Misstropolis

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

In Defense of TV

by Maxine Effenson Chuck

Email to a friendPrint this article

I resent the implication, promoted by too many people, that TV is anti-intellectual and that letting our children watch television is irresponsible. Those making this claim clearly don’t indulge or are simply close-minded.

People on the TV-is-anti-intellectual bandwagon claim that everything on television is garbage; it rots kids’ brains and causes childhood obesity. Come on! Sure, if you stick your kid in front of the TV with a bowl of chips, a box of cookies, and a gallon of grape juice, he or she may gain weight. Take some responsibility! It’s not television causing the problem; it’s the parents using television as an electronic baby-sitter.

As with everything, parents need to use good judgment. Newton Minnow, the former FCC Chairman, said, “When television is good, nothing is better. When it’s bad, nothing is worse.” These days, there’s so much on television that is good, and it is getting better.

Many of the people who chastise those of us who let our kids watch TV will take their kids to the movies to see Hollywood-produced drivel; or they will allow their children to rent movies that are more violent and have more blatant sexuality than what they’d see on television. How is that any better? In the February 26, 2007 issue of Newsweek, author Devin Gordon wrote, in an article entitled, Why TV is Better Than the Movies, “It’s dangerous to make broad generalizations about TV versus film without sounding as though you’re comparing apples and tubas, but let’s do it anyway: television is running circles around the movies.” Thank you Devin Gordon!

Anyone who has watched shows like “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” “The Office,” or even “American Idol” cannot claim that these shows rot our brains. We learn from some, laugh at others, or are simply entertained. Many of these shows will become part of our cultural history. If our kids learn about what’s happening in the world from John Stewart, what’s wrong with that? If they learn how to diagnose “broken-heart syndrome” from both “House” and “Scrubs,” who’s to cast stones? When my 14-year old daughter was in fifth grade, and was learning about The Odyssey, she was able to discuss it in detail because she recognized the story from “The Simpsons.” Who’s to judge? My 24-year old stepdaughter grew up on “The Simpsons” as well, and honed her comedic skills from “Seinfeld,” “Friends,” and even “Full House.” As a writer/editor/cover producer for www.msnbc.com, she wrote about her continuing obsession with “Full House” in a section called Guilty Pleasures. Okay, maybe it’s not great television, but she seems to have turned out just fine (as have the Olson twins, bouts of anorexia notwithstanding).

According to Nielsen Media Research, “The typical American home received 104 television channels in 2006.” I’ll admit, with 104 channels, there’s bound to be some pretty loathsome stuff. Yet on any given night, there’s enough to keep my husband and me (and our daughter, after sports and homework) glued to the television, while our DVR and TiVo are capturing all the shows that we can’t watch simultaneously.

I grew up on television. My husband’s a devotee. And our two girls, both with and without us, have spent a lot of time watching the small screen. Not only do I refuse to feel guilty about that; I relish it. Anti-intellectual? Three of the four of us are professional writers. Our youngest is a straight-A English student. So who’s to judge?