The fair price of entertainment

[tompe]

Originally Posted by twobits

Why should people be forced to support through taxes tv shows that they won't directly. If people want it they will pay, if not what does it matter if it goes away? It would probably become more expensive then it is now. They would create tv lobbyist, tv bureaucrats, tv studies, and probably even tv police all funded through these taxes. Just another expense we would have no control over. Seems a pretty bad idea.

Why not? Just two different ways of doing things.

And, no the system is not perfect since people usually do not know what they want and they do not know how things will develop. So we get a lot of very good TV series that are cancelled after one season.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

From what I've read, content doesn't matter. It's the medium that determines the brainwaves. I dunno how much TV you hafta watch to become stupider, lol. I read that your waves flatten out after a few minutes of TV time, to a point where it's the same as staring at a blank wall. I can't validate any of that for myself, but I don't miss TV, so it doesn't matter. Even when I had a connection, I didn't follow programs.

I've read similar summations of the studies. And you're correct in that content doesnt matter. Reading a novel from a TV screen also produces the low alpha waves. It is theorized that it's the bright TV screen that causes the alpha waves even after a few seconds of viewing.

Of course, this also occurs while reading on an iPad, iPhone, iPod, Blackberry and any other LCD screen. People sitting in front of a computer all day may experience spaciness or brain fog which is why it's recommended they take frequent breaks. Even if only to close your eyes for a minute or briefly look away.

A child reading on an iPad (or Nookcolor) alpha-wise is no different than watching cartoons on a TV.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I've read similar summations of the studies. And you're correct in that content doesnt matter. Reading a novel from a TV screen also produces the low alpha waves. It is theorized that it's the bright TV screen that causes the alpha waves even after a few seconds of viewing.

Of course, this also occurs while reading on an iPad, iPhone, iPod, Blackberry and any other LCD screen. People sitting in front of a computer all day may experience spaciness or brain fog which is why it's recommended they take frequent breaks. Even if only to close your eyes for a minute or briefly look away.

A child reading on an iPad (or Nookcolor) alpha-wise is no different than watching cartoons on a TV.

I've been wondering about this. I read that sustained alpha waves make you highly susceptible to suggestion and helping learning, so I'm not clear on the effects of sustained reading on LCD. Does it help you better absorb reading material, for instance? And how does LCD passive-type viewing work with reading, which is supposed to engage your brain?

I'm interested in brain research, but have only a layman's grasp. If you have good links, please provide.

I was thinking that it might be good research material, considering how much reading is shifting online, especially for students. Besides, e-ink manufacturers would have a big selling point if they could tout "smarter" reading on e-ink vs. LCD, lol.

If reading on LCD does dumb you down after prolonged exposure, maybe I can claim workman's comp, lol. I've been editing for a living for about 20 years, all online. I've not noticed any brain fog from LCD, but I do get into a groove when editing or writing, especially under tight deadline. The sense of euphoria, or being "in the zone," is addictive.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

If reading on LCD does dumb you down after prolonged exposure, maybe I can claim workman's comp, lol. I've been editing for a living for about 20 years, all online. I've not noticed any brain fog from LCD, but I do get into a groove when editing or writing, especially under tight deadline. The sense of euphoria, or being "in the zone," is addictive.

The "euphoria" is the result of endorphins produced by switching from left to right-half brain (or right to left, I forget) and it's alpha waves from TV viewing.

It's all very interesting and exploitable by advertisers.

This link briefly mentions it.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ch.html?cat=25

I have not read the studies just the media stories.
Can you concentrate better working from the monitor or from a printed page? I wonder if their is better productivity from printed material but not the satisfaction and contentment (endorphins) from the LCD.

I also wonder why it's caused by artificial bright light but not outdoor sunlight. Full spectrum light?

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Fbone

The "euphoria" is the result of endorphins produced by switching from left to right-half brain (or right to left, I forget) and it's alpha waves from TV viewing.

It's all very interesting and exploitable by advertisers.

I have not read the studies just the media stories.
Can you concentrate better working from the monitor or from a printed page? I wonder if their is better productivity from printed material but not the satisfaction and contentment (endorphins) from the LCD.

I also wonder why it's caused by artificial bright light but not outdoor sunlight. Full spectrum light?

The research I've seen is dated. I was hoping you knew of fresh stuff, because you mentioned reading and LCD. I'd like to see research based on new uses and tech. Otherwise, it's guessing based on old research.

The type of editing I do requires computers. Otherwise, it would be horse and buggy speed to move and delete blocks of copy, rework throughout, mark questions and comments, etc.

The work is satisfying, so it puts me in the zone. If it were LCD-induced, it would've stayed consistent. It was more slogging in early days, while I was learning. I remember the first time the euphoria kicked in. The closest thing I've read to it is a runner's high. I don't run, though, lol. Basically, I race against myself.

The worse the copy, the more satisfying the work. But that's also because I get to work with smart people. Defensive writers are their own worst enemy. They tend not to progress.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No one in my household ever watches any sporting event, yet we can't choose to reduce our cable bill by not receiving the sports channels. Eliminating them alone should reduce the bill by at least a third.

And then the pricing on your other channels would go up, as other people similarly opted out of them; same costs over less users = higher price. A la carte sounds like a great idea, and frankly I'd like to see it tried, but it's not necessarily going to save users anything.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why not? Just two different ways of doing things.

And, no the system is not perfect since people usually do not know what they want and they do not know how things will develop. So we get a lot of very good TV series that are cancelled after one season.

It's also important to remember that the role of state broadcasters is rather different to that of commercial ones. Their remit is not merely to entertain, but also to inform and educate. Thus, they have to produce educational programmes which would be unviable for a commercial broadcaster.

[whitearrow]

Harry, I love the BBC, truly I do. I would happily pay $10 a month if I could get BBC One in my house, instead of watered-down and program-delayed BBC America.

But a true state broadcaster based on a compulsory license fee like what you pay would never just work in the US. Politically and culturally, it would simply be untenable.

You are lucky you have the BBC and we're lucky that PBS carries some of its programming. I'm really enjoying "Sherlock." (And anyone who thinks it's making me stupid can... well, go read a Harlequin romance and pat themselves on the back for being ever so superior.)

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Of course, this also occurs while reading on an iPad, iPhone, iPod, Blackberry and any other LCD screen.

Nitpick here... not all LCD screens are back lit. Granted, most are, some of us have Jetbooks and Libras which have reflective LCD's not back-lit ones.

--
Bill

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

A true state broadcaster based on a compulsory license fee like what you pay would never just work in the US. Politically and culturally, it would simply be untenable.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Over the last 20 years, the conservatives have threatened to defund the NEA, PBS, NPR and several other US publicly funded arts and media agencies. Even if the agency barely receives any public funding, they are often a big political target. (Not that the left are much better, only that it's the right that has a recent history in this particular matter.)

Nor is state-controlled media such a great idea, since it can often turn into a propaganda machine. IMO the BBC is a fluke rather than a practical role model.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Nor is state-controlled media such a great idea, since it can often turn into a propaganda machine. IMO the BBC is a fluke rather than a practical role model.

Under the terms of the Royal Charter by which it operates, the BBC has to be free from political bias. It has an independent oversight committee to monitor this, and heads roll on those occasions when it is perceived to have displayed such bias (as does occur from time to time).

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Under the terms of the Royal Charter by which it operates, the BBC has to be free from political bias. It has an independent oversight committee to monitor this, and heads roll on those occasions when it is perceived to have displayed such bias (as does occur from time to time).

But who watches the watchers? (Or as this case may be, chooses the oversight committee members.) They have to be chosen somehow, after all. An committee selected by the government or by the BBC is hardly "independent"...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ATimson

But who watches the watchers? (Or as this case may be, chooses the oversight committee members.) They have to be chosen somehow, after all. An committee selected by the government or by the BBC is hardly "independent"...

See BBC Trust. That's a pretty good explanation of how it all works.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Nor is state-controlled media such a great idea, since it can often turn into a propaganda machine. IMO the BBC is a fluke rather than a practical role model.

So Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and so on propaganda machines?

Can you give some examples were it has turned into a propaganda machine? And the countries that are considered to be working democratic countries.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by tompe

Can you give some examples were it has turned into a propaganda machine? And the countries that are considered to be working democratic countries.

Uh huh. Let me guess, any country that has a flawed state media won't qualify as a "working democracy," right?

I really see no particular reason to exclude states on this basis, especially since the largest nation (China) is not a democracy and almost certainly has at least some propagandist state media.

There are also more complex situations, such as Russia and Italy, where specific state actors (Putin, Berlusconi) have strong control over major media outlets and use these outlets to manipulate the public. Shinawatra also owned iTV; and it's unclear to me, as an outsider, how the current Thai juntas are handling media (state-owned and otherwise).