Thinking Outside The Idiot Box Analysis

An Idiot Box or a Mental Trainer
Television was an invention designed to entertain and inform. Created in the 1920s by John Logie Baird, TV has become an indispensable piece of furniture in most American dwellings. Every child, at least once in their lives have heard their mothers tell them that spending long periods of time in front of a screen will damage their brain. Two opposite arguments question all mothers’ hypothesis. Steven Johnson in “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” claims that over the years TV has become more complex. He considers that this complexity forces the brain to work. Dana Stevens in “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” argues that there are many cons in the issue and that watching TV does not make anybody smarter. Instead,

The image that TV gives to the world is not accurate which then is transformed into a generalization. Johnson recognizes that stereotypes have been nurtured by TV, but he pays more attention to the structure that can make a human more intelligent (278-279). He believes that TV’s demand has increased because of its complexity. He thinks that the masses have broken the common thought that says, “[T]he “masses” want dumb” (278). Instead, the demand of TV programming has increased because viewers are thinking more about the structure rather than following trends. He mentions that TV has become more realistic but at the same time more ambiguous. He claims, “[W]hat media have lost in clarity, they have gained in realism” (279). The reality presented in TV is the real world (279). In other words, Johnson believes that the complexity of TV programming has evolved so much that has helped the masses to make connections with the real life. He also claims that the ambiguity which presents negative content is having a positive impact in the society. However, it depends on the person’s thought

The problems presented on TV are only programs. Viewers are not paying attention to the real-life connections that programs like 24 show. Stevens argues that “[I]t isn’t a fictional program’s connection to real-life… events like torture and racial profiling one of the “social relationships” we should be paying attention to?” (296). Instead of doing that, the audience is focusing more on what it is going on screen, and they do not analyze the connection and the impact that those programs have in the society. Stevens pays more attention on the impact that generalizations of people have in society, on the contrary, Johnson focuses more on the structure that can help viewers become