Talk:Social aspects of television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Origins of the article[edit]

This was moved from the television section and will be re-written and added to as a new article.

Television and Gender section needs attention[edit]

The television and gender section focused entirely on the female gender, and was pretty messy. I would suggest an overhaul, as well as either changing the name to television and feminism, or including a more comprehensive look at television and gender. Bvonholtz (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of modern television programming wherein the woman is the lone voice of reason and the man is slovenly, overweight, sports- and sex-minded, and not very bright. Also there is little equal-opportunity idiocy; as in recent AT&T commercials, it's always a man who is stupid and ignorant and a woman or girl who tries--sometimes unsuccessfully--to set him straight. See the "Invisible Cord" AT&T commercial.75.37.158.137 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested elements for inclusion[edit]

There should be some mention of Newton Minow and his Wasteland Speech. I'm also looking for a landing spot for a reference to "boob tube" as slang for television, and this article seems like a reasonable place for that... . (I'll try to contribute rather than just comment as time allows)--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury's short story "The Pedestrian" should be included in this article somehow as well. It is about a man who instead of watching television like everyone else, goes for walks at night and is subsequently arrested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.3.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can include a section on literary commentaries on the subject. Kurt Vonnegut's "The Euphio Question" raised many of these issues (and more). The interesting aspect of this story is that it was written in 1951 (just about when TV was starting to take off--approx 12 mil sets in the US) and he was able to predict the social effects of the technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.85.162 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue[edit]

I tried cleaning up the "negative effects" section which had been written like anti-television propoganda, noting only studies supportive of the "causal" hypothesis, and not noting studies unsupportive of this hypothesis, or comments by the numerous skeptics of television violence effects. American Behavioral Scientist actually had a good issue this month with reviews from scholars on both sides of the debate, perhaps that ought to be noted more. Also note, I referenced some additional material in the reference section, but am not adept at doing the in-text citation thing...if someone could clean it up I'd appreciate it.

~~MV Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.92.177 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Issue[edit]

I think that this section doesn't add much as is uninformative. If audiovisual media is the "second most" persuasive media, what's the first? This section (despite an oblique) cite reads more like hyperbole than anything factual. I recommend deletion, or at least significant cleanup.

~~ MV Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.92.177 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Very US centric.[edit]

This article comes across as being very UScentric especially the Propaganda section which mentions specifically 'Presidential Candidates' and 'The military and State Department'. The second example deffinitly needs some kind of national qualifier as without one it sugests that all militaries and State Departments 'turn to media to broadcast into hostile territory or nation' which just simply isn't true. I don't really know what the answer is to this one. As to the first example, If we are to include Presidentual candidates we should also have a few more examples for non-Presidential nations and thus I'm removing the example and replacing it with politicians. (Morcus (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Another for of propaganda...[edit]

...may depend on the audience's assumption that the TV is representing visual samples from the entire world outside and, as such, create an expectation that what the news reports talk about might include any and all informations that may be relevant to the audience. In other words, I'm suggesting to mention some kind of "filter" being implicitly applied to what one gets to know about the world around by limiting one's self to watching TV. If applied "maliciously", this kind of filter may effectively keep people from knowing about something that largely influent organizations don't want them to know. You don't obviously realize you're being deceived: as long as you know, reported events are true and uncensored, but you simply don't get a trace of certain specific topics that would be relevant to your life. To some extent, this kind of filter is unavoidable: nobody, in a limited amount of time, could ever get to know everything about events significantly affecting one's life. And of course, I don't have any references to give, it's just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.37.207.254 (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Danger section[edit]

I got rid of this part

"

because the article clearly does not state this. It only discusses the effect of television viewing on children three years old. To include this reference and not be guilty of selectively quoting literature and misrepresenting whatever the consensus is, I think we would have to make this section far more comprehensive. This is just one study out of hundreds done in this area. Dextux (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've read that article, and that statement does seem to be quite consistent with the results of the article. I'm returnign the statment, but trying to add a bit more detail for clarity. Feel free to add more. Avalongod (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Erosion of social activities[edit]

Despite article's title, there is literally nothing about television's effect on social activities. My parents, who come from the country, have seen what introduction of the TV has done to social life. I will describe it here for someone to elaborate and find some sources describing those effects in detail.

In the 50s the TV was hardly to be found. Women in the country used to gather for social activities - for example doing some undemanding but time consuming chores was accompanied by singing. People played musical instruments, danced, etc. Then a TV was brought to one hall in the village. People would go there to see this novelty. The TV then worked much like a theatre or a cinema - watching the show was passive, yet triggered some social activity. At this point social life was not injured much, however creativity was - people watched instead of sing, dance, pursue folk art etc. The disaster happened when TVs' prices fell and sets reached homes. People would no longer gather for everyday social activities. Social life was severely crippled, down to a single family level. The TV watchers received a false image of high-life in soap operas - everyday life became so mediocre and boring compared to what shows offered, that the audience escaped into pusuing their virtual, unilateral relationships with fictional characters.

I hope someone finds appropriate psychological essays/books to quote and makes that into a prominent section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.252.115.250 (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, honestly what you've written above is just personal opinion and essay. It would not be appropriate for inclusion. 69.91.76.211 (talk)MVGuy —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Solutions to make TV educational[edit]

As the article (more or less) notes, the current programs transmit on TV is focused on matters such as

  • singing and dancing
  • illicit substances
  • sexual intercourse
  • weapons
  • theft and other criminal activities

Obviously this doesn't provide for a good education, and indeed makes society less safe, as it directs people towards activities that only disrupt society. It is in this sense unimaginable that states actually fund their national TV broadcasting companies, which also transmit programs featuring such content, which ultimately disrups it's own society and requires additional expenses (police) to solve the problems it itself creates.

The solution would be to stimulate educational programs (ie certain programs on Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel (arts/crafts/professions/engineering/nature, news on international stations as CNN, ...) and discourage non-educational/disruptive programs

This could be done by the state by:

  • putting restrictions on state-funded networks on the programs they air.
  • making educational programs available on-demand. Using the latter, the programs can be viewed in detail and be helful to gain specific knowledge on a subject at a time when it's needed (so similar as browsing online)

Perhaps it can be noted in the article. 91.182.166.71 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not likely. Sounds like a steaming load of Original Research. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources[edit]

I know of an additional source for covering the effects of television on behavior: "World Health Organization". In the following document there is a suggestion to a link between violence and watching TV. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap2.pdf

I would edit the article myself, but i am currently occupied withother things and i lack editing skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EsB (talkcontribs) 20:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It was only one paragraph in the entire document an actually more equivocal than what you suggest. I'm not sure it adds much beyond what is already in the piece. Better to focus on original empirical research. 69.91.76.231 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)MVGuy

Television and race[edit]

I'm proposing this section which is notably absent, especially given that there is an equivalent for gender. However, since there's an existing article on African-Americans in the media, I'd also like discussion of how to isolate the topic here, perhaps linking back to this one, as appropriate. Aolivex (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)