Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:37:24 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         TBN@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject:      TV and brain waves

Jorge Dasilvaalvo  writes:

>
>=== Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:29:56 WET
>=== From:         "psp.dasilvaalvo" <J.H.Dasilvaalvo@SEQ.HULL.AC.UK>
>=== Subject:      Neural development and TV
>
>Hi all,
>
>I would like to know what is your reaction to the article in Science,
>vol.258, pag.738 with the title 'Does TV Stunt Neural Development'. Half
>way through this article Constance Holden says that '... some people
>have become attracted to the notion that heavy viewing may actually
>affect brain development in young children- specifically, by
>contributing to the so-called epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorders,
>which is associated with impaired learning and anti-social behavior.'
>The article finishes by suggesting that one should '...turn the thing
>off.' On the other hand those that do research in this topic suggest
>that children should be taugh whatching TV. It seems to me that this
>article shows clearly the rather opposite poles between research
>evidence and media manipulation of science. Is that you impression as
>well?
>
>Bye.
>Jorge.
>-------------------

One book that I've found to be well-written, interesting, and very
informative is Jerry Mander's (yes, unbelivably enough, that is his real
name!) _Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television_. I think it's
circa 1978, published by Morrow in NY, NY.

Mander attacks television on all fronts. He cites the brainwave studies
referred to by another psycgradder which demonstrated that t.v. essentially
puts viewers to sleep when they watch. In addition, related research has
shown that viewers are slower to respond to emergency situations than
non-viewers, that viewers have more distorted and stereotyped views of the
world than do non-viewers, etc.

Equally disturbing are some of the social implications which Mander raises
about the medium. For example, complex messages do not translate as well as
do simple messages through the medium. Another problem with it is that it
breeds fantasy at the expense of reality--for example, why bother to
preserve wetlands or travel to see wetlands when one can experience ersatz
wetlands on TV? Furthermore, what we see on TV is mediated by those who
control TV. Those who control TV receive astonishingly huge amounts of
money from corporate sponsors, and the broadcasters are beholden to those
corporations to not rock the boat--yes, Virginia, that includes PBS as
well--they are "sponsored" just like all of the other networks.

TV is a very pernicious medium in a lot of ways, perhaps the worst of which
is that it provides an "easy out" and allows folks to switch off their
minds and stop thinking about important world issues--and this is
particularly insideous when people spend a lot time sitting and watching TV
news to become "better informed". If one watches news a lot, what will they
actually get out and do to make the world a better, healthier place?

Last, but not least, TV feeds us images and sounds at a fixed rate--our
brains are opened and images and sounds are poured in--we can't evaluate,
we can't think about what we're witnessing. Contrast TV with the print
media wherein with the latter, a reader may stop to re-read or re-evaluate
any given sentence or paragraph. Not so with TV.

Just my  $ 2 * 10**-2 worth.

cheers,

Tor