Why are people obsessed with blame about TV

Why does the question of 'why is the world obsessed with TV' always come up, year after year, as if there is someone to blame for the ever-changing box still being around like the common cold?

The obvious answer is that the world is not. Literacy worldwide has been rising since the end of the Cold War in most countries. The complicated answer is that it is television that is obsessed with the world.

To anyone who lives in the world, you know that the world is different in different places.  In South Korea and Japan, television is a personal thing, as is the mobile phone used to watch the show; while a private action, the device gives the viewer the feeling of being connected to the characters and other fans. In China, North Korea, and Uganda, television can be mandatory and online piracy can be the only way to know about the rest of the world.

Television has advanced medicine, domestic life, philosophy, space travel, communication, and more.  It has given us the the Beatles, Moon Landing, Watergate, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, and more moments in our life that will remain with use forever.

Television has expanded from a few channels to hundreds of them, each with a dozen options, nearly all of them online.  While television has been the best technology to adapt to online services, innovations that have lasted have been those to the benefit to many, not a a single viewer.  Most programming (other than porn) has revolved around that.  Today, communal television watching is increasing due t changing family dynamics; mainly that both parents work.  With both at work, both their time is more valuable to their children and thus they all prefer to relax and watch television as a group.  It is available, cheap, easy, and all enjoy it and learn to share from it.

So why the hate?  Misinformation. While the US is one of the leaders in television viewing and teens and tweens are not only the single largest audience and cash opportunity for programs, but are consuming twice as much electronic media as their parents' generation, including television, they are also excelling beyond both their parents' and grandparents' generations.  Teens have record low pregnancies, teen use of all drugs (save for marijuana), has been on the decline for years, not only is the us literacy rate at 99%, but more teens are finishing high school and graduating from college, and most work.

Added to the rise in both teen advertising, programming, and viewership is the rise of the reality show.  The advent of the television available to most families was detrimental to movies, as television may not have movies all the time, but was easier to access.  As choices in channels increased and more programming companies provided shows when the viewer, not the network wanted, movies struggled and studios gouged more from theaters (this is the reason concessions are so expensive these days) and banked more on blockbusters that would attract not thousands over weeks, but millions the first day.  Another form of media also struggled.  With more choice, people continue to move away from reality programming.  To combat this, reality programming branched out to match the increase in choices of other genres. The increase in 'trash' is seen, but not the increase in other shows, including educational ones.

There is a way to fix the mindlessness of television, but claiming those who watch it are obsessed, or, as others congregate to the idea, lazy or stupid.  Most scientists and authors watch television.  Creating a show requires many artists. If one wishes to combat stupidity, television must be seen as just that: art. It must be judged as such, analyzed, and questioned.  It already is.  Fans will debate plot, writers, deeper meaning, symbols, and even how it was created and how well that creation was done.

Like all art, it is improved by understanding and respect for the medium, not by hate.

Hate doesn't sell--even when you say you're clean

Do you want to sell something?  Do you want to convince someone something is cool?  Then don’t be a douche—this is not swearing, this is a metaphor.  A douche goes somewhere private and claims it is good, but in actuality, it is harmful and unpleasant, but still somewhere private.

E-books versus print books has raged since e-books became assessable to more than just people who got bored with burning money.  Now that they’re accessible, unfortunately, they’re popular, which means the douches that come with them.  They needs to stop (so do douches that come with print).

Some e-book authors are clinging to any news about resale, including Scott Turrow’s recent argument and digging up his e-book hate, and claiming this means pirates are everywhere.  Ignoring that Scott is arguing over legal sales, they’re claiming pirates everywhere on ebay, amazon, amazon’s patent on e-books resale, and even certain country’s internet.  They decry anyone who uses these as ‘they could be pirates’ and ‘they help pirates’.  Douches.

They are sticking themselves into what is private.  If you buy resale, that’s no one’s business but yours and maybe taxes.  If you work in resale, that’s also private.  If you sell resale anywhere legally, even online, that’s private.  If you don’t do those things, that’s still private.  If you can do those things, that’s legal.  Rights are private and it’s your choice to make them public.  No one should associate you with anything illegal if you’re not doing anything illegal.

They are harmful.  Not only do these people want to take away resale rights—an essential right in all markets, including the digital one—but they want to take away resale rights purely because they think they are special.  They don’t like any resale because they could be hurt but resale of their product.  Could.  COULD.  Will they?  Who knows?  Ask around, even to companies and experts and you’ll get a range of  ‘we can’t tell’ and ‘probably not, but we’ll do our best to fix it.’

But the damage goes further.  As an author, you’re claiming ‘never resell my book, I am above the law’.  Legal resale is, well, legal.  You own it now and they don’t.  You can sell it. You can break it.  You can ignore it.  But do you want it in the first place?  Not only are you told ‘it’s not really your property’, but it’s followed up with ‘you scumbag, thinking about resale’.  You may not even be buying their book.  E-book authors don’t seem to care about their personal books short of ‘I’ve been pirated!  How dare they patent resale’. But they’d still scream bloody murder over thinking you might own something and want to sell it.  It’s starting to look like you’re buying more than just something to read on your tablet now and it’s getting unpleasant.

Worse, they say you lack intelligence and sense for resale, even if no one ever got hurt (which they don’t think is a realistic option).  You’re hurting business, as they assume the book was bought twice and paid for once.  They also ask why would anyone resell a book at all (even print).

Lastly, they demand money from those sales and think they deserve it.  They ignore all models of resale, even digital, claiming they need it and no one else does because they are entitled and they deserve it. They say resale steals form their profits.  Can you imagine if someone said that about a pair of pants or dishes?  They can’t, because they say they’re a completely different situation because they’re e-books and pirated.

Do these attitudes paint a good picture of any e-book authors?  When they’re noise covers up others’ silence or facepalms, they’re not just being douches, but they’re soiling people who aren’t douches.  What metaphor is appropriate for those who make innocent people look as bad as them by association the innocents never signed up for?

On the lighter news, they’re wrong.  Resale keeps stock rotated.  It keeps many companies strong, including future e-book resales.  Resale means it is sold twice (or more).

Here’s an e-book author (June solstice) who promotes strong and protected resale stores.  Go buy one, even if it’s not mine.  Go buy it where you want, I trust you. I trust all of you.  You’re a customer to somewhere and I believe you’re perfectly legit.

Food for thought

Consider a hypothetical situation: Circumstances have caused people to be marooned on an island, unable to leave it.  This is no comedy, nor is time travel involved; the only native oddity is that the only trees that grow on the island are full of fat and bear few nutrients.  While it is possible to live for years and even generations on the island on a diet of this fruit, it is obviously unhealthy. The islanders already know the food is unhealthy, but also that it's all there is.

Given a chance to help those who live on the island, what feasible options come to mind?  Perhaps aid to help the islanders move to another island, either permanently or to visit in order to gather better food?  Perhaps better equipment to create healthier meals from the fruit? 

Would eliminating the fruit trees and leaving the islanders to fend for themselves sound like a good idea?  If not, replace the trees with fast food chains and change the hypothetical island to a real one, where the boundaries are possibility, time, and money instead of water.  Suddenly eliminating the only source of food sounds like a great idea, despite it being the same thing.

Education is not the problem with may people, but resources.  Housing where owning a fridge goes against the lease is not unheard of in poorer districts.  Many are forced to eat out when they have been given monetary aid and told o spent it on beans and rice--fat and starchy carbs--because they do not own a working stove.  People who work taxing jobs and have long commutes don't have the time or energy--or even transport or money--to make long visits to stores with healthier foods.

Some people, in fact, have no job, no income save for what they beg from others, and no home.  It is easy to point and say they are bad people and stupid for buying something cheap and mostly fat, but it doesn't make us good people or intelligent at all for thinking things are as simple as our lives all over the world for everyone. 

We can only expect such after we've made sure it is such.

Education will indeed lead to fixing the obesity epidemic, but educating those who already do eat right will help more than those who don't.  Until knowing the benefits of clean water makes the water that way, we can't expect the same with food.   Just as a pasture does not replace a cut forest, the same can be said for healthier stores replacing fast food; yet the latter is said to be obvious and intelligent, while the former silly and uneducated.

You can't just boil things down to blaming others.  Even if that's hard to swallow.