Watching Tv Makes You Smarter Analysis

Americans are spending more time watching television, rather than spending time with their families. This is an issue these two texts are emphasizing. However, Goodman is more effective than Bradbury in conveying her message that television viewing is harmful. Goodman uses techniques such as facts & statistics, direct statement, and cause/effects in her text to get her point across.

The sleeper curve, (cite) a system developed by Steven Johnson and detailed in his article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” (cite) This system is designed to track different characters and story arcs throughout an episode to showcase its complexity. Johnson argues that his system proves that television has become smarter, more complex, and is able to deliver more information to the viewer than ever before. Johnson says that modern television is a mental workout that should not only be enjoyed, but encouraged. (cite) Johnsons’ argument is false. His evidence is built entirely around a system that he developed, and all that his system does is prove that television has become more complex. The main

By calling TV parlors a “claw that encloses you”, Bradbury contrastingly expresses how the parlors engulf people, overwhelming their senses and not providing the necessary time to challenge the information provided. Books provide arguable ideas that have substance. You can not challenge something that does have depth. Without the ability to reflect, what you see becomes what you believe because society has not given you the tools to think on your own. Because everyone watches the Parlor family, all ideas become the same, suppressing individuality and creating a dystopian society.

In the book, The Worst Years of Our Lives, Barbara Ehrenreich describes the current American response to the modern television. She believes that television had changed overtime as over a decade ago, a majority of things shown on television were things people could do themselves. Today, however, television is full of violence, close-range shooting, racing, etc. This worries her because today's people are unable to do what they see on television and eventually become "couch potatoes" when they watch for hours at a time. Her belief is that there's no reason for a person to continue watching television due to the boredom and jealousy it causes.

In “Life According to T.V.” written by Harry Waters and published in Newsweek in 1991, Waters examines the effect that television has on everyday lives. He says that TV has given Americans an unrealistic view of how life works. From jobs to minorities to how women are portrayed to crime rates nearly all aspects of TV are unrealistic or exaggerated. George Gerbner was used to back up Water’s theory on how television impacts people. Water states that heavy viewers of TV are more unrealistic in their view of the world than light viewers because they are exposed to more of the unrealistic ideas portrayed in TV shows than light viewers. The jobs on TV are often expressed as high ranking jobs like lawyers, doctors and athletes rather than blue collar or service jobs such as small businessman or teacher. According Waters the elderly are depicted as being sick and weak when they are actually the opposite. Women are also portrayed as mothers and lovers more often than successful working women.

Johnson shows the reader another chart for “the most ambitious show on TV to date, The Sopranos,” which “routinely follows up to a dozen distinct threads over the course of an episode” (Johnson). By providing these charts, Johnson shows his readers a portrait of the Sleeper Curve over the past thirty years in popular television. Before Hill Street Blues, the golden rule among television executives was that audiences were not comfortable following more than three plots in each episode, but within just three decades shows like The Sopranos have become popular because of the multi-threaded plot lines. Johnson believes that because of this burst in narrative threads, the amount of “flashing arrows”, inserting something in the script that reduces the amount of analytic work on the viewer, have greatly decreased. He says

Have you ever heard that too much television can ruin a child’s mind? Malcolm Gladwell proposes in his article, “Brain Candy,” that playing video games or watching television is just as important as reading a book. Gladwell is using rhetorical appeals to prove that in fact, video games are not dumbing down society. Pop culture is helping to improve test scores and knowledge. In “Brain Candy,” Malcolm Gladwell does affectively use rhetorical appeals to convince his audience that pop culture is making our society smarter.

Through David Letterman, Rudy and Ron’s fear as well as Edilyn’s confusion, Wallace examines television’s role in American culture especially in making pop culture. In fact, this

Also on the contrary to Johnsons article, Stevens discusses the examples of television shows that Johnson mentions that he is convinced enhances brain function by making the viewers pay attention, make inferences, and track shifting relationships between characters. Some of these shows are The Sopranos, 24, Hill Street Blues, and others. The show The Sopranos, is a prime example because this show will “connect multiple threads at the same time, layering one plot atop another” (Johnson, 283). Therefore, The Sopranos require a lot more attention from their audience engaging them with complex characterization and intertwining multiple episodes, which is what Johnson calls the “Sleeper Curve.” But does engaging in television shows such as this benefit the brain in anyway? Stevens says no; she believes in watching shows like these, “watching TV teaches you to watch more TV” (Stevens, 296).

     But, for most part, author feel television is 'drug'; that is corrupting today's society. Many of us fail to recognize how it has caused the decline of family rituals, the avoidance of relationships and the destruction of the family. Our addiction to this daily habit cause us to escape the real world.

An ongoing discussion about the value of Television has been whether it makes the watcher smarter or dumber. In a 2005 article about Television, Steven Johnson presented several arguments that Television makes the watcher smarter, contrary to some popularly held notions that Television is involved in the dumbing down of Television watchers. Johnson argues that Television makes you smarter for three reasons: multiple threads; fewer flashing arrows; and social networking. Johnson states that, unlike Television shows such as "Bonanza" in the "Golden Age of Television," modern Television shows such as "Hill Street Blues," "24" and "The Sopranos" carry multiple narrative threads about a number of major and minor characters. These multiple threads, according to Johnson, mean that the audience must

Steven Johnson 's argument is that television can actually make you smarter because when you watch a show, you are trying to understand everything that is happening. Today’s shows have a lot of action and scenes trying to keep people’s attention. Therefore, people carefully tune in to television shows trying to understand everything that goes on during the show. Johnson said, “You have to pay attention, make inferences, and track shifting social relationships.” For instance, depending on how the characters interact with one another, changes happen as the plot of the story continues on. An example of this is if a character happens to disagree with another character and an enemy of both characters comes into the mix, and those two characters join forces to defeat their enemy. The spontaneous changes like this constantly change the storyline to make it more interesting for the viewer. Johnson mentions the “Sleeper Curve” and how it is considered to “enhance our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down." The author displayed several examples showing the many plots that happen throughout different shows. The more complex the show, the "Sleeper Curve" pattern was more detailed.

Today, Film and Television are among the most internationally supported commodities. Financially, their contributions are enormous: both industries are responsible for the circulation of billions of dollars each year. Since their respective explosions into the new media markets during the mid-twentieth century, film and television have produced consistently growing numbers of viewers and critics alike. Sparking debate over the nature of their viewing, film and television are now being questioned in social, political, and moral arenas for their potential impact on an audience. Critics claim that watching films or television is a passive activity in which the viewer becomes subconsciously

Television executive Lauren Zalaznick, gave a presentation called “The conscience of television” for TED Talk which she discussed past five decades of the highest standing shows on air. Zalaznick runs studies which go to great lengths on how the topics of television shows changed from decade to decade and how viewers changed the reason of watching based on what was happening in the world. Television’s conscious effects our emotions, challenges our values, and influences our views on the world by what we choice to watch.

Are television series becoming more popular? The very reason for choosing this topic is indicative of how important T.V. shows have become. Today, the people working on the small screen are no less famous and rich than the stars working in movies. Yes, that same old idiot box, vast wasteland, cheap babysitter has creatively matured and pinned down movies to the mat of popular culture. In spite of being similar, they are different as T.V. series go in much depth, have a lower production cost than movies and also have thought-provoking work which is intrinsically difficult to find in movies. They also provide a more satisfying emotional experience.