| Can you imagine the world without television? No moon landing, no Hockey Night In Canada, no M*A*S*H finale, no Johnny Carson, no Live Aid, no O.J. verdict, no Monty Python, no The Simpsons, no The Sopranos... Without television, they might still be fighting in Vietnam. The Tiananmen Square massacre may have escaped detection. Cameras were there when JFK and Trudeau were laid to rest, when the Shuttle went up, when the Berlin Wall came down, when The Newsroom said hello, when Cheers said goodbye. Contrary to the scolding alarmists who've launched withering attacks, blaming TV for everything from youth violence to dulling and lulling the masses into a bloated stupor, television remains the most ubiquitous, educating, egalitarian, affecting and powerful medium the world has ever known. Get this: I wrote that last sentence while watching Maury Povich's talk show, an episode titled "Shocking Life or Death Moments " Caught on Tape!" And so it goes. The other night at a cocktail party, a financial exec confessed she rarely watches TV. Knowing what I do for a living, her voice was tinged with sympathy and a hint of moral superiority. Over the past few months, I've lost count of the number of people who've proudly boasted about not watching television, as if such a public avowal is roughly equivalent to declaring, "I do not torture small animals." Which you'd surely do if you spent too much time sitting passively in front of a flickering set, atomizing your brain cells, and being reduced to an involuntary heap of depraved impulses. At least, that's what television's histrionic detractors would have us believe. Mind you, most of them wouldn't be able to tell Seinfeld from Springer. Confirming what Marshall McLuhan said nearly 50 years ago, a study conducted at the University of Manchester last year found that the human brain is programmed to enjoy television, since the small screen offers a stimulating combination of sight and sound. One experiment involved exposing 150 people to information about cars, cellphones and a vacation. They were shown a video, the audio from the video, and just the text. When tested, it was the full video most remembered. As one of the researchers noted: "The brain simply likes telly. Even I am surprised at how powerful television has been proved to be. No wonder it is the world's favourite medium." In short, they concluded that television appeals to both sides of the brain. It's no surprise, then, that the average Canadian watches television about 21 hours a week, according to Statistics Canada. In an average household, a television remains on for upward of seven hours a day. This means that some of our most memorable experiences (albeit vicarious) are mediated by television. In this sense, television is a unifying cultural force, giving people a common currency with which to exchange views, one that transcends borders. In Belgium about a decade ago, my wife and I bumped into a German travelling with two Californians and a woman moving to Switzerland. We all hung out that night. The Number1 topic of conversation? Fox's Cops. Here in Toronto, when overhearing snippets of conversations, it's strange how many of these exchanges are about television. Strange but not surprising. During a speech to the U.S. National Association of Broadcasters in 1961, Newton Minow, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, famously used the phrase "vast wasteland" to describe the relatively new medium. At least, that's the quote reprinted most often 40 years later. But minutes before he said that, Minow also noted, "When television is good, nothing " not the theatre, not the magazines or newspapers " nothing is better." Remember, this was 1961. Before the 500-channel universe. By the time most of us graduate from high school, we've spent more time watching television than engaged in any other single activity. If we make it to 75, we will have spent an average of nine years watching television. It's numbers like this that tend to rattle the anti-TV gang. "What a waste of life!" they shout. "Think of what you could accomplish if you just unplugged that damn thing!" And, my personal favourite, "Are you stupid or something?" (Responses in order: "No, it isn't!" "So what?" and "Probably.") Critics also decry the isolating nature of television and cite studies that link it to increases in rates of depression and obesity. Whatever. As a general rule, you can find studies to reflect both sides of almost every issue. Show me a lonely shut-in who binges on Doritos while watching The Price Is Right and I'll show you a ripped do-gooder who decided to save the world after watching Smallville (it's a long story). Similarly, for every When Good Pets Go Bad or Am I Hot?, there's a Daily Show With Jon Stewart and a brilliant Passionate Eye documentary. Besides, I'd rather watch Six Feet Under or Buffy The Vampire Slayer (R.I.P.) than spend time chit-chatting with most people since what most people want to chat about is television. Consider this: Television may actually be good for you. In 1997, the U.S. government offered networks and some production companies subsidies if they inserted "anti-drug" messages into various shows. It was controversial. But it reflected television's unmatched power to influence as it entertains. (Please don't e-mail me to say that last sentence proves the critics' case.) A 1999 survey, carried out by the marketing firm Porter Novelli, found that 48 per cent of viewers who watched daytime soaps at least twice a week actually learned something about diseases and how to prevent them. Who knew? General Hospital may keep you out of one. Television is also the most important medium when it comes to relaying social messages: From the Fonz sheepishly getting a library card on Happy Days to Ellen DeGeneres announcing she's gay on her eponymous sitcom, to the way abortion has been tackled on shows from Maude to Everwood, to the issue of race from Archie Bunker to Family Ties to The Wire. But these are all grown-up issues. And when it comes to criticizing television, the lobbyists, professional letter-writers, family-values advocates and gaggle of conservative prigs often say the nefarious boob tube is most damaging to children. The hot-button issue remains "violence." It would be folly to dismiss the rich and substantial body of research that links violent media images with violent behaviour as bunk. But, from this couch, most of these studies are outstanding examples of bunk. I've watched hundreds of violent images over the past 25 years, ditto for most of my family and friends. So far none of us has decided to AK-47 a mall food court or bomb Los Angeles. Jib Fowles, a communications professor at the University of Houston, has gone so far as to write a contrarian book, titled The Case For Television Violence. But what about the charge that television deadens a child's imagination and ability to think? Again, this is strictly anecdotal, but in my experience children who watch shows such as Bob The Builder or Teletubbies seem to be bright, engaged and well-adjusted. Kids who watch no television at all " not so much. One recent university study that tracked 600 children from the ages of 4 and 5 until they were in high school found that the kids who watched Sesame Street were doing significantly better in high school, more than 12 years later, than those who did not. And another study conducted at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, found that television and videos stimulate the imaginations of children between the ages of 3 and 6. But, as stated, don't give too much credence to any study, for or against. Love it or hate it, television is the most significant medium in our culture. And answers about it can't be gleaned in a research lab. They'll have to come from within each viewer. So the real test is this: Can you turn it off? Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=6efa72f47 a1f1df3&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251824786&ca ll_pageid=968332188492 |