  |
|
|
|
© 2001 by Deborah Lagarde
Comments? E-mail: "mailton:dlagarde@suite101.com"
Television viewing is considered by most critics to have a numbing affect on the nervous system, so that viewers appear and behave as if they are pacified, passive takers-in of pleasure or information, rather than being active researchers, or rather than being motivated to think about what they are watching and taking in. For this reason, television is blamed for everything from the "dumbing down" of American public school students to school shootings to inability to obey authority to obesity. It is also known that television viewing for torture/brainwashing uses is quite effective and, for advertizing anyway, it is acknowledged that TV commercials, even those that are not subliminal, tend to persuade consumers to run out and satify, say, their "hungries" (ie, Burger King's "Aren't you hungry?" commerical campaign a few years ago). Thus, though television has been considered a form of mind-control, the study of how TV does this has never been conclusive until now. Several scientific studies using human subjects (as well as other animal subjects) have been concluded and can be seen (in sysnopis form and linked to from) on the website "Disinformation.com" (don't let the name fool you, the evidence is pretty overwhelming) as part of TV turnoff week just concluded. The article is at: "http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1..." and concludes on "http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1..." and is called "Television: Opiate of the Masses" by Wes Moore. The article concludes that television produces "zombies" for the state, making it easier for a government or quasi-government to push through their agenda without question. In another section, dealing with advertizing, the article concludes that, whereas TV advertizers were made aware in prior studies that TV commercials had the affect of outright brainwashing (for instance, mind-sticking jingles)--horrifying the advertizers--commercials nowadays primarily affect mood. This is why you see so many commercials loaded with sensuous images that have nothing to do with the product (for instance, half naked women advertising plumbing fixtures). Your mood concerning the product--associating the product no matter how mundane with sensuous images--will likely influence you at some point into buying that product. However, I don't believe that everything concluded on that study should be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt. For instance, one study brought to light that TV's most deliterious effect is on "second-hand" viewers, those who are in the vicinity of the TV set but aren't actually watching, or those who are watching but not paying attention! I find this hard to believe. If this is true, then the children of most parents are in very serious trouble, because I know darned well that as children watch television, they are also doing a hundre dother things, mostly playing--for them TV is background noise. then there are those who (like I did when I was a kid) began falling asleep when a TV show was on, but sprang up for a commercial! What conclusion is reached here? The problem with the article, if not the studies, is that no one explains why TV would be worse if you are not paying attention than if you do. Also, if that is the case, than I myself am in big trouble: most of the time when the set is on I am busy with something else (I only seriously watch three 1-hour shows a week when they are on: FOX's "The Lone Gunmen" and "X-Files" and Sci-Fi's "First Wave", as well as Fox's half-hour "Malcolm in the Middle"; the rest I'm just kind of aware of, catching an occasional glimpse at "the Simpsons", "King of the Hill" and "That 70s Show"). Go To Page: 1 2
The copyright of the article Television: confirmed drug? in Media Issues is owned by Deborah Lagarde. Permission to republish Television: confirmed drug? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
