Essay about Media: Making Society Go Downward

In recent discussions of watching an excessive amount of television, a controversial issue has been whether it is good or bad. On the one hand, some argue that it affects our mental and physical health. From this perspective, it is clear that heavy TV watching is not beneficial. On the other hand, however, others argue that a TV exposes you to important news and different cultures. In the words of Caron Andre, one of this views main proponents; “news, current events and historical programming can help make young people more aware of other cultures and people.” According to this view, Andre believes that TV can be beneficial to the watchers. In sum, then, the issue is whether TV has positive or negative effects on the viewers.

found, for example, that only 3.5 percent of viewers were able to answer successfully twelve true/false questions concerning two thirty-second segments of commercial…”(Postman 152). Postman goes in depth of this experiment which established that Stern had found that 51 percent of viewers could not recall any news from watching the t.v. program. Around an average of 20 percent could not recall any information from watching a 1 hour show . This supports his claim of television being a disruptive resource. Watching television doesn’t increasing learning like a printed

In Steven Johnson's persuasive essay “Watching Tv Makes You Smarter,” he defies what our culture teaches us about television. Our society teaches that television is making our youth “dumb” and that our culture enjoys the “simple pleasures” so that is what the media companies are feeding us with. But, Johnson states that based on what the show “24” suggests, the “exact opposite is happening: the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less” (1). The growing interest of TV programs with complex mental faculties involves three primary elements: multiple threading, flashing arrows and social networks (2).

Television is incorporated into my daily routine whether it is watching the news in the morning or a movie at night. When I watch the news in the morning I catch up on current events and other news. On the other hand. At night I watch movies for entertainment and enjoyment. Television is not just changing people into couch potatoes by watching “chasing fast cars, drinking lite beer, shooting each other t close range, etc.”, it also can be a daily tool to learn new things and catch up on current events.

Television has been popular in not only America, but around the world since this screened invention replaced the radio in the majority of households. Today, the television continues to serve as a source where adults can obtain news and entertainment and the youth can find entertainment; education; and build a broader and further developed schema. While it can be a great source for the aforementioned, there are instances where television shows, such as reality T.V., can give viewers inaccurate perceptions of the real world. The idea of inaccuracy of reality in television shows is expressed in Daniela J. Lamas’ recent Op-Ed “What’s Missing in Dr. Oz’s TV Exam Room” published in the New York Times. Through Lamas’ accounts of her personal experience

In Steven Johnson’s “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”, he argues the growing complexities of contemporary TV shows through time. Johnson explains, because of the developing intricacy of TV plot lines people are having to spend more time paying attention to the TV episodes. To show this, Johnson compared shows from the past and more recent shows to display how on screen intelligence and off screen intelligence of shows have developed to become more challenging and realistic. I believe contemporary TV shows need to have complex plot lines that are continuously developing with each episode of the season to make a person smarter. Johnson does believe contemporary TV makes you smarter, but I also think he is missing

In modern day, television is very prominent in many people’s lives. This brings attention to the question of whether or not watching television makes you smarter. Some argue that because of complex shows such as 24, the culture is getting “more cognitively demanding, not less” (278). However, some believe that mass culture “follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-common-denominator standards, presumably because the ‘masses’ want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the masses what they want” (278). In Steven Johnson’s article, Watching TV Makes You Smarter, he asserts that exactly what his title suggests. He believes this because of something he calls the Sleeper Curve. The Sleeper Curve is the concept of cognitive intricacy improving due to mass media influences. Johnson does an exceptional job at convincing myself and other readers that watching television can, in fact, make you smarter. He does this by using the rhetorical features such as presenting dissenting opinions fairly, using relevant examples, and using personal pronouns.

There is no doubt that television holds a purpose in our society today, but is that purpose brain-numbing or actually beneficial to our brain development? The television, also known as: TV, the boob tube, the idiot box, as well as many other nicknames, has been around for almost a hundred years. Ever since cable TV became popular in the 1950’s, there has always been a worry that people watch too much TV. Most people believe that with exorbitant exposure to the popular media both dumbs us down as well as makes us more likely to tolerate acts of violence. Dana Stevens’ “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” argues that television does not make you smarter, directly

Many people own a television set in their home for a purpose that varies for each individual. Having a TV is beneficial in various ways. Steven Johnson sheds light on a controversy that involves the “...masses want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the masses what they want. (278)” Johnson makes a compelling argument that “the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less.

Steven Johnson the writer of “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”, argues that TV programing has become more cognitively demanding, and therefore believes that watching TV and playing video games are somehow beneficial to the viewer (278). He even states that TV programing focusses on the same “mental faculties ascribe to reading such as attention, patience, and retention” (280). I partially agree with Johnson when he says that programing and reading share the same attributes but me personally think that you get a lot more out of reading, reason being that there is a lot of work behind it you have to create and connect all the characters and plots while at the same time making sure you do not lose your train of thought. In the other hand television shows lays it all out for the viewer

In Watching TV makes you smarter, published in "The New York Times" on April 24, 2005, Steven Johnson argues for the multiple threads, fewer flashing arrows and social networking that make modern Television nourishing cognitive food. In answer to Johnson's article, "Carrie" posted Does watching TV make you stupid? on May 1, 2005. Carrie presents further blogs on May 3rd and May 7th, 2005; however, the gist of her arguments are contained in her first blog. Comparing the logic of Johnson's argument for and Carrie's argument against Television as cognitive food, I believe that Johnson presents the more convincing argument.

In the article “TV’s Negative Influence on Kids Reaffirmed” by Jeffrey M. McCall, he addresses the issue of how TV has a negative influence on children. McCall states that young children and toddler’s cognitive ability does not develop as well when they have television in the background while they are playing. McCall also argues that TV has a very influential role in the teen pregnancy rate and how early teens become sexually active. To further prove his point, McCall proclaims that children and teens that are exposed to too much Television and video games become socially awkward and have trouble interacting in society. McCall also says that the networks are rating their own programs carelessly which is leading to shows that should be blocked

To begin with we will look at the issue of how modern TV can enlighten the audience. The author Stephen Johnson makes the argument of how TV is more complex, therefore it makes you smarter, in his article “Watching TV

The Role of Media in the Society Media has always played a huge role in our society. For a long time media was one of the methods of controlling people and leisure. In ancient times when there was no newspapers and television, people used literature as source of information, some books like "the Iliad", and different stories about great kings, shows those people the information about them. Nowadays media is one of the main part of our lives and our society, because we use word media, to combine all sources of information. Average man is spending 4 hours a day on watching TV and reading newspapers.

It could very well be true that over the past 20 years, television programming has developed in such a way as to demand more cognitive participation. However, watching TV is not the societal benefit Johnson makes it out to be. Johnson’s claim that TV is overall a beneficial societal force fails to account for the indirect effects of watching TV. It may be true that the cognitive demands of watching an episode of 24 do in fact stimulate brain function as opposed to diminish it. However, when a person sits down in front of the TV, he is choosing to do so instead of reading, studying, doing his homework, or exercising. These things are undisputedly beneficial to society. When one spends his time in front of the TV screen, it is time he is taking away from actually getting smarter.