Saturday, September 26, 2009

Group 2 - Dana Stevens (Kelly, Andrea and Jessica)

Dana Stevens author of “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box,” believes that television should be watched for enjoyment, as it offers no mental enhancement. Some have claimed the popular show 24 as being mentally “nutritional,” due to its complicated and twisted plot lines and many characters. Each character provides the show with their own individual story and many of their stories intersect at times. Some believe that this formal structure within an episode actually helps to strengthen our capacity to mentally retain and follow information. Stevens affirms that it instead leaves us only wanting more T.V. and silently compromising our ethics through the depiction of the shows social relationships. Furthermore, an hour long program is filled with 16 minutes of commercial time; in all likelihood that 16 minutes isn’t fostering cognition. Stevens uses the show 24 and the controversies surrounding its portrayal of Muslim terrorists and its unspoken endorsement of torture as fitting examples supporting her claim (Stevens 232). Moreover, Stevens believes that as adults we should be trusted to manage our viewing choices. She further questions shouldn’t we be watching shows because we enjoy them, not forcing our brain to manage and retain complex story lines and recognize long-term patterns? Stevens simply challenges anyone to turn it off, just turn the T.V. off for one week, and at the end of the week see if you have in fact gotten any dumber (Stevens 234).

Dana Stevens and Sherry Turkle, author of Can You Hear Me Now, are of the same mind that the ever-increasing world of technology is detrimental to society. Advancements in technology, including that of television programming and on-line networks, are not making society more intelligent; rather creating narcissism and introversion. People are escaping reality and fundamental personal relationships by submerging themselves into the depths of technological snares. There is no rest for the tethered soul that finds it impossible to step away from the technological devices and advancements that have seized societal relations. It is disheartening that many, perhaps unintentionally, have directed their attention to these gadgets and enthralling television shows rather then those we dine with for example. Stevens and Turkle share the perspective that technology is not doing society any favors, these devices and such pose as distractions and lead us to expend our thoughts on fiction rather than that of meaningful reality.

We believe that Dana Stevens would agree with one illusive point of Antonia Peacocke’s essay, “Family Guy and Freud,” watching TV leads you to watch more TV. Peacocke openly admits that she continues to watch Family Guy and can in fact “perform one-woman versions of several episodes” (Peacocke 258). Stevens would contend that “grown men and women be trusted to judge their own dosages,” in reference to television shows (Peacocke 234). However, we don’t believe that Stevens would equate Peacocke’s ability to mimic with intelligence, or for that matter ever give thought to comparing Family Guy to Freud. Although, we do believe that Peacocke considers one to be on a different plane of thought when watching television as her reference to Sigmund Freud implies. Peacocke states that we should be able to tell the difference between what is real and what is not (Peacocke 266). We do however believe that Stevens would, without a doubt, condemn Peacocke’s attitude; that exposing prejudiced attitudes as comedy is an acceptable way to make light of it and show its outrageousness.


Works Cited
Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 257-69. Print.

Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box”. Slate. 25 March 2005. Rpt. in *They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 231-35. Print.

Turkle, Sherry. “Can You Hear Me Now?” Forbes. 2007. Rpt. in "They Say/I Say with Readings". Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 270-81. Print.

6 comments:

  1. I thought your groups interpretation of Stevens' thesis was good. Your piece did have small errors in punctuation. When you introduce your first point expanation, I was given a lot of information that wasn't really a part of the original point. I thought the point was about the 16 minutes of commercials, but then you switched to talking about the terrorist themes. i would have liked to see a clearer seperation of those two points. Your author comparisons in the end were great. You stated well what your author's response would be, and you were specific, and clear, which made for a good understanding

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was hard to find your thesis, but when I was reading this article I could not find the thesis at all. When I first read this article I almost thought it was about the show 24, because the author kind of basis his argument using the show 24 as an example. You did a good job of using the authors words in your summary. Good job all around, I think you got the toughest article to work with.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that the thesis was a little hard to find. You started out in one direction with the TV show 24, then kind of switched over. The rest of your paper, I thought was good. You made some very good points and backed them up well with your sources. Your summary was good. You did a great job in showing the point of view of the author. You ended your paper very strong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This peice was a little tricky in that the thesis was wrapped among a little sarcasm when Stevens equated the term "multi-threading." to the teletubbies. She makes a good point that just because something is complex doesn't equate substance that provokes thought or positive stimulation. Overall your groups summarizing and disection of each peice was well done. Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think your posting was an easy read but I do agree with some of the others who commented here that it was hard to understand what the thesis was here and in the article. I think you picked out some great points the author made to support your thesis. Even though I don’t necessarily agree with the author’s opinions I found it easy to look at it from this point of view from your response to the article.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that, by now, you've read enough about the unclear thesis. Instead of flogging you again with that wet noodle, which I happen to agree with, I'll contribute this: Well done.

    Your group does a fine job of relating your own thoughts to those of Peacocke, Stevens, and Turkle. As well, the variety of paraphrases and quotations lends to a good read. The only exception to this would be the paragraph relating Stevens to Turkle, which provides no references at all. Cite your references in the text next time, and you'll have one strong argument. Again—well done.

    ReplyDelete