Dumbing Down

I recently had a conversation with some colleagues about ITV's deceased show Parkinson.  The gist of the conversation was that TV channels don't really broadcast shows like this anymore, because everything has become 'dumbed down'.  The only chat shows we have now are comedy shows such as The Graham Norton Show.  The particular lament was that there are no shows that feature people just talking.  Everything, it was suggested, is 'dumbed down' nowadays.

I feel slightly uneasy about this: it has certain reactionary undercurrent that makes me uncomfortable for one thing - the past was not indisputably better (or worse) the the present; real life is more complicated than that.  I have no evidence for this, however, but I do think that TV shows are more likely to feature small chunks of easily-digestible information than they did when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s.

One obvious explanation for this is that TV executives have ratings to maintain and don't like to risk audiences switching over part way through a show.  There were only 3 channels before 1982; now, I really have no idea, but the numbering on my Freeview box goes up to 999; we also have games' consoles, a plethora of radio channels, not to mention fabulous websites, such as Twitter, You Tube or even Myoclonic Jerk (no link for obvious reasons).

My one colleague felt that this substantiated his argument about the 'dumbing down' of culture.  People get so used to changing channels or surfing to new websites that no one can concentrate on anything demanding.  In the past, he suggested, people would watch shows such as Parkinson, perhaps because there was nothing else on, or perhaps because they were only interested in one guest.  Whatever the reason, the show was on and that person might learn something unexpected.  This is a possibility, but is is equally possible that people had the show on in the background, while they talked about the football, beat up the kids or did whatever people did in the 70s.  I'm not entirely sure we are a more stupid society because people can look for something they want to engage with.

There has been some research on the neurological effects of internet usage, but nothing conclusive yet. It is perhaps inevitable that those of us who grew up without internet access and more TV channels than we can easily count feel uncomfortable with it.  I'm pretty sure my parents' generation (who didn't really get into TV until adolescence) felt that my generation were stupid because we watched too much TV (but not Parkinson, which was on after our bedtime).

Ultimately, it is not the medium that leads to 'dumbing down' (if such a thing exists).  Look at this You Tube Channel, pick a video and watch it all the way through.  You might enjoy it; you might learn something; or, you might be bored out of your mind: whatever happens, don't make the mistake of blaming the internet or cable TV for 'dumbing down'.  As I said at the beginning of this blog, real life is a bit more complicated than that.

A blog that might require sponsorship

As regular readers will know, this blog does not, as a rule, advertise. I occasionally look at the 'monetise' option at the top of this page and think about clicking it. The chance to make a bit of extra money out of something I write for fun is quite tempting, but I worry that I might find myself plunged into a capitalist purgatorio in which I am expected to sell my own grandmother, or perhaps link to a certain online retailer. It's a risk I've avoided - until now. For now, I feel I have to mention a brand name.

I am part of the Walkman™ generation. I was a pre-pubescent youth when a large electronics conglomerate introduces the personal stereo. They were ubiquitous when I was a teenager, and the long-term result is that many people my age (I have just turned 40) find it more-or-less impossible to spend more than an hour without being engulfed in music. Ok, we're hardly unique in listening to music on headphones - my own dad (some years older than I am) owned one before I did - but, we may be the first generation to expect to be occupied constantly while awake. Equally, although plenty of other manufacturers made similar devices, the power of the brand was so strong that it became a generic name for that particular device.

The device in question has now been discontinued, however the brand name survives. A friend of mine had a mobile phone - I suppose I see the connection - that used the brand, while I own an MP3 player. There are two ironies here, one personal one general: on a personal level, the MP3 player is the first device with that brandname that I have owned (previously I have had to make do with cheaper brands); an a broader level, the generic name now belongs to another brand (no plug for this).

Despite firmly reaching middle age, I still walk with earphones in. I have always told myself that this is because of my love of music: over the years I have spent a good proportion of my money on CDs, tapes and legal downloads; I also own several musical instruments, that I play with varying degrees of incompetence. It occurred to me recently, however, that the real reason is to shut myself away from reality. Putting the earphones in the moment I leave the house and not removing them until I reach my destination saves me the hassle of interacting with the world. Not anymore: I have decided to renounce the Walkman.

Well, maybe not. I still listen to it, because I love music; from now on that will be the only reason. I will no longer put the earphones in automatically; I will try to live without constant stimulation; I will take the time to listen to my surroundings. I don't think this will change the planet or make me a better person, but it might stop me going completely deaf for a couple of years.