Print

Print


----------------------------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]