The medium of television is perhaps the most prevalent leveling factor in American society today- almost every household in America owns a television set, a device centered around a cathode ray tube which is designed to bring two-dimensional illusionary sights and sounds to its viewers. As seen in articles such as Peter Hamill’s “Crack in the Box”, or in the collection of letters called “Watching TV”, there are many strong and contradictory takes on the role television plays in society today.
It would appear from a cursory look at the text that there is currently a debate raging across the United States of America centered upon defining the virtues and vices exhibited by television. One side says television is an important communicator of ideas at best, and a harmless amusement at worst. The other claims that television is a trap, a snare which can corrupt the minds of America. Most people, I believe (without any great mass of conclusive evidence), do not take any part in this debate.
They’re much too busy watching Julia Child teach how one should choose the ingredients for Beef Wellington or enjoying the high humor and quick wit of some cartoon or comic opera. In “Watching TV”, three citizens share their personal experience with television and conception of the medium and its role in their individual lives. The writers are not professional journalists or professional commentators. Instead, they are members of the general public who felt the need (in response to a segment in The Sun magazine) to share their view with others.
The opinions expressed are written in a straightforward manner, and hopefully reflect the true thoughts of the writers. Two general positions are supported by the letters, which oppose each other: 1)television is basically good for people, 2)television is basically bad for people. The first letter comes from R. Lurie, of Santa Fe, New Mexico. She or he relates to the reader how television allows a great level of intimacy between viewer and viewed, without the complications of real life.
This openness is contrasted to the “real” relationships which she or he has had, where pain and emotional exhaustion play a great part in limiting intimacy (603). Lurie explains how the appearance given by television that life can be conclusive, can have carefully delineated stages, contrasts with her own reality, where such conclusiveness is lacking, and gives her comfort (603). Allegreta Behar-Blau of Woodland Hills, California is somewhat less enthusiastic in her support of television. She appreciates television as a place where she can retreat to from the daily grind of life.
She explains how television offered her company when she was living alone (604) Television was “her best friend”, though she was ashamed at being so enamoured of something which many consider “stupid and banal” (604). Once she became married, television no longer was her main companion in life. Television took the back seat, as a personal place which she could escape to when the pressures of the world, of her family, becomes too much to bear (604). In sharp contrast to these positive views of television is the observations of Theresa Lenexa.
She looks at the rather important role that television had played in her family life, and its disturbing (to her) place in the life of her elderly mother (604). While she was growing up, television played an important role in the daily entertainment of her family (604-605). After she grew up, the television set played a smaller role in her life. Television does, however, play an important role in the life of her now elderly mother; instead of having positive human connections, her mom has television.
Personal contact with other people has faded away with the death of her husband and other major life changes, but he connection to television remains. For her, “TV is good company” (604). My own experience with television is rather ambivalent. Looking back on my childhood, I watched a lot of television, though when comparing my habits with my peers, it appears that my experience with television was fairly normal. My parents were conscious of my viewing habits, and determined what I could and could not watch. Compared with the viewing habits of my peers, I led a sheltered life.
As I grew older, I gradually came to the point where my television viewing became selective and much less frequent. Except as a cure for insomnia, or in my periods as a political junkie, I do not watch television indiscriminately. I do not own a television, and probably will not purchase one for some time, if ever. I have never had a television in my bedroom. Most of the programs which are on television do not appeal to me, and there a are wide array which are, in my ever humble opinion, swill fit for the consumption of the fatted calf.
The news/information gained from television can easily be found elsewhere, in greater detail and scope, with better profit for the individual because there is no time limit in reading save for that imposed by the reader. Television is most effective as an empty escape, as a glittering box which can take away the viewer to a land where their problems can be put to the side for one moment, and as an ingestor of quick and vital news to the greatest number of people possible at one time from a single medium.
In my view, each medium has certain characteristics, both assets and flaws, which bind the medium from being all things to all individuals. Television is naturally stupefying; if it is to be an effective communicator, it needs a great deal of the attention of the individual. Perception of what is going on prevents deeper thought and reflection on the events. In his essay, “Crack and the Box”, Peter Hamill makes two broad claims, which have far-reaching tendrils which reach to the core of our society. His major claim is that television is bad for the individual and for society.
This is based on the claim that television is addictive, like some legal and illegal drugs. And like said drugs, television is harmful to its adherents in many ways (600). Television makes people asocial, and takes people out of the “real” world and into an “unreal” plane of existence (601). Television, Hamill claims, allows one to have emotional shifts without any kind of effort. It is passive escapism. He believes that television allows people to escape from the world and its demands, and makes them feel as if they have no control over their surroundings (601).
His second claim is that television is in many ways responsible for the change of the drug culture into a mass “problem” (600). Before television. , the use of hard drugs was restricted to a small minority of citizens on the outskirts of civilization (600). After television became universal, Hamill tells us that hard drug use became much more prevalent. He says that this is because television made people addicts, made people seek escape from “reality” (601-602). He goes on to say that it is easy to understand how someone could jump from television addiction to drug addiction (602).
In looking back at the texts, I come away with a better understanding of Hamill’s main argument, and how it can work on a case by case basis. There are, however, major flaws in his reasoning. Just because two events occur consecutively, it does not mean that the prior event caused the latter. To claim that the rise of television in America is directly responsible for the increase in the use of hard drugs, is frankly faulty logic, unworthy of Hamill’s impressive essay.
The second major claim, that television caused the hard drug climate of the 1960’s and later still, must be pushed to the side for now, as there is no conclusive evidence supplied by Hamill to convince me that A) the addictive strain in American society was introduced by television and that B) there are major causes for the changing drug scene which may be found outside of television. His primary claim, that television is addictive, and dangerously so, is easier to dissect and, in my case, accept.
My personal experience with television has left me with a picture of television as an escapist trap, which can dull the wits and cloud the mind. Looking at “Watching TV”, I see nothing which would cause me to reform my opinion. It is possible for addiction to television to occur, and the preponderance of the media in society today makes it quite likely that wide swaths of people are in fact addicted to television. That this addiction can be dangerous is obvious. By choosing to watch television above other activities, people are neglecting opportunities to build a better society and better themselves.
All addictions are dangerous, even addiction to watching light and sound spill forth from a rectangular box-like device, ostensibly for the amusement of the viewer/hearer. Looking again at the letters from “Watching TV”, I notice two things in particular. All three letter writers mention television in terms of escaping from reality- from true human relationships, family life, and the reality involved in living. Television, as opposed to life, needs no thought by those who seek to participate in it. It is, quite literally in some respects, a no-brainer.
Seeing in the letters much of what he finds wrong with television’s role in modern American society, I believe Hamill would have a field day with the three responses The Sun magazine received. Each, consciously or unconsciously, relates in some way to his main theme of television as a bringer of anti-social tendencies to the American population. The portrayal of the mother of Theresa Lenexa (the negative respondent), makes her appear as one of Hamill’s television junkies; it is unclear whether any deeper conclusion may be drawn from this.
Lenexa, 604) My own experiences with television make me agree, to a degree, with Mr. Hamill- television can be harmful both to society and the individual, and it is clearly used by many as an escape from the troubles of the world. How truly evil this is, I cannot say. What should be done, I cannot say. Serious inquiry should be launched into the way television is presented to the young, perhaps not in a formalized class as Hamill suggests, (602-603) but in a manner which will eventually allow them to get a grasp on the medium, and allow them to guide their use of the medium responsibly.