----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Yes, there are a few TV/Popular Culture proponents out here. I have been teaching a television course in our English Department for almost twenty years. When I first proposed the idea, someone said, "good, you're going to steer them away from the drivel and direct them towards PBS and CBC type offerings." I cleared them up on that idea and have been happily teaching 'drivel' ever since. Strange, that people who only see TV as a sinkpit, will nevertheless when the occasion suits them hold up some TV documentary or investigative program as presenting the truth e.g. a colleague who hates TV believes that the Frontline Special on violence telecast a few months ago was the final word on the subject. That's it, the show in one hour conclusively demonstrated to this guy the absolute frim connection between watching TV and the high incidence of US violence. All the other stuff on TV except Shakespeare plays and opera is just garbage. An approach to TV that I have problems with is the media literacy approach, whereby Television commercials are deconstructed as an example so that students will be better able to withstand the bladishments and hard sell of sponsors. Hmmmmmmnnnnnnnn! Ads are fun to watch. I remember long lineups at a repertory theater that was showing a two hour feature of the world's best ads. It would seem though that Mr. and Ms. Grundy are still alive and active in many English departments. About a year ago someone sent this list a marvellous little piece on talk show hosts, but centered especially on Chuck _________, the host of "Love Connection," waxing lyrically over the connection between "Chuckness" and the Californiasation of a much US TV. Other than my own short praise of the piece there was no comment. Pity! Gordon Peffer [log in to unmask]