Several times in the article, Mittell uses the word nostalgia, as well as other forms of it. What does this mean?
He also refers to "domestic sphere's." Are these things like one's religion, or laws created in a particular society like Althusser says that develops within the super-structure?
On page 221, Mittell gives statistics about how much television students consume, taken from a 1996 study. I knew student's watched a lot of T.V., but this is ridiculous! I wonder if the reality T.V. era has increased or decreased the number of hours people watch television today. Since reality television is so different from what we were used to watching, (sitcoms, drama television series, etc.) does this T.V. category pull more user's in, or draw them away?
On p218, Mittell states, "only by displacing these metaphoric assumptions will it be 'possible for individuals and groups interested in social change to intervene in mass culture production and to demonstrate to consumers why they ought to take charge of that culture themselves.'" While denaturalizing the metaphor that TV is a drug is one way of opening people's minds that TV is not a drug, but how will this process actually change their minds? Is this revolutionary enough to change their ideology or is there additional steps that will need to be taken?
Throughout the article, there was comparison to the war against drugs in the '80s to the TV-free America's stance that TV is a drug. Mittell discusses the racial and class status of the majority of TV users as well as who TV-free America was addressing. Is Mittell suggesting that TV-free America was using racism as a tool to get support or even a racist organization by using fear to get middle class white families to reinforce their ideas and concerns?
On p228, Mittell states that there are two groups of television addicted children, the first group includes "those who are addicted because it relieves their sense of deprivation...The second group finds in the television set a substitute for the things the mother or father does not want to furnish." My question is how is the first group different from people or children who read books, use art (i.e. drawing, photography, etc), or other ways of relaxing? And is Mittell suggesting that the second group of children are victims of neglect?
Is the fact that people are watching an unprecedented amount of television something that is detrimental to American society, or does it simply suggest that we are in a golden age of television?
On page 216, Mittel states, "While the definition of television as low culture is certainly a powerful and prevalent discourse throughout the anti-television movement, it cannot explain how television can be defined as a social problem worthy of a grassroots movement dedicated to its eradication. " I think this is terribly interesting, because for all the bad that television is responsible for, it's also responsible for a lot of positive effects on society. An example of this would be the Night of Too Many Stars event which raised a ton of money for autism education. So would the anti-television movement be willing to eradicate low brow television such as reality television and soap operas?
On page 219, Mittel says that, " the social action called for by the anti-television movement is to be enacted on the familial level." This makes me wonder, is the modern family being dismantled by television, or has the family always been in this state but people just didn't realize it before the media conveyed it to them?
"Thus suburban white families use the anti-television movement to further insulate themselves from inner-city blacks, placing heavy television viewing within the same category of unacceptable behavior as crime and drug use" (p. 223)
I understand where Mittel is going with his argument connecting race with drug use/TV and middle-class white fear, but his linkage doesn't seem cogent (most likely because I don't understand). How is the amount of TV watched by children linked to race? Is the argument that poorer or minority children are more apt to be "babysat" by the television because parents are less involved or minority children aren't doing other more acceptable activities (reading, homework, sports, music)?
Also, I assumed that TV was more of a luxury item, particularly cable, DVD, etc. Wouldn't most people assume poorer individuals don't have these items?
Could it be that the discourse of TV as a drug when applied to the racial issue isn't as implicit as the author contends? Meaning, by associating TV with drugs, the connotation of a drug being a poor or minority person's problem alone could be enough of a reference (as opposed to someone needing to make a connection between TV and minorities and drugs and minorities).
Mittel compares the usage of hard, cold statistics for shock value for both TV and drugs. Stats such as "The average student spends 900 hours a year in a classroom and 1,500 in front of a TV" scares people just as certain drugs stats, perhaps saying someone's child is at risk to use cocaine also scares people. Are the nature of these events worth comparing?
Also, on page 223, Mittel states that TV Free America uses the endorsements of highly regarded medical associations such as the AMA to help get people to find their organization credible. Where in other forms of media do we see the use of branding to get people into an organization or event?
On page 216, Mittel discuses the idea that television is considered to be a form of "low culture," i.e. intellecutally and culturally inferior to books, plays, the theatre, etc. I find it problematic to consider some television programs (think news, documentaries) as more culturally important than, say, cartoons. Considering that television is, in many cases, a commodity, how is this idea problematic in terms of class, race, and economic levels? What positions of power does this idea support? Similarly, what race or class issues arise when you consider television as a form of escapism? How does the idea that television is "better suited" to minority ethic groups a factor in myth and the naturalization of oppression (233)?
On page 223, Mittel mentions an "overdose" of television? I'm curious...how can one "overdose" on T.V.? How does this relate to the perception of television audiences as passive (226)? What does this suggest about media studies scholars?
Mittel also discusses how TV-Free America seems to criminalize watching television. What does this imply about people who watch television? Is it a fair judgement to pass?
Lastly, how is television beneficial, if at all? How could television potentially help children to develop sociall, intellectually, and culturally (230-232)? What do we stand to lose if television is eradicated?
Throughout Mittel's article a lot is mentioned about the idea of television as a drug. I found this interesting because I'v never really thought of television as a drug. Sure people can say they are "addicted" to television but what does that really mean?? Do you think television is really a drug and if so how can you compare this to real or other drugs? Mittel states in his article, "Television is also causally linked to other forms of inappropriate behavior. Nearly every article,book,and piece of organizational material around the anti-television movement cites the often studied linkage between television viewing and violent behavior." We often hear that television, video games, movies and what not are linked to violent behavior. But when someone is watching or playing one of these media texts shouldn't one be able to control themselves and understand it is a television show or a video game? Also if parents seem to be so worried about the effects of these media texts then shouldn't they be monitoring more closely what their kids watch??
While is it quite obvious throughout the article that the anti-television is very critical of televison. Would this movement ever consider that television could be used as a medium for good purposes? Such as education or things of that nature. The anti-television movement refers to the television as a sort of drug and most people are addicted to it. How then could they think that anything good could come from the television?
The TV Free movement also says that there is a correlation between television watching and violence throughout the country. How is this possible? Couldn't an argument be made that anyone who watches television could be inspired to commit some sort of violence?
1. This is a really curious article for me because I don't know where it fits in a dominant ideology context. Mittell is basically a TV apologist in this article, which to me would suggest that he supports marketing, advertising, commercials--and by extension capitalism/business--because so much of television's content is composed of this. With this reading in mind, it would seem as if he is part of the dominant structure, as though he were hired by NBC or ABC to refute negative TV publicity. Yet at the same time, he is critical of the media's treatment of things on TV (like the "blackface" painted on crack cocaine during the 80s, or the crack baby scare, etc.) This is a reversal of his thesis. While defending the status quo of television, he also attacks the status quo treatment of drugs and comes at it from an "oppositional" standpoint. For instance, he calls out marijuana being associated with Mexicans in the 1920s, etc. It's weird because it's hard to place. At one point he's an agent for the powers-that-be, at others he's a rogue. My question: what is the dominant ideology's view of television? And how does Mittell's article fit in?
2. Mittell states that "TV is socially encouraged as a form of citizenship and leisure time consumption". Whoa. I would have to disagree there. I don't know what he's talking about with the citizenship comment. If anything, TV is encouraged by something articulated by Chomsky in a documentary called The Corporation. He says: Society is being turned into "completely mindless consumers of goods" and that "the ideal is to have individuals totally dissociated from one another whose conception of themselves, whose sense of value is based on: how many creative wants can I satisfy." Does that sound like a familiar practice? TV dissociates people from one another and gets them to focus on products. This is the ideal of TV. What is Mittell talking about with citizenship?
On page 2 of the article, Mittell says that it is television's rank in our cultural hierarchy that result's in TV-Free America's encouragement of activities besides watching TV. Are the activities that TV-Free America suggest on their website really considered superior to television? It seems that the suggestion of doing activities such as "going dancing" simply encourage people spend some time doing something other - often anything other - than watching TV. It seems like groups like this are more concerned about the amount of time spent watching TV alone than the fact that TV is considered low culture. I wonder if people spent 10-15 hours a day dancing if it would become a scapegoat as well?
On page 19, Mittell states that the "..racialized and classed social identity of drug use...evokes white middle-class fears of becoming too much like the Other." He suggests that the linkage of television and laziness, violence, and becoming intellectually stunted becomes "discursively linked to poverty and blackness." I find this to be a large leap in his argument. While his suggestion that the other activities proposed have their roots in suburban, white middle-class interests does make sense, it seems that this is more the result of the fact that most of all activities encouraged in general recreation stem from white interests. Is this because people fear that watching TV will make their child associated with laziness/blackness? I just don't see the connection.
@ Holly: nostalgia refers to a longing for the past, often a past that one imagines was better than the present (whether or not that is actually the case).Also, by domestic sphere he is referring to the home. I see your connecting it to Althusser's spheres bu tI don't think he is explicitly trying to make that connection.
@ Jillian: re: question about p. 228--Mittell is challenging all of these claims about children being "addicts" of TV--he would not buy or support either of those you identify. He is instead pointing out different ways in which this discourse gets applied.
@Dugan: Mittell is primarily interested in de-naturalizing the TV as a drug discourse he sees as circulating in the various sites he identifies. He does not have an agenda apart from that, so I think it is erroneous to call him a TV apologist or a supporter of the capitalist interests of the TV industry. It's not that black and white. Instead think about how it is possible to critique the naturalizing power of a particular discourse without necessarily embracing what may be seen as an opposing discourse.
Several times in the article, Mittell uses the word nostalgia, as well as other forms of it. What does this mean?
ReplyDeleteHe also refers to "domestic sphere's." Are these things like one's religion, or laws created in a particular society like Althusser says that develops within the super-structure?
On page 221, Mittell gives statistics about how much television students consume, taken from a 1996 study. I knew student's watched a lot of T.V., but this is ridiculous! I wonder if the reality T.V. era has increased or decreased the number of hours people watch television today. Since reality television is so different from what we were used to watching, (sitcoms, drama television series, etc.) does this T.V. category pull more user's in, or draw them away?
On p218, Mittell states, "only by displacing these metaphoric assumptions will it be 'possible for individuals and groups interested in social change to intervene in mass culture production and to demonstrate to consumers why they ought to take charge of that culture themselves.'" While denaturalizing the metaphor that TV is a drug is one way of opening people's minds that TV is not a drug, but how will this process actually change their minds? Is this revolutionary enough to change their ideology or is there additional steps that will need to be taken?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the article, there was comparison to the war against drugs in the '80s to the TV-free America's stance that TV is a drug. Mittell discusses the racial and class status of the majority of TV users as well as who TV-free America was addressing. Is Mittell suggesting that TV-free America was using racism as a tool to get support or even a racist organization by using fear to get middle class white families to reinforce their ideas and concerns?
On p228, Mittell states that there are two groups of television addicted children, the first group includes "those who are addicted because it relieves their sense of deprivation...The second group finds in the television set a substitute for the things the mother or father does not want to furnish." My question is how is the first group different from people or children who read books, use art (i.e. drawing, photography, etc), or other ways of relaxing? And is Mittell suggesting that the second group of children are victims of neglect?
What does Mittell mean by "television apologists"?
ReplyDeleteWho does Mittell try to say is the demographic most affected by the "television as a drug" metaphor? Why?
Is the blame split equally between parents and television networks, or what else comes into play?
Is the fact that people are watching an unprecedented amount of television something that is detrimental to American society, or does it simply suggest that we are in a golden age of television?
ReplyDeleteOn page 216, Mittel states, "While the definition of television as low culture is certainly a powerful and prevalent discourse throughout the anti-television movement, it cannot explain how television can be defined as a social problem worthy of a grassroots movement dedicated to its eradication. " I think this is terribly interesting, because for all the bad that television is responsible for, it's also responsible for a lot of positive effects on society. An example of this would be the Night of Too Many Stars event which raised a ton of money for autism education. So would the anti-television movement be willing to eradicate low brow television such as reality television and soap operas?
On page 219, Mittel says that, " the social action called for by the anti-television movement is to be enacted on the familial level." This makes me wonder, is the modern family being dismantled by television, or has the family always been in this state but people just didn't realize it before the media conveyed it to them?
"Thus suburban white families use the anti-television movement to further insulate
ReplyDeletethemselves from inner-city blacks, placing heavy television viewing within the same category of unacceptable behavior as crime and drug use" (p. 223)
I understand where Mittel is going with his argument connecting race with drug use/TV and middle-class white fear, but his linkage doesn't seem cogent (most likely because I don't understand). How is the amount of TV watched by children linked to race? Is the argument that poorer or minority children are more apt to be "babysat" by the television because parents are less involved or minority children aren't doing other more acceptable activities (reading, homework, sports, music)?
Also, I assumed that TV was more of a luxury item, particularly cable, DVD, etc. Wouldn't most people assume poorer individuals don't have these items?
Could it be that the discourse of TV as a drug when applied to the racial issue isn't as implicit as the author contends? Meaning, by associating TV with drugs, the connotation of a drug being a poor or minority person's problem alone could be enough of a reference (as opposed to someone needing to make a connection between TV and minorities and drugs and minorities).
Mittel compares the usage of hard, cold statistics for shock value for both TV and drugs. Stats such as "The average student spends 900 hours a year in a classroom and 1,500 in front of a TV" scares people just as certain drugs stats, perhaps saying someone's child is at risk to use cocaine also scares people. Are the nature of these events worth comparing?
ReplyDeleteAlso, on page 223, Mittel states that TV Free America uses the endorsements of highly regarded medical associations such as the AMA to help get people to find their organization credible. Where in other forms of media do we see the use of branding to get people into an organization or event?
On page 216, Mittel discuses the idea that television is considered to be a form of "low culture," i.e. intellecutally and culturally inferior to books, plays, the theatre, etc. I find it problematic to consider some television programs (think news, documentaries) as more culturally important than, say, cartoons. Considering that television is, in many cases, a commodity, how is this idea problematic in terms of class, race, and economic levels? What positions of power does this idea support? Similarly, what race or class issues arise when you consider television as a form of escapism? How does the idea that television is "better suited" to minority ethic groups a factor in myth and the naturalization of oppression (233)?
ReplyDeleteOn page 223, Mittel mentions an "overdose" of television? I'm curious...how can one "overdose" on T.V.? How does this relate to the perception of television audiences as passive (226)? What does this suggest about media studies scholars?
Mittel also discusses how TV-Free America seems to criminalize watching television. What does this imply about people who watch television? Is it a fair judgement to pass?
Lastly, how is television beneficial, if at all? How could television potentially help children to develop sociall, intellectually, and culturally (230-232)? What do we stand to lose if television is eradicated?
Throughout Mittel's article a lot is mentioned about the idea of television as a drug. I found this interesting because I'v never really thought of television as a drug. Sure people can say they are "addicted" to television but what does that really mean?? Do you think television is really a drug and if so how can you compare this to real or other drugs? Mittel states in his article,
ReplyDelete"Television is also causally linked to other forms of inappropriate behavior.
Nearly every article,book,and piece of organizational material around
the anti-television movement cites the often studied linkage between television viewing and violent behavior." We often hear that television, video games, movies and what not are linked to violent behavior. But when someone is watching or playing one of these media texts shouldn't one be able to control themselves and understand it is a television show or a video game? Also if parents seem to be so worried about the effects of these media texts then shouldn't they be monitoring more closely what their kids watch??
While is it quite obvious throughout the article that the anti-television is very critical of televison. Would this movement ever consider that television could be used as a medium for good purposes? Such as education or things of that nature. The anti-television movement refers to the television as a sort of drug and most people are addicted to it. How then could they think that anything good could come from the television?
ReplyDeleteThe TV Free movement also says that there is a correlation between television watching and violence throughout the country. How is this possible? Couldn't an argument be made that anyone who watches television could be inspired to commit some sort of violence?
1. This is a really curious article for me because I don't know where it fits in a dominant ideology context. Mittell is basically a TV apologist in this article, which to me would suggest that he supports marketing, advertising, commercials--and by extension capitalism/business--because so much of television's content is composed of this. With this reading in mind, it would seem as if he is part of the dominant structure, as though he were hired by NBC or ABC to refute negative TV publicity. Yet at the same time, he is critical of the media's treatment of things on TV (like the "blackface" painted on crack cocaine during the 80s, or the crack baby scare, etc.) This is a reversal of his thesis. While defending the status quo of television, he also attacks the status quo treatment of drugs and comes at it from an "oppositional" standpoint. For instance, he calls out marijuana being associated with Mexicans in the 1920s, etc. It's weird because it's hard to place. At one point he's an agent for the powers-that-be, at others he's a rogue. My question: what is the dominant ideology's view of television? And how does Mittell's article fit in?
ReplyDelete2. Mittell states that "TV is socially encouraged as a form of citizenship and leisure time consumption". Whoa. I would have to disagree there. I don't know what he's talking about with the citizenship comment. If anything, TV is encouraged by something articulated by Chomsky in a documentary called The Corporation. He says: Society is being turned into "completely mindless consumers of goods" and that "the ideal is to have individuals totally dissociated from one another whose conception of themselves, whose sense of value is based on: how many creative wants can I satisfy." Does that sound like a familiar practice? TV dissociates people from one another and gets them to focus on products. This is the ideal of TV. What is Mittell talking about with citizenship?
On page 2 of the article, Mittell says that it is television's rank in our cultural hierarchy that result's in TV-Free America's encouragement of activities besides watching TV. Are the activities that TV-Free America suggest on their website really considered superior to television? It seems that the suggestion of doing activities such as "going dancing" simply encourage people spend some time doing something other - often anything other - than watching TV. It seems like groups like this are more concerned about the amount of time spent watching TV alone than the fact that TV is considered low culture. I wonder if people spent 10-15 hours a day dancing if it would become a scapegoat as well?
ReplyDeleteOn page 19, Mittell states that the "..racialized and classed social identity of drug use...evokes white middle-class fears of becoming too much like the Other." He suggests that the linkage of television and laziness, violence, and becoming intellectually stunted becomes "discursively linked to poverty and blackness." I find this to be a large leap in his argument. While his suggestion that the other activities proposed have their roots in suburban, white middle-class interests does make sense, it seems that this is more the result of the fact that most of all activities encouraged in general recreation stem from white interests. Is this because people fear that watching TV will make their child associated with laziness/blackness? I just don't see the connection.
@ Holly: nostalgia refers to a longing for the past, often a past that one imagines was better than the present (whether or not that is actually the case).Also, by domestic sphere he is referring to the home. I see your connecting it to Althusser's spheres bu tI don't think he is explicitly trying to make that connection.
ReplyDelete@ Jillian: re: question about p. 228--Mittell is challenging all of these claims about children being "addicts" of TV--he would not buy or support either of those you identify. He is instead pointing out different ways in which this discourse gets applied.
@Dugan: Mittell is primarily interested in de-naturalizing the TV as a drug discourse he sees as circulating in the various sites he identifies. He does not have an agenda apart from that, so I think it is erroneous to call him a TV apologist or a supporter of the capitalist interests of the TV industry. It's not that black and white. Instead think about how it is possible to critique the naturalizing power of a particular discourse without necessarily embracing what may be seen as an opposing discourse.