
"The television," science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury lamented in 1953, is "that insidious beast, that Medusa which freezes a billion people to stone every night, staring fixedly, that Siren which called and sang and promised so much and gave, after all, so little." Bradbury wasn't alone in his angst: Television has been as reviled as it has been welcomed since the first broadcasts began in 1928. Critics of television, from disgusted defenders of the politically correct to outraged conservative culture warriors, blame it for poor health, ignorance, and moral decline, among other assorted ills. Some go further: According to a recent fatwa in India, television is "nearly impossible to use … without a sin." Last year, a top Saudi cleric declared it permissible to kill the executives of television stations for spreading sedition and immorality.
So will the rapid, planetwide proliferation of television sets and digital and satellite channels, to corners of the world where the Internet is yet unheard of, be the cause of global decay such critics fear? Hardly. A world of couch potatoes in front of digital sets will have its downsides -- fewer bowling clubs, more Wii bowling. It may or may not be a world of greater obesity, depending on whom you ask. But it could also be a world more equal for women, healthier, better governed, more united in response to global tragedy, and more likely to vote for local versions of American Idol than shoot at people.
Indeed, television, that 1920s technology so many of us take for granted, is still coming to tens of millions with a transformative power -- for the good -- that the world is only now coming to understand. The potential scope of this transformation is enormous: By 2007, there was more than one television set for every four people on the planet, and 1.1 billion households had one. Another 150 million-plus households will be tuned in by 2013.
In our collective enthusiasm for whiz-bang new social-networking tools like Twitter and Facebook, the implications of this next television age -- from lower birthrates among poor women to decreased corruption to higher school enrollment rates -- have largely gone overlooked despite their much more sweeping impact. And it's not earnest educational programming that's reshaping the world on all those TV sets. The programs that so many dismiss as junk -- from song-and-dance shows to Desperate Housewives -- are being eagerly consumed by poor people everywhere who are just now getting access to television for the first time. That's a powerful force for spreading glitz and drama -- but also social change.
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY AARON GOODMAN STUDIOS
Charles Kenny, a development economist, is author of the forthcoming book The Success of Development: Innovations, Ideas and the Global Standard of Living.
I don't think that declining birthrates brought on by television are anything to be celebrating, at a time when world population is expected to peak in 2075. Demographers are increasingly running scared; no one has ever seen a "demographic winter" like the one that's currently approaching...
PEG TV is a vital, ongoing resource and digital solution
The ability and opportunities created by local community television PEG TV content providers in the U.S. and carried on local cable systems , web video through the Internet, satellite systems supporting high education or mobile apps needs to continue increasing in worldwide communities. Interesting that villages are referenced here and not the " global villages " of McLuhan, " Today we have extended our central nervous system itself in a global embrace, abolishing both space and time as far as our planet is concerned." The ties to social network advocates such as Clay Shirky in their discussions on global electronic and digital tribal ubiquity resonate in this article.
{According to a recent fatwa in India, television is "nearly impossible to use … without a sin."} -- this may not be correct.
{Ghulam Nabi Azad, India's health and family welfare minister, has even taken to promoting TV as a form of birth control. "In olden days people had no other entertainment but sex, which is why they produced so many children," he mused publicly in July.}-- he may have said that but this is also written in text books taught in Indian schools.
This articles assumes that turning the whole world into fat, lazy, isolated couch potatoes would be better than the way things are now. Yes, peace and tranquility are admirable goals that we should work to achieve, but at what cost? Will we brainwash and tranquilize the rest of the world into becoming complacent overconsumers? I don't want terrorism, but then again, I don't want Desperate Housewives to be the carrier of new social ideas to new places. Beyond the implications of dumbing down and opiating society, what about the environmental implications of TV? It's not only the resources used up in producing television sets, but also the culture of consumerism that goes along with them. Television has largely perpetuated the worldwide environmental crises we face today by encouraging viewers to buy what they don't need, to use more, and to "keep up with the Joneses." Yes, economic prosperity must be brought to more regions of the world, but we need it to be sustainable prosperity that works our minds and gives the planet a break.
LOL! :-)
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE