Steven Johnson and Antonia Peacocke both illustrate their arguments and attitudes toward TV shows and how watching television can affect a persons mind. Johnson compares different television shows to explain how watching TV shows can be healthy for a humans brain while Peacocke focuses around a particular show and how the narrative of the show sends messages to the audience.
In Steven Johnson’s article, Watching TV Makes You Smarter, Johnson illustrates the development of media over time and the change people are trying to make to television. Johnson argues over how the population watches bad TV shows over the good and how it is healthy for the human brain. Johnson compares older TV shows and present day TV shows to show the difference in
…show more content…
the message the show is trying to develop. By comparing TV shows like Hill Street and The Sopranos, Johnson explains that watching more complex shows and shows with multiple threads, “multi-threading is the most celebrated structural feature of a modern television drama,” requires more attention from the viewer (284). Johnson also refers to talk shows as an example, saying that humans tend to think they’re bright enough to understand everything the host is saying on their talk show when in reality, he states, “there’s no intellectual labor involved in enjoying the show as a viewer” (280). Humans watching TV shows other than talk shows are challenging their brain more to try and figure out the problem and everything that could be happening in the show. A person’s brain is thinking and asking themselves questions following the situations. “You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you’re exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads” (292). What Johnson is posing is that TV shows with strong narrative and scenes that cause the viewers to really think about what’s going on stating that the audience should look more into the development of the program’s narrative. Johnson supports that the people interacting with the show itself and learning the structure of it is what is making the person themselves smarter. “Today’s reality programming is reliably structured like a video game: a series of competitive tests, growing more challenging over time” (290). This supports Johnson’s viewing of learning the dynamics behind the show and learning as you watch. Johnson also uses TV shows with more violence and acts of obscenity than others as an example saying that they are valuable to a person’s brain causing the viewer to do more critical thinking and understand the meaning. TV has the ability to teach a viewer certain things. Antonia Peacocke agrees with Johnson in a way of understanding the message in a television show and the process of thinking critically of a show. In Antonia Peacocke’s article, Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Peacocke expresses her attitude and feelings toward the behavior in the cartoon TV show Family Guy.
She states her argument against how Family Guy makes jokes that are offensive, racist, and inappropriate. Peacocke states, “many still denounce Family Guy as bigoted and crude” (300). Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy, does not make the goal of the show to make the audience feel offended when his focus was to make the show funny. MacFarlane did narrate the show to make inappropriate comments but those comments are what attract the viewers because they appreciate his sense of humor and realize the satire behind it all. He makes these jokes to make fun of real life situations, true realities of different cultures and social human groups and their behaviors. Peacocke also states, “It must be said too that not all of Family Guy’s humor could be construed as offensive” (306). Some of MacFarlane’s jokes that he puts in the show aren’t as bold and inappropriate, while some jokes are pushing the limit of being on national television. People tend to dislike the show because they don’t understand the knowledge that MacFarlane is referring to. Peacocke admits that the show was too offensive and vulgar for her to continue watching it at first, but as the shows popularity started to increase she became more interested in watching. “Those who don’t often watch the program, could easily come to think that the cartoon takes pleasure in controversial humor just for its own sake” (303). This statement she makes helps lean toward a person trying to watch and understand about the show rather than not giving it a chance. A television show being inappropriate for viewers to continue watching, the viewers should try to learn and comprehend it instead of ignoring the show all together. A person who gets offended by a show that was intended to be humorous is not the point behind the
show being made and aired. Johnson and Peacocke both relate to the development of television and the statistics behind a certain show. Johnson argues more towards how different types of television shows can be help a humans mind and how viewers rate a show, whereas Peacocke illustrates one particular TV show and the types of viewers the show attracts and the way the show makes a person think. Both authors ultimately agree with how a television show can be good for the human brain and make the person think outside the box.
Not only educational shows accomplish these goals, but fictional television programs can often incorporate information that requires viewers to grapple with a topic using logical reasoning and a global consciousness. In addition, not to diminish the importance of reading, television reaches those who may never pick up a book or who might struggle with reading problems, enabling a broader spectrum of people to interact with cognitive topics. Veith has committed the error of making generalizations about two forms of media when, in truth, the situation varies depending on quality and content. However, what follows these statements is not just fallacious, but
In “Television Harms Children”, Ann Vorisek White claims that the intellectual and cognitive development of children who frequently watch television is threatened. To support this claim, she points to the findings that “the more television children watch, the weaker their language skills and imaginations” (White, 2006). Before the brain fully matures around age 12, it is in the stage of rapid development. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) “recommends that children under the age of two not watch TV or videos, and that older children watch only one to two hours per day of nonviolent, educational TV” (White, 2006). A study from the AAP (as cited in White, 2006) found that the average American child watches four hours of television every day. Considering "expression and reasoning are not automatic" abilities, young children who routinely watch television eventually become "passive and nonverbal" to stimuli in their environment (White, 2006). Since the normality of curiosity and imaginations of young children are the foundation of how they learn, remaining passive for extended periods of time affects their intellectual and moral development.
In "thinking outside the idiot box", Dana Stevens responds to Steven Johnson's New York Times article in which Johnson believes that watching television makes you smarter. Indeed, Steven Johnson claimed that television shows have become more and more complex over the years in order to follow the viewers need for an interesting plot instead of an easy, linear story. However, Dana Stevens is opposed to this viewpoint. Stevens is not against television, he does not think it makes you smarter nor that it is poisenous for the brain, he simply states that the viewer should watch television intelligently. That is to say that, viewers should know how much television they should watch and what to watch as well.
The first rhetorical strategy Springen uses in her argument is citing statistical data about the number of hours children spend watching television, the effects of watching that amount of television, and what the most highly rated television shows are among children. She cites in her essay that “American children 2 through 11 watch three hours and 16 minutes of television every day.” This data shows the reader the staggering amount of time children spend watching television each day. Springen further cites data concluding that when children watch over 10 hours of TV every week “they are more likely to be overweight, aggressive and slow to learn in school.” This data exemplifies to the reader the negative effects television has on young impressionable minds and bodies. Finally, Springen cites that among the top 5 television shows “for children 2 through 11…Survivor Thailand” ranks among them. This data shows that children exposed to television are also being exposed to programming that is far too mature for their age. By citing “bad” data about the way television negatively affects children, Springen persuades the reader in her argument to agree with her position that there is no good reason for her children to watch television on a daily basis.
Television is a highly entertaining way to pass the time whenever we may want to relax or may not have anything to do. Some believe that watching television is nothing more than staring at a box while others believe that it can help us become aware of things we may not have noticed before such as social issues or in some measure get our brains thinking. This paper will point out the similarities and differences of Antonia Peacocke 's essay "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious" and Steven Johnson 's "Watching television makes you smarter" aswell as
In an article ' The Plug-In Drug ' the author Marie Winn discusses the bad influence of television on today's society. Television is a ' drug ' that interfere with family ritual, destroys human relationships and undermines the family.
In the world today watching television is so addictive that everything else looks unattractive. The author argues that television is not lethal as drugs and alcohol but it can have many effects such as children getting more violent and reality seem second best. Every person lives are filled with emotions including anxiety, depression, and stress so after long hard work day the best medicine is to turn the television on and not to worry about anything. For example, I usually drive from site to site to take care of business. So when I return home from work I will sit on my couch and turn the television on and flick the channel until I fall to sleep. As Marie Winn describes, "the television experience allows the participant to blot out the real world and e...
It may not be politically correct and improperly depict pop culture events; nevertheless Family Guy is a valuable source for comedy and entertainment. Though it holds a top two ranking for all animated shows, it is often criticized and could be shut down once again. Until then, we should enjoy the freedom of speech which grants them the right to broadcast the comical satire and continue to express many of Americans societal problems to the world. As viewers we can enjoy the comedy by accepting one simple fact, all Family Guy is putting a mirror in front of our society and having us look into it, it shows discrimination and stereotypes, but in no way does it condone either. Family Guy is America’s comedy.
In a Class Dismissed when the narrator says,” because we have seen television as just entertainment, we readily disregard its impact on our thinking”. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself that our perceptions of things are based upon what we see on TV, although I do view TV as entertainment as well. However, I never paid attention to how TV impacted my thoughts until viewing and reading in the material in this class. Because of some of the things that we studied and the familiar shows that we talked about I understand and noticed small things in TV shows and ad
Watching TV Makes You Smarter grabs the attention of any reader, regardless if he or she is a TV lover or not. Johnson can appeal to all audiences in his article. The author draws a sympathetic reader by incorporating scripts from television shows such as E.R and discusses shows like The Sopranos, and 24 that were popular at the time the article was written. The antagonistic audience is shown graphs and key examples of research that prove the author's reasoning. For the apathetic and ignorant, by the end of the article both are able to make their own decision on whether watching television can make you smarter.
Television does hold a purpose in life; whether it is a good one or a bad one is completely up to the person or people who are watching it. For Steven Johnson, in his writing, he begins with a passage that states that watching television is more helpful to the brain rather than harmful. It secludes the person watching it to better understand what is happening in the world today. Arguments have put themselves forward to what has been said in his piece; such as, that certain shows can be helpful for better understanding, but most television is harmful to the minds of youth. Johnson, who has been working on this material for quite a long time, is trying to up hold what he has thought and what
Whether consciously aware of what is being displayed or not, media plays a substantial role in influencing consumption patterns and lifestyle. Researchers noted television's power to influence even people who are illiterate. Smith-Speck and Roy (2008) explained that even individua...
When it comes to the topic of television, most of us would readily agree that watching television is a waste of time. Where the agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of “are there shows that increase our intelligence?” and what pleasure do some television show bring to us? I would say there are some great shows that increase our intelligence. Shows like “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?” this kind of show puts the brain to work; thinking. There are some other shows that tend to convince us that watching television seduces our mind. I find Johnson’s argument about his article “watching television makes you smarter” confusing because he was not actually picking sides in the article and Steven’s “Thinking Outside The Idiot Box” argument about how “it’s really good at teaching you to think… about the future episode” (Steven, 296). Although I agree with the author of “Watching Television Makes you Smarter” Johnson to an extent, I cannot accept that he overlooks how much time people spends each day watching television.
As the years pass, I feel as though since my early childhood (‘92-‘98) the idea of watching television was more of a social norm and it was thought that there were no harmful effects on the development of the child’s brain. Now I want to dive further into this topic and figure out if there is a correlation between television and the development of the brain whether it is good or bad or is this topic just a myth. I feel this research should help me develop and understanding of allowing children to watch T.V. is harmful or not. In my opinion, allowing children to watch the educational shows is beneficial to their brain development. However, an excessive amount could be harmful for the children’s social skills and other aspects that are essential to their development capacity to understand difficult concepts as they learn.
Would you define a technological advancement that allows you to view videos and pictures on a screen, from anywhere in the world about any topic you would like, as a negative or a positive? We all know such an advancement exists today, and it is called the television. For decades, multiple groups have given multiple views about the adherent effects of television. TV is a very important part of our culture, one that we would find difficult to shy away from. It is our source of entertainment, news, weather, sports, comedy, and even music. For children, television is a great source of time consuming fun that lets a child immerse themselves in another world. The negative effects of television include health risks, such as obesity and lower brain function, negative influences, and wasted time. Although the positive effects of television are profound, it can be very detrimental to one’s health if not used in moderation, especially for younger children. The major keys we will be discussing includes numerous adverse effects of watching too much television on a children mind.