Part of what complicates this, of course, is a seeming cultural phenomenon that entertainment must permeate every crevice of our short little existences. I don't know whether this is likely to veer off topic to the point where my first post shall result in my lynching; if so, I offer my profuse aplogies and beg some form of relative mercy.
Living in America, I'm inclined to believe that this is a largely American phenomenon, but given some of the responses here it seems that I'm happily—or sadly—mistaken. I have two main objections to the television-as-constant-presence issue:
One. Must we always be entertained? I don't think it's either radical or conservative to believe that entertainment is not something that should be constant. If it is, I would think that it fairly rapidly ceases to be as entertaining. No, I'm not advocating that we live our lives in a perpetual state of sheer boredom, but there are other things you can do.
Two. Must we spend our lives gaping passively at a sheet of lights? One of the reasons why I reserve television for the important things (electoral debates, world crises, et cetera) is that I find television to be a remarkably unappealing medium. You stare at it, you listen to it, and maybe contemplate briefly what you are starting at and listening to. The same, you argue, could be said of books, but with books you are necessarily more involved in the progression of the narrative. Computers, too, are interactive and thus require that you have a spark of electrical current above three volts in your cranium.
For me, at least, these faults are only compounded in a public setting. Still, I think that the very nature of a public place demands a certain amount of respect from those enjoying it, if only to allow others to do the same. In this regard I think that TV-B-Gone–like devices is unethical in all but the most extreme circumstances. Like our leaders in the Senate, I don't want to define what “extreme circumstances”, because doing so will almost certainly cheapen their currency. |
