CarversDog
RIP
I know I'm going to be called an elitist for even saying this but it's been proven time and time again that indulging in the arts (music, literature, art and architecture, dance, etc.) expands the human intellect and creates a craving for more, creates a hunger for intellectual nourishment that might otherwise be absent without such stimulation.
If even half of those people trampling another human being (back to the cogent point here) were taking their plasma TVs home to indulge in Charlie Rose or C-Span or The History Channel even four hours out of their average 28-hour viewing time per week, I would have no elitist beef. But that's simply not the case and the numbers bear it out. From the NYT, December 1, 2008 edition:
TOP-RATED BROADCAST TELEVISION SHOWS - November 17-23
(1 ratings point, per Nielsen Ratings, equals 1.14 million homes)
Dancing With the Stars 10.9
CSI 10.6
NCIS 10.2
CSI: Miami 9.8
Criminal Minds 9.7
The Mentalist 9.3
NFL: Colts/Chargers 9.0
Grey's Anatomy 9.0
That's just broadcast TV stats (the major nets: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.), don't make me drag out the cable stats, they're equally dumbed-down, and remember those rating points are per 1.14 million homes. If people were utilizing their electronics to expand their intellect ... well, hell yeah. But they aren't. What was it Howard Beale said in "Network"? "Television isn't the real thing, you people are the real thing." The internet and 500-channel TV lineups have afforded people the opportunity to use mass media to expand their minds in ways we had never even thought of before and look at what they are using it for instead ... jerking off to one mindless forensic crime show after another.
MJP, you and your wife probably got home after purchasing that art, poured a glass of wine after hanging the pieces on the wall, and sat and admired your acquisitions and it more likely than not led to at least one stimulating conversation. What sort of intellectual discourse follows an episode of "Dancing With the Stars"?
Ummm ... I'm not saying, incidentally, that I would support manslaughter for the privelege of watching Congressional sessions on a big-ass 90" plasma TV. Just wanted to clear that up.
If even half of those people trampling another human being (back to the cogent point here) were taking their plasma TVs home to indulge in Charlie Rose or C-Span or The History Channel even four hours out of their average 28-hour viewing time per week, I would have no elitist beef. But that's simply not the case and the numbers bear it out. From the NYT, December 1, 2008 edition:
TOP-RATED BROADCAST TELEVISION SHOWS - November 17-23
(1 ratings point, per Nielsen Ratings, equals 1.14 million homes)
Dancing With the Stars 10.9
CSI 10.6
NCIS 10.2
CSI: Miami 9.8
Criminal Minds 9.7
The Mentalist 9.3
NFL: Colts/Chargers 9.0
Grey's Anatomy 9.0
That's just broadcast TV stats (the major nets: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.), don't make me drag out the cable stats, they're equally dumbed-down, and remember those rating points are per 1.14 million homes. If people were utilizing their electronics to expand their intellect ... well, hell yeah. But they aren't. What was it Howard Beale said in "Network"? "Television isn't the real thing, you people are the real thing." The internet and 500-channel TV lineups have afforded people the opportunity to use mass media to expand their minds in ways we had never even thought of before and look at what they are using it for instead ... jerking off to one mindless forensic crime show after another.
MJP, you and your wife probably got home after purchasing that art, poured a glass of wine after hanging the pieces on the wall, and sat and admired your acquisitions and it more likely than not led to at least one stimulating conversation. What sort of intellectual discourse follows an episode of "Dancing With the Stars"?
Ummm ... I'm not saying, incidentally, that I would support manslaughter for the privelege of watching Congressional sessions on a big-ass 90" plasma TV. Just wanted to clear that up.
