82.0
Saturday, May 26, 2012
COLUMN: Destroy your television
by   |  March 9, 2010  |  

We shouldn’t stop with simply turning off our television every once in a while. We need to see television for what it is — an evil entity that no good will ever come out of. Then, we need to throw our televisions out the window.

What is the goal of the national media? Is it to educate? To inspire? To get us talking about important issues, perhaps?

The goal of the media is to maximize viewers.

Why has Tiger Woods been reported exponentially more than Afghanistan? It is not because Tiger Woods is more important, but because people will watch Tiger Woods.

Then you take a step back and realize this news isn’t even what we should be talking about. If the media had our interests and growth at heart, the entire day would be filled with stimulating conversations on health care, human rights and our military.

But that’s not the case. The media is designed in every facet to get your money. Nothing good can come from you watching them.

They give us programs that don’t challenge us to think but merely pray on the beliefs we already have. How many loyal Fox viewers would sit through a half hour of “Why you should vote Democrat?”

Rather than trying to encourage the education and growth of a body, as the news should, we are more satisfied being told what we already know. This is how they keep a viewer night after night. This is how they make money, and television can never be more than that.

The second is why they want to keep our eyes on the box: advertising.

Broadcast media exists to sell you stuff. The television is a soulless cube designed to make you feel your life is boring but would be much improved if you bought something. What’s horrible is it works. It works so well that companies spend billions every year to do it.

Yes, it is our fault we watch terrible television and now idiotic culture reigns supreme, but even if the masses only tuned into quality programming, we would still have to deal with advertising.

And no matter what, television would still be a non-interactive medium. It would still be quality programming that reaffirmed the views we already had — perpetuating a society of people who do not think. Television is, therefore, in its design, a flawed basis for intelligent discussion and should be abandoned.

So please, OU, take heed to my advice. You are not better than the ads or the opinions propagated by the media. Neither am I. You cannot go a year seeing 30,000 commercials without falling victim to many of the absurd ideas expressed. You will believe your life would be better if you bought this, had that, looked like this, talked like that.

So what is media, then? Media is a conglomerate. When a program is running, it is inhibiting thought because that keeps you a seasoned viewer. When a program is on a break, it’s (successfully) convincing you that you are not good enough in some way but would be if you bought a product. It’s propagating materialism.

No matter how you slice it, nothing good comes out of the television. As long as their goal is retaining viewers, it can’t. Yes, turning it off solves some problems, but it doesn’t go far enough. Getting rid of them entirely is the only viable solution. You’ll feel better about yourself, have your own ideas, make more and better friends, be more creative and be an all-around better human being.

It would be amazing if OU removed every public television from this campus. It would force us to talk, interact, learn and grow as a collective body. It would give OU an amazing reputation: “The School Without Television.” We would then be able to physically see the benefits of a university without them.

Your television doesn’t care about you. It doesn’t care about your well being, your education, your mind or your happiness. It only cares about your money. I care about your soul. Take my advice — not the television’s. Call your provider and cancel your cable. You’ll be better off without it.

Comments

The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register

Paige 2 years, 2 months ago

I find watching Full House in the Union incredibly enjoyable.

0

WalkingMan 2 years, 2 months ago

You could make a similar argument for the internet and as someone above pointed out, the Daily. Any media's goal is to maximize viewers, readers, subscribers or what have you. It's all about money, even at the Daily.

0

mfhayes 2 years, 2 months ago

Hey hippie, nothing good ever came from hacky-sacks, throw that out the window too.

0

Dru89 2 years, 2 months ago

Of course they want us to watch advertising, of course (for the most part) it's pretty mind-numbing. But that's what a lot of people need after a full day. Something that they don't have to really pay attention to. I can watch Tiger Woods all day after work because it doesn't require me to think at all. Not spending every waking moment thinking about the important issues is perfectly acceptable. I'm sure you have many day-to-day mind-numbing activities, like writing news articles, to get you through the day. Mine happens to be watching a short sitcom every day or so. But there are some things that I believe can be both mentally stimulating and beneficial to the news industry. Yes, they're pretty much just after my money, but they also realize if there's nothing at all worth watching, no one will watch. It has to be a balance of both.

0

TylerBranson 2 years, 2 months ago

As a former employee at the Daily, I can attest to the fact that all we cared about was our sweet, massive paychecks every two weeks. Everything I did as a journalist (as every journalist does) was to ensure that the money kept rolling in (which it did). Nobody in their right mind cares solely about their field, and accepts tiny paychecks in exchange for insurmountable workloads and expectations.

0

rosa 2 years, 2 months ago

And you don't write for a media outlet which suffers none of these same faults.

0