57 Channels (and nothin' on)

Talliesin

It has come up a few times on other threads that television is crap. Deadening, stupefying crap.

The question is why?

There are a few limitations to the medium in and of itself. Television news will probably never be particularly in-depth, and the brevity results in its inaccuracy. But that comes along with an ability to broadcast footage of real events which is underused.

Similarly, since you can put Shakespeare on television (and with better actors, sets and direction than most productions could manage) the range of what is available to entertainment television producers includes the greatest works of the English language. The examples of great television that have existed (the first series of Twin Peaks and Alan Bennett’s Talking Heads spring to mind) don’t excuse television, rather they condemn it for failing to be what it could.

Why is it that most television is either a repeat or else may as well have been a repeat as it runs through the same tired clichés, jokes, and predictable attempts at suspense. "Brand New Friends" is little different from "Classic Friends".

Why do most documentaries tell us nothing but incidental details. The much-lauded Goldenbridge documentary, for example, didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know before, it just gave us more incidental details about particular cases of abuse we already knew had happened.

Why does our "window on the world" show less diversity in lifestyle than one can witness in a brief stroll down the street?

In comparison compare boards.ie. We have stricter rules about what you can "get away with saying" than late-night television, almost everyone here lives in the same rather small country, and we started with a user-base that was almost entirely focused on one group (gamers) although we’ve grown wider in scope since. How come we have more diversity of opinion here than a whole week's broadcasting? Indeed, how come the regulars of the GLB board also have something to say on the other boards? (Were this television their only interest outside of sex would be grooming products and ABBA).

This isn't the middle-class snobbery of "well we never let Twyla and Tarquin watch television, except when the Bolshoi are on over Christmas" speaking. I watch television. I watch a lot of television. It’s still ****. Rather it’s the opposite, television seems to accept that snobbery and assume that anyone watching it is unintelligent and insular in out-look.

Indeed to portray anti-television sentiment as bourgeois is a double-bluff. It suggests television is "of the people" in a manner that is totally bogus, and it makes the bourgeois feel better about themselves (because while they watch it they fool themselves into thinking they are an educated minority just because they know it's crap, not realising that that realisation is not a minority one) and belies the fact that anyone who has seriously suggested turning off the bloody thing tends to get labelled a crank, a radical, or a radical crank. Consider that the only thing Marilyn Manson (that well known bourgeois mouth-piece of the privileged) has ever suggested killing is your television.

ykt0di9url7bc3

57 channels of insulting, exploitive, niche-driven, class-driven, sexist, ageist & PC friendly Advertising monitored by the ITC (UK, lets face it - if you have 57 channels nearly all are UK) to give us this 15 minutes an hour of Advertising where the content in-between is nothing more than un-original knock offs or niche driven to the point of appealing to less than 10% of the audience...

...so someone likes OZ or the Sopranos or Corrie, what about all the junk they saw before it came on or after it goes...the best thing you can buy if you got a television is a TV guide (I prefer the Sunday Times TV guide) and if you are staying in some night and your are not getting a video or surfing the web, study, whatever...make a note of what you'd watch and stick to it, dont bother with repeats or with the rest of the crap that appears...

If electricty had not been invented we would be watching Television by candle-light

The history channel and the discovery channel - great if you are interested
The live sport and results - great to watch and to keep up with your team
The new and original comedy/drama - entertaining again if you are interested
The occasional good film....

Television can be entertaining but it is engulfed in so much crap, you can call me a crank or radical if I say that I would care less if I didnt have it - Remembering my Grandmothers cautionary words about the rotting of my brain through too much viewing our nations broadcasting, so should we tune out indefinitely to save our time or should we push for a better quality of viewing that maybe unatainable?

Talliesin

Originally posted by SearrarD
The history channel and the discovery channel - great if you are interested

I don't have the history channel, so I can't talk about that. But the discovery channel is worse in many ways than drunken-people-having-sex-whilst-suffering-alcohol-poisoning shows on Sky1. At least the latter is clearly meant to be "dumbed down".

06h00 - Top Ten Venice A travel show. Fair enough.
07h00 - He's Gotta Have It 1, Richard Blackwood Rich guy gets free gadget whilst reinforcing gender sterotypes.
07h30 - One Hit Wonderland 1, Song Contest This is essentially Song for Europe but without the Eurovision
08h00 - Battlefield 6, Destination Okinawa Part 1 One of these shows will teach you something, the rest are essentially repeasts.
09h00 - Scrapheap 7, Climbing Car A bit of a laugh, but more fun to do than to watch others doing.
10h00 - Us Navy Seals - Hell Week Low-brow mixture of propaganda and gross-out
11h00 - Cleopatra's Palace - In Search Of A Legend Who knows, maybe this is good. Sounds a bit Hello Magazine, but maybe
12h00 - Weather Extreme 0, Tornadoes "When Disaster Strikes 3" for a middle-brow audience.
13h00 - Billion Dollar Disasters: Hurricane Andrew "When Disaster Strikes 3" for a middle-brow audience.
14h00 - 2050 Future Storm "When Disaster Will Strike!"
15h00 - Blood Ties 1, Biggs I have no idea
15h30 - Coltrane's Planes & Automobiles 0, Diesel This one actually sounds good, I might watch it next time it's repeated
16h00 - Battle For The Skies 1, Supplies From The Skies Yadda Yadda
17h00 - Battlefield 6, Destination Okinawa Part 2[ I]Look, the allies won WWII. There I've given away the ending, and imparted roughly the same amount of knowledge.[/I]
18h00 - Tulipmania Those crazzzy Dutch, heh?
19h00 - Scrapheap 7, Sand Yacht Look, I made a working moon lander out of my own belly-button fluff
20h00 - No Programme Details
21h00 - Beyond Tough (1), Dea Sensationalist? Us?
22h00 - Portrait Of A Fighter We're nerds, but we're well 'ard nerds
23h00 - Forensic Detectives 5, Scent Of The Kill Sensationalist? Us?
00h00 - Real Saddam, The Which is more likely: (a) Saddam's collection of cute toy kittens is revealled, (b) More stuff we've already heard
01h00 - Scrapheap 7, Sand Yacht Repeat
02h00 - Operation 6, The, Burn Surgery Sensationalist? Us?
03h00 - Portrait Of A Fighter Repeat
04h00 - Beyond Tough (1), Dea Repeat

The really sad thing is that I will probably watch at least one of those shows tonight.

mike65

I tend to dispare of the telly these days, there is still good stuff to be spotted, but increasingly these progs are pushed towards the margins of the schedule so the likes of Ant n Dec, Celebritiy Fat Club, You're a Star etc can hog the prime time slots.

Whats thge cause? Costs v income is part of it, RTE is broke, the collapse of revenue has impacted on ITV while the BBC is syphoning off money to launch a stable of digital channels/services.

Not that money can explain all, sheer lazyines must be the main issue, why bother developing new drama when you can spin out a soap to 4 or 5 nights a week, or cobble together video footage of dogs falling over children while carrying a cake? Even when drama is made, the standard of writing is often pretty low as plots and characters are constantly recycled to ever lessening effect.

Since I took up UTVs offer of sanely priced internet time my TV viewing has fallen to about 90-120 mins a day at most.

Mike.

leeroybrown

A friend lived in a house where the occupants decided not to bother getting a TV or paying for Cable TV as they were short on money. (They watched TV in their neighbours house if anything good was on)

I found that I spent quite a lot of time in his house even though there was no mindless drivel to distract me from conversation.

IMy own Television viewing has decreased hugely in recent years. I find that I spend more time online or talking to people. With the exception of some good programmes (Sporano's, West Wing, etc) and good films I don't really watch much TV now with the exception of killing time somne weekends.

Victor

Well tonight try Law & Order SVU (TV3 22:10), Would You Believe(Belsen Documentary) (RTé1 23:35) and The Associates (Net2 26:00).

http://www.entertainment.ie/

DiscoStu

Originally posted by Victor
The Associates (Net2 26:00)

How have "they" managed to add 2 hours onto a day without anyone noticing?

Caesar_Bojangle

sssssssshhhhhhh its a secret

Victor

Originally posted by DiscoStu
How have "they" managed to add 2 hours onto a day without anyone noticing?

It's a standard TV company convention, seeing as most TV watching is at night.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Victor
Well tonight try Law & Order SVU (TV3 22:10), Would You Believe(Belsen Documentary) (RTé1 23:35) and The Associates (Net2 26:00).

Fair enough, the Belsen Documentary could conceivably have been worth watching.

I've already seen enough episodes of Law & Order SVU to know they're all the same.

My clock flips around to the next day after 23:55 so I guess The Associates is inaccessible to me

BuffyBot

Originally posted by Talliesin
It has come up a few times on other threads that television is crap. Deadening, stupefying crap.

The question is why?

As with most why questions, the opposite can also be asked. Why not?

The main function of television has become entertainment, not education. You could put Shakespeare on television, but would people watch it? People may not want intellecually challenging television - they want to be entertained, and informed. The broadest part of the target market wants television to be a distraction from the everyday events of their lives.

Why does our "window on the world" show less diversity in lifestyle than one can witness in a brief stroll down the street?

Probably because the greater proportion of its audience are part of the "diversity". They have average, comfortable existances and want to see their values reflected in what they watch.

How come we have more diversity of opinion here than a whole week's broadcasting? Indeed, how come the regulars of the GLB board also have something to say on the other boards? (Were this television their only interest outside of sex would be grooming products and ABBA).

We have more diversity because boards.ie does not have to cater to groups. People can pick and choose what they want to respond to. It's more an active passtime than watching TV, which is by it's nature a passive one. It's like comparing a large group of mates out together in a pub having discussions to the T.V. audience. The nature of the activities are different.

Talliesin

Originally posted by BuffyBot
You could put Shakespeare on television, but would people watch it? People may not want intellecually challenging television - they want to be entertained, and informed.

Television that doesn't patronise is repeatedly the "surprise" successes. Bennett's "Talking Heads" would be an example, and managed to get great ratings despite being awkwardly scheduled and on one of the lesser terestrial channels (can't recall whether it was BBC2 or C4).

Probably because the greater proportion of its audience are part of the "diversity". They have average, comfortable existances and want to see their values reflected in what they watch.

That just doesn't wash with me. The "average" people on television are freaks. I've never met anyone like them.

It's more an active passtime than watching TV, which is by it's nature a passive one. It's like comparing a large group of mates out together in a pub having discussions to the T.V. audience. The nature of the activities are different.

Well mates out together in a pub are hardly a minority phenomenon in this country, so they are no less "average" than the TV viewing public.

I think you are right about the active/passive difference though. Perhaps any passive activity will inevitably lead to deadening of both the actor and the activity. (In case anyone is thinking of reading as a counter-example, reading is not passive it's just quiet).

Talliesin

Oh, BTW I don't think sticking a camera in front of a production of Shakespeare is the best possible television. It is a different medium not a small theatre. Still though, it is at least possible for television to do that much.

seamus

I don't watch nearly as much TV nowadays as I used to when I was a kid, or even a young teenager. There just seems to be less on to appeal to me. Maybe it's just me, but the whole "Yeah! Let's watch drunken lads fall over each other and talk about celebrities!" style of TV is taking over, and is for me, the lowest form of entertainment.

I mean, "The Salon"? Wtf? No-one I have talked to has even considered it remotely interesting, and it just seems as bad as watching paint dry.....why did someone come up with it? Because there's probably a whole generation of "reality tv" kiddies who love the crap.

Internet or TV? Give me the Internet. I'd certainly call it more entertaining, if not far more educational. And education has become far more important to me than light entertainment. I'd miss Star Trek and Stargate and some other nerdy things, as well as a good few comedies, but I'd almost be perfectly happy with a video player (for movies) and an internet connection.

As Tallesin pointed out, the 'average' people on television are nothing close to average, and at the same time, programming is geared more and more towards the 'average' person in real life. As this average definition tightens, more and more people fall through their net. The continuing standardisation and dilution of any form of entertainment will be the death of it - look at the music business. Their losses are way up. Is it because of piracy? Arse. It's because they're piping out the same crap over and over, and continually losing more and more people who don't fit into their 'average' definition.

Personally, I would like to see the death, or at least general ignorance of TV before the end of my lifetime.

DapperGent

See the real trouble is that it's not just that the majority of television is rubbish it's that the majority of everything is rubbish.

Most papers are crap (there's only one good Irish one), most movies are crap, most books, most plays and most musicals too for all I ****ing know.

There are many reasons for this I presume but the one that always holds the most water with me is the lowest common denominator thing. It's not that the majority of us are stupid or dumb or anything it's that all of us the most brilliant and the most stupid share some stupid characteristics.

Take me, I like to think of myself as relatively high brow, Irish Times, historical books, foreign films, documentaries, Questions and ****ing Answers. However no matter how **** the programme if it has tits and/or footie I'm there. Preferably both. Say with a 60:40 ratio between the tits and the footie. Or perhaps a split screen mode.

I hate the tabloids and I'd hardly never buy one but if I come across one in work or wherever I'll take a quick gander at the boobies and then absorb the footie news, and possibly lament the fact that the Irish Times won't make up fake transfer speculation.

Crap TV is cheap just like all things crap. And the really funny thing is that the crapper and less pretenious it gets the more likely it is to appeal to absolutely everyone. And therefore make some people rich.

ironape

me2 with the amount of TV I watch going down. Decided to actively increace the amount of reading I do because watching TV was pointless. Why not at least learn something in my spare time. further myself, whatever.

Someone said to me once that watching TV uses less briain power than doing nothing. But that sounds like cr@p to me. The thing is though, that if people didn't want it then it wouldn't be on. Millions of people tuned into watch that brainless, blonde.....thing on "Big Brother". (also does no1 else get the irony of the name of that show?!?!? hello! Not only has the removal of privacy become acceptable it's something we strive for?!?! anyway, off topic)

You get what you ask for

Ape

Talliesin

I'm going to apply for next year's Big Brother.

After all the contestants are the only people in the Pretannic Isles who manage to avoid seeing the boring crap.

Specky

Well as of new years eve I finally gave up "da telly" altogether, and, except that I hate breaking stuff and hate even more cleaning up broken stuff, I would love to have had a tv smashing ceremony out in the back garden.

There is good stuff...or what you can believe is good stuff...on there but unfortunately it's surrounded by complete crap, it's divided up into too many parts and it's intermingled with too many adverts.

Before you know it it robs your life, strangles conversation and becomes the topic of every conversation that isn't strangled.

Bye bye telly, hello books and radio again....ahhh.......lovely....