Friday, September 25, 2009

Group 1: Amy, Jamie, Samantha - Johnson

The thesis behind Steven Johnson’s article, “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”, tells us that the widely held belief that watching television is just mindless entertainment, is in fact wrong, because with the complicated and dynamically interwoven storylines dominating today’s programs, watching television actually requires more cognitive skills than ever before.


One of the points Johnson uses to support his thesis is, “The Case for Confusion” (pg.220). In television shows and movies made in decades past, not much was left to the viewer’s imagination, or personal discovery. When key plot points were being filmed in early programming, the producers would point out the things they assumed the public was not smart enough to figure out on their own. When acting out scenes that require technical jargon, actors would follow up with layman speech, so the audience could figure it out. “They reduce the amount of analytic work you need to do to make sense of a story. All you have to do is follow the arrows” (pg.221). In contrast, today’s shows require you to make sense of the story yourself, sometimes weaving in things that can only be explained or understood if you had watched an episode that had previously aired. You, the viewer, have to “integrate far more information than you would have a few decades ago watching a comparable show” (pg.214).


Another point Johnson expresses are the feelings of a viewer when watching television programs that are older. The consensus is that the modern viewer is bored by the content. Johnson says the reason for this is, “because the show contains far less information in each scene” (pg.227). The little information results in little thinking. Whereas when you watch a program thick with layers, “you have to focus to follow the plot…you’re exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, fill in missing information, that connect multiple threads” (pg.228).

George F. Will makes several points about how the entertainment industry is fighting to keep viewers entertained by offering perversity programming, because they are becoming increasingly desensitized and because an intellectual show will not keep them interested (pg.294) Johnson would counter this argument pointing to the fact that some of the shows that Will mentions have been cancelled, while the intellectual programs have thrived.

Dana Stevens writes this article in response to Johnson’s article. She states that Johnson’s claim for television as a tool for brain enhancement seems deeply, hilariously bogus. Johnson would respond back to Stevens by restating his point but adding more statistical evidence to back him up.

WORKS CITED

Johnson, Steven. “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”. New York Magazine (2005). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box”. Slate (2005). Web. They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Will, George F.”Reality Television:Oxymoron”. Washington Post (2001). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

8 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think your group did a good job in identify the thesis statement, and the transitions are really clear from paragraph to paragraph so that I can predict what you are going to say before I read the paragraph. I like your respond to the opposing viewpoint of George F. Will. However, I wish that the second point that support for the thesis was analyzed a little more. I had to reread the original article to make clear what is being said which is about the reward of smart culture: the modern viewer who watches older shows would be bored because of their content. Overall, this is an interesting post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that your piece is very nice. It is interesting to read and worded well. We had to do the piece on Dana Stevens so we had the rebutle to this piece. I think that you were right on with what the focus of the article is about and brought up very relevant supporting information. I would like to have seen you touch on Steves' arguement a little more in the end of your article, other than that I think your group did a wonderful job. I enjoyed reading it and I think you definitley make the reader sway to your opinion in the article and really think, hmmm TV isn't so bad for you. Nice job!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think your group did a good job finding the author's thesis and the points that he made. I agree with him that viewers now will find old television shows to be boring. I definitely cannot sit down to watch an episode of "Leave it to Beaver" without either falling asleep or turning off the TV all-together. I also agree that with today's current shows, it's hard to keep up with everything that is happening. Have you ever tried watching Lost? I'm convinced only geniuses can understand the intricate plot of that show. Television (today) definitely requires a certain amount of brain power. People overlook that fact too often.

    I wish your group would have looked at your author's responses to other authors a little more closely. The descriptions seem very brief. I'd like a little more detail in that department.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I enjoyed the concise, yet sufficient, description of the thesis and points you've presented for your essay. You did a nice job paraphrasing and providing support with quick quotations thrown in. However, the responses to other essays were a little meager in comparison to the attention you gave to your essay. It would have held my interest to the end if you had gone into more detail for this part of the assignment as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would have to say that your group did get the thesis of the reading correct. Your group has also given good supporting ideas but it might be a good idea to try and maybe paraphrase your supporting ideas/points so it makes it a little easier for people to read through it. When you talk about George F. Will, I think that you should include what article you are talking about so people know where it came from and could go back to the article and check on it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I enjoyed reading about your topic. I agree that watching TV doesn't make you smarter, they usually tend not to leave any to the imagination. I can say though their are some shows that do make you think, some children shows teach children learning skills, but I think TV shouldn't be the only thing. I think your group stated a good thesis and you used good support to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you did an excellent job stating the author's thesis! Your explanations of the author's supporting points are great as well. You did a good job identifying good points that support the thesis and you explained them well too. Your paper flows well and is easy to understand. Your explanations of your author's response to other authors are good as well. I think you picked two relevant pieces and you explain Johnson's response clearly and thoroughly.

    I don't really have any advice... I think your paper was great!

    ReplyDelete