(Finished the book, but wanted to say something about this particular chapter) Chapter 8 of AOTD basically says that religion on television isn't really religion, but it's entertainment disguised as religion. I dislike religious shows (for my personal reasons), so I wouldn't exactly agree nor disagree, but documentary's went through my mind, and they're similar in a way right? If not I'll just attempt to get my point across. Anyway, the other day, I was watching a documentary about wild animals, and the only reason I actually watched it from beginning to end was because of the crazy thing the animals were doing. Not about the information that was being said by the narrator. Is it true that we only see things as entertainment rather than informal? I've probably battled myself on this one way too many times to count. I can watch a documentary, sure. But am I paying attention to it for what it's actually on for or am I watching it because of the visual image I will be receiving?
I don't know, maybe its just me that sees it this way: watch it to look at it or watch it to learn from it.
-BabyLika F. ☺
I heart xkcd
Art Project
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Television: ENTERTAINMENT ONLY?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Babylika, I think Postman would agree that entertainment for the sake of entertainment is a good thing. We don't necessarily have to be "ON" every moment of the day. It's OK to watch a documentary and just let yourself be enthralled by animal behavior. Turn down the sound altogether! Not every thing has to be a learning moment.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Postman would say that taking television too seriously as a source of deep learning or spiritual growth is the problem. We should enjoy television for what it is designed to do: entertain us. And sure, we might learn a little something along the way on Discovery Channel, or History Channel, or Animal Planet or whatever. This is "learning as entertainment." It's a different kind of learning -- the stuff that goes a mile wide and an inch deep.
You're absolutely right, Mrs. Fletcher. After all, there is a reason why we learn at school with teachers, not at home with a TV set.
DeleteWell, that's the thing about television. It's completely passive. It doesn't require anything of the viewer (which is why we love it). For an education to have any value at all, the learner has to be engaged, involved, doing something, making something, writing something.
ReplyDeleteSo, personally, what do you think of Bill Nye as a teaching tool? The show has those little home experiments for the viewer, and uses fun little songs to get certain points across.
DeleteThat must be the reason why they're so engaged. The songs and home experiments make it more entertaining. Without it, most children wouldn't be interested. Watching Bill Nye is a great way of learning, but it's terrible because kids shouldn't feel like they NEED to be entertained every second that their learning something. Learning material isn't always going to be amusing and soon children will rely on that. They shouldn't need to be amused to death.
ReplyDeleteYou say that the only reason you watched the entire documentary was because it was entertaining to you and I can easily relate to that. Sometimes I start watching a television program because it sounds interesting, but sometimes I'm wrong and end up not finishing the program. I feel guilty for saying it but now people want any information given to them to be presented in attention-grabbing manner because they just want to be entertained, and I am one of those people.
ReplyDelete