Actually Ian, I'm very glad you disagree. What fun is just bobbing our head up and down at one another?
If you agree, then you'll be glad to know that I disagree with your disagreement. > TV is, like everything else in life. 90% crap. > I disagree with your analogy. "everything else in life" is a pretty big category. I mean, it might be true if "everything in life" IS tv because you watch so much tv, and come to think of it, why would you know so much about the crap except it has been shoved in your face. So, either false analogy, or tautology, but out of bounds on that one. > But the 10% is very good - we just have to be selective and discerning. > > "selective" means you watch comparatively. Watching comparatively means you're not being selective. I mean, do you read about crap or do you judge it as you watch? To my mind, there is no way to "select" except by what is offered, and since what we are talking about "discernment in what I view" depends upon "viewing in order to discern" we are caught in a dilemma of devious devising. And victims of faulty logic to boot. Shame, in't it. The way the insidious thing rots your brain. Look at it this way. The relative value of the program is weighted by the craposity of the rest. If you've been noticing an increase of craposity, then your values have been shifted by the medium itself that you are supposed to be judging. Judgement warped by the method. Media *as* epistemology, Ian. Pay close attention to that last sentence I quoted from N. Postman: "For, like the printing press, television is nothing less than a philosophy of rhetoric. To talk seriously about television, one must therefore talk of epistemology. All other commentary is in itself trivial" > And I'm talking across popular (US) genres too, sit-coms, serial > dramas, satirical cartoons, not just intellectual and high-brow stuff. > Pragmatism can be fun - you know it makes sense. > > Regards > Ian > (PS talk-shows and reality-TV easily populates 80% of the the 90% all > by itself.) > > I'll take your word for that Ian. Although it does make sense to me, in an age where you need tv to tell you what reality is. "Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant. Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial and therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations. The irony here is that this is what intellectual and critics are constantly urging television to do." Get that point Ian? television is nothing less than a philosophy of rhetoric. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
