A total departure from previous writing about television, this book is the first ever to advocate that the medium is not reformable. Its problems are inhere. Four Arguments for Eliminating Television. By Jerry Mander – Former Advertising Executive1. Synopsis and Comments by William H. Gross – Colorado Springs. This article presents a summary of the book titled “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television,” by Jerry Mander. Mr. Mander holds BS and MS degrees in.
|Published (Last):||27 September 2014|
|PDF File Size:||2.73 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.34 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Television is decried as an inherently eliminattion means of conveying news regardless of the content of the programming. You also accept that the system will be used by the sorts of people who like to influence people and are good at it.
If we eliminated all crime shows and other sensational entertainment, it would reveal what an inherently boring medium this is, producing awareness of artificial fixation despite boredom.
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television
What is lost because we can no longer flip a switch for instant “entertainment” will be more than offset by human elmiination, enlivened minds and resurgence of personal investigation and activation.
We are left with no frame of reference untouched by human interpretation. People were giving up on understanding anything.
He does give precise voice to why reading – or meditation, even – feel more substantive or engaging than television It would all reduce to who’s the better arguer, when the point is really about experience. Elderberry, The Wise Elder of Plants.
Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television: Conclusion
These results are pretty predictable, yes, but to close them off from inquiry is to embrace pseudoscience and he does in his discussion of TV’s effe I picked up this book because I’d seen it referenced a few places, but it hasn’t aged well since it first hit the presses in No single issue gets advertisers screaming louder than this one. But there is something odd in the quality of this success. I think the argument was that television is prone to such content by the very nature of the medium, a screen that sedates the viewer.
I saw that happen to Marie Winn. We can throw our sets in the garbage pail where they belong. Mander’s approach is to inflate the urgency of his arguments using a carte-blanche, escalate-it-all strategy. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills, growing fresh, natural produce at home, and more.
And though it will say many obvious things, it’s worth reading for the well organized thought it contains. I read this book probably 30 years ago and found it to be such an eye opener. I am re-watching the Ken Burns’ documentary on the Vietnam War and this book brought back to mind the segments in the documentary showing pre-emptive Presidential news conferences broadcast across all channels on TV in which both LBJ and, later, Nixon, utterly lied through their teeth about the war.
Because of its cost, the limited kind of information it can disseminate, the way it transforms the people who use it, and the fact that a few speak while millions absorb, television is suitable for use only by the most powerful corporate interests in the country. Bahkan, melihatkan latar belakang penulis, saya kira teori beliau bagi buku ini berkemungkinan berasaskan bias ‘balas dendam’; setelah beliau ditendang keluar dari industri pengiklanan dan tv!
This cannot be changed. There’s a lot of commentary here about mass media in general, about culture, even criticism of capitalism. I would be interested in Mander’s take on how the Internet has–or hasn’t– changed his arguments in the intervening decades. Television keeps awareness contained within its own rigid channels, a tiny fraction of the natural information field.
We have seen various levels of legal control put upon tobacco, saccharin, some food dyes, certain uses of polychlorinated biphenyls, aerosols, fluoroscopes and X rays to name a few.
Jul 28, Michael Perkins rated it really liked it. Aug 16, Mark Singer rated it really liked it Recommends it for: Mnder a good warning in general, but I have no televidion to believe that television hinders some innate intuition of how fr world works as the author would lead me to believe.
It changes family relationships. This last question always filled me with the most uncomfortable feeling. The author argues that in varied technologies and institutions such as militaries, automobiles, nuclear power plants, mass production, and advertising, the basic form of the institution and the technology determines its interaction with the world, the way it will be used, the kind of people who use it, and to what ends.
And yet, I have to hope it can. From the time of the early sit-ins, it expressed conflict.
Elmiination with the venality of its controllers, the technology of television predetermines the boundaries of its content. Well, for Christ sake, how are you going to sell your book?
Each technical event—each alteration of what would be natural imagery—is intended to keep your attention from wandering as it might otherwise. David Brower, president of Friends of the Earth, has argued that unlike human beings accused of crimes, all technologies should be assumed guilty of dangerous effects until proven innocent. The government always gets involved in these things and can hijack them to serve themselves at the expense of the population.
If we banned all nature shows or news broadcasts from television, due to the unavoidable and very dangerous distortions and aberrations which are inherent in televising these subjects, then this would leave other, better-qualified media to report them to us. How did you feel at the end of his speech? If there were more programs about this or more programs about that, then we’d have “good television”. No matter what is on television, the viewer is sitting in a darkened room with almost all systems shut down, looking at a flickering light.