Throughout magazines, the Internet, and newspapers, there are countless articles telling us to watch less television. The vegetative trance of the ‘Boob Tube’ is accused of allowing our mind to enter a state of cruise control in which minimal mental activity is necessary. From witty quotes to lengthy commentary, critics, educators, and academics have criticized television for years. The hypercritical analysis of its content and presentation has created a sophomore truism, allowing it to be dismissed as a mere guilty pleasure to some and a threat to others.

This unanalyzed monotony had led to a depravity analogous to the destructiveness of drug addictions springing from once-sacred plants. In discussing ‘Electronic Drugs’, author Terence McKenna compares “the addictive power of television and the value transformation that ensues” to heroin (218). The social consequences are often cited, as television cuts off interpersonal communications, separating users into a static ecstasy of clouds and commercials. Standing in for parent, teacher, and friend, “manufactured data streams can be sanitized to ‘protect’ or enforce cultural values ​​(McKenna 219)” I contend that the problem is not inherited from television, but is an issue that all media are vulnerable. By subscribing to an anti-TV position, we’re not only missing out on the opportunity to get some value out of broadcast hubs, but we’re also leaving all other emerging infotainment-based telecoms open to the same situation.

A definite “no” to television is to indulge in the same obsessive, unanalyzed behavior for which you are being criticized. In an age where technology is ubiquitous, it’s time we looked at these issues carefully and intelligently. Accepting television as the “idiot box” has led to a learned helplessness that prevents any evolution, creating a self-fulfilling critique. Communication theorists Marshall McLuhan claimed that the medium conveys more messages than the actual content. From this vantage point, the ability of television to draw people into a campfire and keep each other informed across the country reveals a valuable avenue. Despite this, McLuhan’s controversial claim that specific content has no effect on society is undermined by a careful examination of television programming. The current state of television’s intellectual and social depravity is a direct result of low user participation and control.

Minimally attractive, television contrasts with the Internet as dictated by consumerism and the government agenda: “Content control, content uniformity, content repeatability inevitably make it a tool of coercion, brainwashing, and manipulation ( McKenna 220)”. The web, on the other hand, although it shares ancestry with television, has had the opportunity to develop in its current model, with the aim of facilitating “creativity, the exchange of information and, above all, collaboration between users” . But nevertheless, the internet hasn’t always been like this, intertwined with a lush tapestry of memes and rational discourse. Only with the development of the Web 2.0 trend has the expert been replaced by the hobbyist, and the end user has been able to truly dictate the direction of the content. And if we are not careful, this may not always be the case.

Television has radiated moral depravity, idiocy and violence, with the consequent distraction and obsession. Still, it would be unfair to condemn the platform in its entirety. Film screenings and films as captivating and culturally significant as any novel or other work of art have permeated the airwaves for years. The Star Trek series can be considered an inspiration for many modern technologies, even prompting some people to pursue science. Today university classes are taught explaining The Sopranos. In addition, a variety of science, discovery and technology channels are becoming increasingly popular, with fascinating programming that could awaken anyone’s thirst for knowledge. (And more, who doesn’t like Comedy Central?).

Although skimming the channels doesn’t have the same investigative and discovery feel as trawling the net, the quality and convenience of the fixed shows certainly sets a different scene. The biggest problem with television seems to be the centralized control of data and its availability. This ties directly to the issue of net neutrality, which refers to who controls the content on the Internet. If network service providers can control and influence the availability of content to their users, elite centralization will eventually ensue. TV’s problems are by no means inherited from TV, and if net neutrality fails we’ll see the internet beset likewise.

McKenna, Terrence. Food of the Gods. bantum books. 1992.