ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) (08/13/85)
> > I am courious if there are other families > > without the one-eyed monster and how well is it going for them. > > What activities were done in place of this national pasttime? > > How do the kids survive amoung friends if they don't know what is > > currently the big sho'? > > > > Robert Dexter When I was very young (8 or 9 years old) I had a friend down the street whose father would not allow a TV in the house. My friend spent most of his time watching TV at our house and another friend's house. I remember he would come over to play and all he wanted to do was watch TV. It was a drag because we (friends with TVs) usually wanted to go outside. > I'm impatient in front of the TV > (especially the dumb commercials you get bombarded with so frequently). > > I definitely think that the small percentage of > good programming on TV does not justify owning one. (When you do, its > harder to limit your watching to the good stuff.) > There's more than a small percentage. Rent a TV and get cable for a while. SKIP THE COMMERCIAL NETWORK CHANNELS and go directly to PBS, CNN, C-SPAN, Arts and Entertainment (A&E), National Geographic Explorer on Nickelodeon (this program is GREAT!), the Health and Medicine channel, sports (ESPN and USA, etc.). Cable TV provides a variety of very educational, entertaining, and generally worthwhile programming -- just give it a chance. PBS alone is worth the investment. > I definitely think that the small percentage of > good programming on TV does not justify owning one. (When you do, its > harder to limit your watching to the good stuff.) > The aforementioned programming IS worth it. As for limiting one's watching to good stuff... well, if you don't like what you or your kids are watching, change channels or turn the TV off. Also, most cable companies offer channel controls that allow you to lock-out channels that you don't want to receive. > Encourage > your kids to read more than watch TV and they'll have some things they're > "up on" that the other kids aren't. I think reading generally provides > more exercise for the imagination than TV, hence developing it more. I agree, but no TV at all?? > Kids can learn early on that what the crowd does isn't always the greatest > thing and being up on the latest show is no big deal. It can be a big deal if most of your friends are always talking about something you know nothing about. > will probably get some TV at a friend's house, anyway; hopefully much > less than if you owned one yourself.) > > When it does happen > make arragements to watch at a friend's house or borrow a portable. > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Do you think your neighbors appreciate this? I wouldn't, knowing you don't have a TV. Like it or not, TV is a very important and pervasive communications medium. It's important that children are exposed to it, understand it, and learn how to use it responsibly and constructively. I feel that just removing it from the house is a mistake. -- Ned Robie
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (09/11/85)
In article <303@SCIRTP.UUCP> ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: >> I am courious if there are other families >> without the one-eyed monster and how well is it going for them. >> What activities were done in place of this national pasttime? >> How do the kids survive amoung friends if they don't know what is >> currently the big sho'? >> >> Robert Dexter > > >> I'm impatient in front of the TV >> (especially the dumb commercials you get bombarded with so frequently). >> > >> I definitely think that the small percentage of >> good programming on TV does not justify owning one. (When you do, its >> harder to limit your watching to the good stuff.) >> > >There's more than a small percentage. Rent a TV and get cable for a while. >SKIP THE COMMERCIAL NETWORK CHANNELS and go directly to PBS, CNN, C-SPAN, >Arts and Entertainment (A&E), National Geographic Explorer on Nickelodeon >(this program is GREAT!), the Health and Medicine channel, sports (ESPN >and USA, etc.). Cable TV provides a variety of very educational, entertaining, >and generally worthwhile programming -- just give it a chance. PBS alone >is worth the investment. > I don't own a tv, but I don't have children either. I have had a tv in the past, and I have had cable. And I would have to say that I really didn't find it worth it. There were some things about cable that I liked, mostly the fact that some networks carried old sitcoms. (Burns and Allen, etc.) There are some PBS shows that I enjoy, but where you live will determine just how good your PBS station is. For instance, I used to get the one from Chicago (I lived in Gary) and that was great. The one out here I find not nearly so good - at least not good enough to justify getting a tv. What you learn from educational channels I've found you can learn just as well from other resources, for the most part. There are some good things on tv (I even like some of the commercial network programs - I've really seen nothing on cable or PBS that I found any more entertaining and worthwhile as the Cosby show or Hill Street Blues), but I don't think that it's worth getting a tv - at least for me. >> Kids can learn early on that what the crowd does isn't always the greatest >> thing and being up on the latest show is no big deal. > >It can be a big deal if most of your friends are always talking about something >you know nothing about. But, if you are only letting your kids watch what's "worthwhile", PBS, the arts channel, etc. then they still aren't going to be able to relate to what their friends are talking about, which will most likely be The "A" Team. Like I said though, I don't have any children. If I did, I might get a tv, but not so that my kids could keep up with their friends. There would probably be three types of programs as far as my children were concerned. One would be shows that I would actually try to get them to watch. This would probably only include old situation comedies (because that was a big and very enjoyable part of my youth) and Sesame Street - which is by far and away the best children's television program ever made, in my opinion. The second group would be things that I would let them watch occasionally, when it was convenient. This would include most anything else on PBS, and the two commercial channel programs that I mentioned above. Everything else would fall under the category of never being watched, by either my children or by myself. >Like it or not, TV is a very important and pervasive communications medium. >It's important that children are exposed to it, understand it, and learn how to >use it responsibly and constructively. I feel that just removing it from the >house is a mistake. I don't agree. I would probably get one, but I certainly wouldn't disagree with anyone who chose not to have one. cheers - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)
ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie) (09/18/85)
> What you learn from educational channels I've > found you can learn just as well from other resources, for the most > part. Really? What other sources?? Assuming that any channel is potentially "educational" (except maybe the Playboy channel :-), TV allows me to SEE the bottoms of seas, the tops of mountains, the people and geography of this country and other countries, the racial strife in South Africa, the industrial empire of Japan, the Olympics, ballets, symphonies, jazz, ....... I could go on and on. What other source offers this wealth of information as graphically, conveniently, and cheaply as TV? > There are some good things on tv (I even like some of the > commercial network programs - I've really seen nothing on cable or PBS > that I found any more entertaining and worthwhile as the Cosby show or > Hill Street Blues), but I don't think that it's worth getting a tv - at > least for me. The intent of my posting was to encourage people that were turned off by commercial network TV to try the alternative programming available on cable. Since commercial network TV has only gotten worse, I doubt that it has any more to offer these people than it did before (except for the rare exceptions of Emmy award winning shows, two of which you mentioned above). > >> Kids can learn early on that what the crowd does isn't always the greatest > >> thing and being up on the latest show is no big deal. > > > >It can be a big deal if most of your friends are always talking about something > >you know nothing about. > > But, if you are only letting your kids watch what's "worthwhile", > PBS, the arts channel, etc. then they still aren't going to be able to > relate to what their friends are talking about, which will most likely > be The "A" Team. I never endorsed the idea of only letting one's kids watch PBS, the arts channels, etc. My kids are allowed to watch non-violent shows on commercial network TV. Suits me fine if my kids can't participate in discussions about violent shows (or movies) with friends. -- Ned Robie > elizabeth g. purtell