Living Car Free - TV and the auto industry

i watch a little tv, i only get free tv though just the 5 or so channels that come through...it is really amazing how many commercials related to the automotive industry there are on tv. i only watch at night after 7pm or so, maybe that has something to do with it

i got to thinking if this were true, can commercial tv stations survive without the automotive industry pumping large sums of money with advertisements. tv needs cars and car companies need tv? i guess, the only other major genre might be medicine commercials by the pharmaceutical industry. does anybody have website that loox into this kind of stuff?

I watch prime-time TV a fair bit. One of the major car-makers is trying to tell us that we'll love one of their new cars as though they were a member of our family, and another is trying to get us to buy our sweetie a luxury car for christmas. Saab tells us their cars are good because the cars are designed by people that design jets. As far as I know, though, Saab the jet-maker and Saab the auto-maker are now separate companies, with the automaker owned by General Motors and selling cars that are only different from their GM (or Subaru) counterpart in cosmetic details.

I love the "automotive utopia" that is always shown in car commercials. You know the one, where your car is the ONLY one on the road. I've got this idea where if I had lots of money (millions) I would donate a huge amount to a group like Addbusters to do a spoof car commercial where the fancy new car just sits in a traffic jam for the 30 second spot without moving. Back it up with some driving rock or techno to make it doubly ridiculous. Show it during primetime for a few weeks, perhaps on Monday Night Football.

i got to thinking if this were true, can commercial tv stations survive without the automotive industry pumping large sums of money with advertisements. tv needs cars and car companies need tv?

Well, I work for a company that provides proprietary advertising systems for TV stations. We lift up the program and stuff in advertising around the periphery.

Automobiles, especially the local dealers are considered the cash-cows of TV especially for local stations. :p

I would donate a huge amount to a group like Addbusters to do a spoof car commercial where the fancy new car just sits in a traffic jam for the 30 second spot without moving.

You missed it. Last Spring, Chevrolet had a "User Generated", make your own Tahoe commercial building website and contest. Many of the entries were very anti-SUV. I even made a couple myself. Heres a New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/business/media/04adco.html?ex=1301803200&en=280e20c8ba110565&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt) article about it.

Here's some samples of what was done. Chevy Tahoe on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chevy+tahoe). Mine is at Tahoe Apprentice You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azqvP-f94Cs). Enjoy!

Television's influence goes beyond the car commercials. I suspect that many of the dumb remarks from car culture apologists are caused by the uncritical thinking that TV encourages. Last month I went with my mother to her geriatric doctor and the doctor was asking me about her mental activities. How much she reads the newspaper etc. The doctor said it wasn't enough to browse the newspaper but she should discuss what she has read. I asked the doctor if TV watching had any effect. The doctor got quite animated when she replied "TV is the worst thing for maintaining mental alertness, it actually inhibits it." The doctor noted that it is a good sign that since my mother has been taking her memory medicine she has been reading more and watching less TV. Sometimes I feel that when I talk to someone about car free and get that blank stare I'm talking against years of TV watching.

I've attached an excerpt from a very old book, called something like "Four Reasons to Abolish Television". It was written in the '70s so has some of that era's silliness to it. I read the book a few years ago. Even though I had been TV free for many years prior to reading the book, the author describes some facets I hadn't noticed. In particular "technical events". Although some items in the attached list seem contradictory in isolation, when you get to the list after reading the book you understand that items come from different contexts. The list appears beyond the halfway point in the book but I thought some people in this forum would find some food for thought. If you live a lifestyle that isn't validated by TV it is hard to engage a TV person.

TV lifetstyle...True for the dominant culture in general. Like suggesting to many Americans that the hyper-rich ruling elite may just not be acting in our best interests & can't be trusted....Washington is now what the medieval Vatican was....war is good, & every war is a holy crusade.

Auto companies and auto dealers are by far the biggest advertisers in the world. that's what we're up against!

and not just on TV. Magazines, radio, newspapers, billboards. . . . Even bikeforums carries ads for cars! :eek:

You missed it. Last Spring, Chevrolet had a "User Generated", make your own Tahoe commercial building website and contest. Many of the entries were very anti-SUV. I even made a couple myself. Heres a New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/business/media/04adco.html?ex=1301803200&en=280e20c8ba110565&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt) article about it.

Here's some samples of what was done. Chevy Tahoe on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chevy+tahoe). Mine is at Tahoe Apprentice You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azqvP-f94Cs). Enjoy!
hey, i missed that, thanks for that ny times article!..oh, nice ad

i can't recall ever seeing a bicycle commercial on TV, like ever..

Television's influence goes beyond the car commercials. I suspect that many of the dumb remarks from car culture apologists are caused by the uncritical thinking that TV encourages. Last month I went with my mother to her geriatric doctor and the doctor was asking me about her mental activities. How much she reads the newspaper etc. The doctor said it wasn't enough to browse the newspaper but she should discuss what she has read. I asked the doctor if TV watching had any effect. The doctor got quite animated when she replied "TV is the worst thing for maintaining mental alertness, it actually inhibits it." The doctor noted that it is a good sign that since my mother has been taking her memory medicine she has been reading more and watching less TV. Sometimes I feel that when I talk to someone about car free and get that blank stare I'm talking against years of TV watching.

I've attached an excerpt from a very old book, called something like "Four Reasons to Abolish Television". It was written in the '70s so has some of that era's silliness to it. I read the book a few years ago. Even though I had been TV free for many years prior to reading the book, the author describes some facets I hadn't noticed. In particular "technical events". Although some items in the attached list seem contradictory in isolation, when you get to the list after reading the book you understand that items come from different contexts. The list appears beyond the halfway point in the book but I thought some people in this forum would find some food for thought. If you live a lifestyle that isn't validated by TV it is hard to engage a TV person.
beautiful, i have to get that book...all thoze points are highlighted when you watch the 11 o'clock news on any given night...thanks

found it: Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander, 1978
it was reviewed 57 times on Amazon

Auto companies and auto dealers are by far the biggest advertisers in the world. that's what we're up against!

and not just on TV. Magazines, radio, newspapers, billboards. . . . Even bikeforums carries ads for cars! :eek:

yeah, it's funny, they advertise in bicycle mags, every issue in every mag i have
but as the guy said above...how can the bike editors turn away a fat cash cow

If you don't like what's on television don't watch it. Simple, really. As it is, I rarely watch commercial television anyway, and when I do I generally get up and do something else during a commercial break.

And yes, commercial TV stations would probably survive without car companies pumping large sums of money into them. All they would do is cut their budget and produce crappy content cheaply. People would still watch, and that would keep all the other advertisers interested. We've already seen that sort of thing happen with so-called "Reality TV".

If you don't like what's on television don't watch it.
+1

shoot, guys, i did not say...oh, why bother

Down in the desert they have car commericals with snow.

Ok PHoenix has had snow twice since they started recording.

I don't own a tv so I can not help.

found it: Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander, 1978
it was reviewed 57 times on Amazon
Yes thats it. I picked it up from a discard bin. My copy had been used in some college course. I wonder how he'd discuss the internet and those huge plasma high definition TVs? The thing that struck me was his disucussion of what he called technical events. Unreal manipulation of the images. Chris L.'s response is the one I come up with when I hear people complain about it. The problem with our snippy response is that it stops discussion with the complainer, and the complainer probably won't unplug the thing anyway. Jerry Mander's book has some good discussion points to keep a conversation going.

can commercial tv stations survive without the automotive industry pumping large sums of money with advertisements. tv needs cars and car companies need tv? The same question was asked about the big bucks from tobacco companies that TV used to get. Belief was that if the cigarette money dried up TV would fail.

The same question was asked about the big bucks from tobacco companies that TV used to get. Belief was that if the cigarette money dried up TV would fail.

TV is very wobbly right now. A lot of the advertising dollars are going to the web instead. That's one important thing about the cessation of analog TV signals and the complete switchover to digital. With digital compression, station owners have room for an additional channel or two in their market. TV advertising is getting cheap.

Also look for a lot of ads to be underneath, beside, around and even in front of the TV program. What happens is that the networks sell out all the ad space for prime time and major sports programs. The local stations have to carry it. The only place they can make up their money on shows like this is to advertise in the periphery.

. . . .
i can't recall ever seeing a bicycle commercial on TV, like ever..
But have you noticed that about half of the car commercials on TV have a bike somewhere in them? Watch for it.

The same question was asked about the big bucks from tobacco companies that TV used to get. Belief was that if the cigarette money dried up TV would fail.

Personally I'm more confused by the belief that TV failing would necessarily be a bad thing. Can someone clarify that for me please?

Personally I'm more confused by the belief that TV failing would necessarily be a bad thing.

I would have no objection to TV failing, but I don't think it's realistic to expect it. TV may continue to lose out on ad revenues, but TV networks can survive on lower budgets.

London (UK) has started to advertise on television the benefits of cycling as a way of getting around the city. It's a bit idealistic (empty roads, sunny days, etc) but the numbers of cyclists are rapidly increasing thanks mainly to an ever-rising congestion charge on vehicles.

I download all the TV shows I want to watch.
I agree, there should be commercials for bikes.

I would have no objection to TV failing, but I don't think it's realistic to expect it. TV may continue to lose out on ad revenues, but TV networks can survive on lower budgets.

I agree. It's not that TV will cease to exist, but rather like AM radio, the programming will get cheaper and cheaper. We will see it populated with talk shows, game shows, informercials and reruns of old TV shows and movies...

Wait, that's how it is now. :eek:

Personally I'm more confused by the belief that TV failing would necessarily be a bad thing. Can someone clarify that for me please?
Government will never let it happen...remember George Orwell's 1984:eek: :D FWIW I grew up in a home with no television and seldom watch it now. There are some great shows out there on the specialty channels like Discovery and History but the rest is still a vast waste land...maybe we need a Bicycle Channel...24/7 Bike Porn:love: :roflmao:

Aaron:)

Government will never let it happen...

Why would Government care? If TV disappeared it would only be because nobody was watching it, meaning that there would be no votes at stake as an incentive to keep it.

As I said before, it won't disappear because people will still watch cheaply produced television anyway, so there will always be profits to be had in the industry. The point I was making is that TV could come and go and I wouldn't care either way. The one decent program in Australian television was axed a couple of weeks ago, and even then I rarely had time to watch it anyway.

Chris...ever read George Orwell's 1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)? It was required reading when I was in school...:p

Aaron:)

Government will never let it happen...remember George Orwell's 1984:eek: :D FWIW I grew up in a home with no television and seldom watch it now. There are some great shows out there on the specialty channels like Discovery and History but the rest is still a vast waste land...maybe we need a Bicycle Channel...24/7 Bike Porn:love: :roflmao:

Aaron:)
As more effective thought control comes online Government will let TV whither like a previous poster mentioned AM Radio.

The few times I've been over at a friends house and seen Discovery and History channels the message has been weirdly inaccurate. The topics might be interesting in themselves but the show producers needed to gussy up the presentation with falsehoods. The book about Four Reasons to eliminate TV mentioned earlier speculates on why this happens. A bicycle channel would have the same flaws. I'd like to video my daily bike riding through the city to show my car dependent friends but how could it convey any useful information? The images and sounds especially as captured on a helmet mounted camera are such a small fraction of the experience, especially the experience compared to the same route done in a car, that I fear it would give a false impression. As the images swing around with my head turning the viewer would have no clue as to why unless I tried to verbalize "Check left, hold, go, push, lean, brake stand..." and I can't talk that fast and don't talk as I ride anyway. On a long ride in the country the viewer would be bored because the TV can't share the sense of tranquility nor immersion. The footage would have to be edited with quick changing scenes to hold the viewer's attention, and then it would be the same fraud seen on Discovery and History and the car commercials.

I work in television, too, for a big company that sponsors a bike racing team.

The OP's question is interesting - what would happen to tv if a huge segment of ad revenue disappeared?

Don't forget that commercial breaks are becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of the ads you see on TV. Product placement is the way to go. If you think there are a lot of :30 car commercials, try counting the number of brand new cars with grille logos prominently placed you see right in the programs. Those Hummers they drive in CSI, the suv's they get in "the amazing race"... In fact, that's one reason why reality television is so popular right now. Easy to place products.

Remember also that you are not the customer when you watch TV. You are the product. Your attention is being sold to the advertiser, who is the customer. The advertiser pays, the networks sell... you.

If car companies pulled advertising out of television, I think a lot of cable networks would go out of business, but TV would survive. Some other industry would take up the slack.

Very interesting discussion. I wonder how commerical-free television fits into all this. For instance, HBO has some of the very best programming and series on TV (The Wire, Deadwood, documentaries, etc), but it is commercial free (I've seen some product placement, but much less than on network TV).

My argument about TV has always been this: It's like any other media - the form of media itself isn't that important, but rather the quality of the product is. Yes, there quite a bit of mindless TV, but there is also plenty of mindless drivel in the form of books (if you check the best-sellers list, it's mostly sh.it). So how is crappy reading material any different from crappy television? And what about all the ads in magazines? I subscribe to National Geographic, and it features abundant auto ads (many for SUVs and other inefficient off-road vehicles). To me it seems ironic/hypocritical for an environmentally related publication to obtain so much revenue from auto advertising.

I work in television, too, for a big company that sponsors a bike racing team.

The OP's question is interesting - what would happen to tv if a huge segment of ad revenue disappeared?

Don't forget that commercial breaks are becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of the ads you see on TV. Product placement is the way to go. If you think there are a lot of :30 car commercials, try counting the number of brand new cars with grille logos prominently placed you see right in the programs. Those Hummers they drive in CSI, the suv's they get in "the amazing race"... In fact, that's one reason why reality television is so popular right now. Easy to place products.

Remember also that you are not the customer when you watch TV. You are the product. Your attention is being sold to the advertiser, who is the customer. The advertiser pays, the networks sell... you.

If car companies pulled advertising out of television, I think a lot of cable networks would go out of business, but TV would survive. Some other industry would take up the slack.

[URL=http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/[/URL]

"The Medium is the message."

I work in tv also. Sucks don't it?

Yes, there quite a bit of mindless TV, but there is also plenty of mindless drivel in the form of books (if you check the best-sellers list, it's mostly sh.it). So how is crappy reading material any different from crappy television?

There's product placement in those bestsellers, now, too. Flip through a romance novel and look for brand names - you wouldn't believe.

The one that really surprised me a few years ago was the questions on Jeapordy! and other game shows. All for sale. Clever.

Well, I'd love to argue weather this is bad for society or not, but I can't wait to ride home on my Specialized Allez, which I love and was a great value. :)

There's product placement in those bestsellers, now, too. Flip through a romance novel and look for brand names - you wouldn't believe.

The one that really surprised me a few years ago was the questions on Jeapordy! and other game shows. All for sale. Clever.
Exactly. For a comprehensive perspective of how prominent advertising really is, I suggest the book 'The Corporation', published a couple years ago (there's also an accompanying movie that isn't as good). One aspect of the book is a discussion of how pravalent and inescapable advertising is. Sadly, we are all victims: individuals, society, and the larger environment.

I find this argument weak. Cycling and video are not incompatible. Video should be able to tell an interesting story about bicycles or cycling. The real issue with video and cycling is the support required on the video end, sound, camera, lighting, script, etc. The single person with a video camera is going to have a much harder job trying to make the video interesting, which is not to say that it could not be done.

In any case the scenery, well composed shots of cyclists, camping at the end of the day, interviews with the public and participants all woven together should make for ideal material.

....

Yes, there quite a bit of mindless TV, but there is also plenty of mindless drivel in the form of books (if you check the best-sellers list, it's mostly sh.it). So how is crappy reading material any different from crappy television? ...

There is a huge difference. Where to begin? People don't have perfect memories. You can put a book down and pick it up. You can re-read a sentance later to make sure you understand what the author said or to more fully appreciate the author's use of language. You can stop at any point and think about what the author is trying to say and if it is true to your own experience. With TV and movies you can't control the flow rate and don't have time to filter the true from the false. Consider your post, I came back to it and thought about your question. Re read it to see if I had anything to say about your question. I pulled the one thing I thought I could address from the rest. If it had been in a TV show the thoughts would come directly into my brain and be on to new thoughts before I would have time to process anything. Even with poor writing you can get something out of it. There is a guy who writes crappy books (in my opinion) about DC. I've read several of his books because I like the way he trys to accurately depict the city and the various neighborhoods and people who live here. With reading you can filter stuff out and read for what you are trying to get out of the writing.

There is a huge difference. Where to begin? People don't have perfect memories. You can put a book down and pick it up. You can re-read a sentance later to make sure you understand what the author said or to more fully appreciate the author's use of language. You can stop at any point and think about what the author is trying to say and if it is true to your own experience. With TV and movies you can't control the flow rate and don't have time to filter the true from the false. Consider your post, I came back to it and thought about your question. Re read it to see if I had anything to say about your question. I pulled the one thing I thought I could address from the rest. If it had been in a TV show the thoughts would come directly into my brain and be on to new thoughts before I would have time to process anything. Even with poor writing you can get something out of it. There is a guy who writes crappy books (in my opinion) about DC. I've read several of his books because I like the way he trys to accurately depict the city and the various neighborhoods and people who live here. With reading you can filter stuff out and read for what you are trying to get out of the writing.

+1
And reading goes at the speed of my mind:eek: :p

Aaron:)

There is a huge difference. Where to begin? People don't have perfect memories. You can put a book down and pick it up. With TV and movies you can't control the flow rate and don't have time to filter the true from the false.

Gotta love those DVDs. At a poor time in my life, cable was too expensive and TV wouldn't reach into the valley that I lived in. So I discovered about checking out videos and DVDs from the library. You have complete control like a book and can approach it on a number of levels.

A number of years ago, I began to notice that a number of people I knew didn't have TV. And all of them were what I would categorize as very intelligent. I thought it was an interesting trend. Stupid people weren't rejecting TV, intelligent people were.

Now I'm back to watching TV. Actually I was ordered to watch TV by my boss on the basis that as Creative Director for a company that creates advertising systems for broadcasters, I should be aware of what ads are looking like to keep the artwork I create current.

I find this argument weak. Cycling and video are not incompatible. Video should be able to tell an interesting story about bicycles or cycling. The real issue with video and cycling is the support required on the video end, sound, camera, lighting, script, etc. The single person with a video camera is going to have a much harder job trying to make the video interesting, which is not to say that it could not be done.

In any case the scenery, well composed shots of cyclists, camping at the end of the day, interviews with the public and participants all woven together should make for ideal material.
Ideal for selling some advertising but not for conveying to a car dependant person what it is like to use a bike as a car free tool, in my opinion. If car free were a common experience like car driving, then a viewer could fill in the missing pieces with his or her imagination and maybe get some satisfaction from a video say about pedex's daily life but since car free isn't common the car dependent person would get a missperception from a TV show trying to convey the freedom we feel. I base this opinion on my experience with other parts of life that I knew about only from films and TV. I've been completely shocked with the real experience. For example, I grew up seeing Jacques Cousteau movies and TV shows about diving. I thought I knew what to expect when I traveled to Orange Cay in the Bahamas. I had snorkeled near shore and in lakes. The movies and TV shows didn't say or say forcefully enough that the medium ( the film and TV equipment that gets between you and the subject) cannot capture it. I about choked on my first descent, I never learned from all those hours of watching Captain Cousteau what a coral reef is like. Just the dynamic range of light and color can't be captured on film not to mention the immersion in so many strange forms of life. When someone who has never been down on a reef and only seen TV images learns that the worlds coral reefs are dying the person probably doesn't comprehend the extent of loss. If that person gets to vote on whether to save the reef or save his SUV don't be surprised if the reef dies. I've never been to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but after my reef experience I'll have to defer to the people who know it first hand to decide whether or not it is worth saving, I'm now sure that TV and Movies can't do it justice. With cycling, videos, I can imagine race videos because I've been in pacelines and been dropped and exhausted and crashed and bonked but non-cycling people probably get very little out of them.

What I find bizarre about TV watchers is how they believe the TV when it contradicts their own real world experience. When the attacks on Sept. 11 2001 occured I saw several examples of this. I was riding past the pentagon when it was attacked. When I got to the customers site about 1/2 hour later a woman burst out the front door saying that someone had flown a plane into the capitol and someone had detonated a bomb at the state department. I knew this woman had a nice office with a view of the capitol so I believed her. I went to her office to get a look. There she had a TV in the corner. From her chair in her office she could see the TV and the capitol dome without really needing to turn her head. Someone on the TV had said something about the capitol building being attacked and she believed it over the fact of the sight of the capitol still standing and no smoke or anything.

The person who posted saying that people who reject TV are smart may be wrong. Another possiblility which goes along with what my mother's doctor said about TV viewing hastening brain dysfunction - maybe it causes brain dysfunction.

~snip~

The person who posted saying that people who reject TV are smart may be wrong. Another possiblility which goes along with what my mother's doctor said about TV viewing hastening brain dysfunction - maybe it causes brain dysfunction.
+1
Actually I think it may be a combination of the two... I KNOW that my IQ suffers if I watch more than 1/2 an episode of Jerry Springer a year:D :p I also wonder if there is a socio-economic factor in it too, ala smoking...

Aaron:)

I've been without a TV for 3 years now. I feel less anxious, less stupid, I read more, and my critical thinking skills are sharper. Oh, and my housemates and I actually converse. I like the changes.

But have you noticed that about half of the car commercials on TV have a bike somewhere in them? Watch for it.

yes, of course, we see Jeep and BMW or Volvo? giving away a 'mtn' bike with a new purchase of a car

I find this argument weak. Cycling and video are not incompatible. Video should be able to tell an interesting story about bicycles or cycling. The real issue with video and cycling is the support required on the video end, sound, camera, lighting, script, etc. The single person with a video camera is going to have a much harder job trying to make the video interesting, which is not to say that it could not be done.

In any case the scenery, well composed shots of cyclists, camping at the end of the day, interviews with the public and participants all woven together should make for ideal material.
ah, but it has already been happening...i'm 36 but i absolutely love watching the freeride videos from year 2000 to today...make a great soundtrack with guys who can freakin' ride bikes and soot on location in some really cool places and voila, you can make money off these videos...come on, i know i'm not the only old dude watching these things

The now defunct LBS chain I used to work for in the '90s did have a commercial spot on TV. I don't remember the exact content but it was really stupid. The end of the commercial had an old man riding a bike really REALLY slow. Nothing wrong with that but the ad was as boring as stale crackers. They had an excellent opportunity to promote cycling as a fun exciting activity and ruined it. Idiots! And look where they're at now!

A 24/7 bicycle channel would be a GREAT idea! Surely with all the different aspects of cycling (just like here on BF) there should be no problem providing content.

The person who posted saying that people who reject TV are smart may be wrong.

Perhaps you misconstrued my quote. I was talking about people who have actually intentionally stopped watching TV. They either read, watch DVDs or surf the web to get information. All the people that I know who removed TV from their life are well above average.

All the people that I know who removed TV from their life are well above average.
I assume "above average" means sharing your beliefs and/or your lifestyle.

There is a huge difference. Where to begin? People don't have perfect memories. You can put a book down and pick it up. You can re-read a sentance later to make sure you understand what the author said or to more fully appreciate the author's use of language. You can stop at any point and think about what the author is trying to say and if it is true to your own experience. With TV and movies you can't control the flow rate and don't have time to filter the true from the false. Consider your post, I came back to it and thought about your question. Re read it to see if I had anything to say about your question. I pulled the one thing I thought I could address from the rest. If it had been in a TV show the thoughts would come directly into my brain and be on to new thoughts before I would have time to process anything. Even with poor writing you can get something out of it. There is a guy who writes crappy books (in my opinion) about DC. I've read several of his books because I like the way he trys to accurately depict the city and the various neighborhoods and people who live here. With reading you can filter stuff out and read for what you are trying to get out of the writing.
I do see your point, but in some sense I think it has more to do with the dearth of quality TV programming. As I mentioned a series like The Wire (HBO) has justifiably been revered by critics as one of the finest pieces of modern art every created in any medium - including literature! And as someone else mentioned, you can get DVDs from the library, and examine them as closely as books. Granted, most people don't, but it can still be done.

Some forms of literature can create unrealistic perceptions the way TV can. For instance I know many females who read romance novels who develop unrealistic expectations/standards for a male suitor (he's smart, sensitive, athletic, brave, tidy - all wrapped in a single person, which almost never happens). So ultimately I still think it boils down to the quality of the material on the medium, rather than the medium itself. The two major problems with TV are lack of quality programming, and gratuitous advertising: but these an be avoided if you borrow (library) DVDs of quality series rather than watch them on TV commercial TV.

I assume "above average" means sharing your beliefs and/or your lifestyle.

Like many assumptions, it's so very wrong. I should have been more specific. I meant above average in intelligence.

Government will never let it happen...remember George Orwell's 1984:eek: :D FWIW I grew up in a home with no television and seldom watch it now. There are some great shows out there on the specialty channels like Discovery and History but the rest is still a vast waste land...maybe we need a Bicycle Channel...24/7 Bike Porn:love: :roflmao:

Aaron:)

Yes, most of television is a visual wasteland, I stopped viewing network television around the mid 70's due to that very reason. I too watch the History and Discovery channels as well, along with our local PBS channel. I do not find commercials of today as offensive, there is a wide variety of products being aired and I still use the commercial breaks as time to do other projects. If one wants to talk about commercial air time being saturated by one product, a person who had to endure cigarette commecials before they were banned can testify to the endless drone of tobacco jingles.

Like many assumptions, it's so very wrong. I should have been more specific. I meant above average in intelligence.
Again, I assume you measure others' "intelligence" by how closely they share your beliefs and/or your lifestyle choices. Or maybe by the inverse amount of TV they watch. If not those measures of intelligence, than what?