting.

To further stress my point by examples; Someone like the fictional person Howard Beale staring in the film "Network by" Paddy Chayefsky's sure had an impact on me the first time I saw him.
Put him on modern day perspective, mix in all you can find on terrorism and you've got a propaganda that sticks to people. You can see his speeches here and here.

Quote:
That's a pretty extreme thing to say about 300 million people, even though I realize that you're probably overstating the stereotype. If the majority of Americans are downright dumb, then do you disagree with the oh 75% of us who disapprove of Bush and who think the war was a mistake?
I can understand that you, at times, think of me as a troubled teenager who, talks about things he doesn't even understand fully. At least that's the image I'm getting from some of the discussions here. And I unfortunately must at certain point agree with that, I'm too arrogant to admit my mistakes.

However, I'm calling America dumb due to the massive dumbing down of America that I have seen during history. A nice example being that people rather watch "The Simple Life" with a skank (Sorry if this word is not allowed) like Paris Hilton and to march against Harry Potter books being available in American schools than about something that impacts everyone in America like the "North American Union" which melts America, Canada and Mexico together without borders, and one currency (The Amero).

I must admit that European education has also been failing the last 5 years, and I'm really concerned about this, as I expressed in "Is education failing us".

Like 9/11 reports there have been written much about this subject. I want to stress only one website here, which is this one, which is an 1895 test given to childeren in Kansas. See how much questions a 8 year old can answer today.

About me disapproving with the 75% of Americans who disapprove of bush, i can only say i do not disapprove of it. But simply saying you are against bush does not make you smart again, it does not make you a new Einstein, Nietzsche, Plato Socrates or anything else. You are just someone who woke up way to late and only now see the mistakes of it, i also want to say that Bush had been elected twice, whether by playing honest or not.

The majority accepted Bush, the majority accepted the war. The fact that everything had been a mistake, according to the 75%, does not change the historical fact that people supported Bush. The fact that everyone suddenly votes Democratic does not change anything either. Obama or Clinton might just as well be a mistake.

Quote:
And have you ever considered that your opinion of us is just as distorted by the quality of your news as our opinions are by our news?
Other than most people my news comes from different sources including from Asia,(translated) Europe and America. I do not truthfully and without question watch the news. I read books from all around the world (where possible in original text), and by no extent even have limited myself to mainstream (American) film and (American) music only. I watch Asian movies just as often as I do American. Giving me a broader perspective than people who stay limited to only one language and one source of information.

I often go out to do some research of my own on subjects that interest me, whether this is about how an LCD-TV works or as we are on the subject 9/11.

Quote:
Which "red-neck" parts of America have you been to? I live in North Carolina now, and you may find this hard to believe but there was far more hysteria about terrorism in Boston than there is in North Carolina. I was nearly arrested by the Boston Marine Police for taking a picture of the new bridge on the Charles River. These stereotypes just aren't accurate. The most paranoid parts of the country are the big cities, especially NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, Boston, LA, and San Francisco, all of which I've been to many times since 9/11.
Texas and Oklahoma, as well Florida, but i did not think of it as a Redneck part of America. But it already has been a few years back, so things might have changed. That does not take away that many parts of America have been undereducated, and resulted in what we call "Red-necks". But you might be right I might be to quick to label states, and America in general.

Nowadays cities like Boston, New York and Washington might be more paranoid about terrorism because they have realized they are a great target for terrorist attacks.

Quote:
I'm NOT claiming to have been there. But to spend my life seeing how it's affected them, learning stories that no one else knows, and seeing how my own interface with the world is informed by their lives, is first hand experience, even if their actual lives and survival are second hand.
I'm leaving this part for the discussion, for we both have made our point about how we think on the subject given.

Quote:
I hate to be nitpicky, but you're a bit mistaken about your European history here.
You are right. I've tried to memorize some facts from my memory, but as proved my memory cannot handle history as well as i hoped.


Quote:
Nazi Germany declared war on the United States a day or two after Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan in December, 1941. The US would have probably found its way into the war eventually anyway, but it had nothing to do with a cruise ship.

You are thinking of the Lusitania, which was sunk by a German submarine in 1915 during the first World War, which needless to say was under the Kaiser and not the Nazis. But this was NOT used as an excuse to enter WWI. The importance of the Lusitania was that the US became very polarized against Germany, whereas it had been very neutral before.

The final straw by which the US entered WWI (in 1917) was the Zimmerman telegram in which Berlin tried to convince Mexico to attack the US.
In 1914 war broke out in Europe mostly among Germany and Britain. Americans had nothing to do with it, American president Wilson declared neutrality. However War means massive loses and a destroyed economy. You don't need an Economist to point out, Europe was very attractive for America as a new market with great opportunities. Colonel Edward House however wanted to be in the war, and bankers were happy to corporate and loan billions of dollars to the war, against interest.

The ship Lusitania was (deliberately) send to German waters, where German controlled military installations were known to be. Its like flying airplanes above Baghdad before and during the war, downright dangerous. The Ship as planned exploded and caused many dead.
Germany however posted, in American Newspapers, a message that ships in German water were liable to destruction. American as said had been agitated, and a short time after America entered the war, maybe because of the telegram you said, which I find rather strange and never heard of.

World War II, and Americans entry in this war had been provoked and wanted. Many documents have resurfaced and the attack had been known days and even weeks in advance, however since America did screw up after world war I by not colonizing and entering the European market, creating the predecessor of the UN and not entering it they left Europe, and mostly defeated Germany to wallow leaving a broken country, and finally making sure Hitler surfaced, for he only needed to create some hate, giving people work by saying Germany will be once great, and giving hell of a lot energy into it. He only needed to kick down the last remaining walls of the previous Weimar Government.

Back to Nazi Germany declaring war on America; America did all that was in their power to anger the Japanese, freezing assets, halted trade, aided their enemies, against war rules and made sure Japan only could attack America, Nazi Germany, with an at that time Hitler who changed from the Fuhrer to the mass murder, and cared little about the future anymore, declared war. America after the attack was again (just like 9/11) in a state of patriotism and wanted to go to war.

After that American profits for large corporations have skyrocketed, creating an American allied and needed Europe. We never broke that relationship.

My idea might seem a little like a conspiracy, but thinking about it rationally you will see that is has it's truth.

I think we should try to end the discussion now, for we went from TV is bad to you to 9/11. I'm sorry for injecting subjects other than the original question into the topic.


Quote:

But I'm just a dumb American, what would I know about the history of Europe. Wink
I don't think of you as dumb, and never will. It's just that Americans as said above are dumbing down, and kept busy with things that don't even matter, and are addicted to TV and mostly it's un-informational programs.
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
Recommend good HBO series? - Discussion by dlowan
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Television is Bad For You
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 11:47:18