Talk:Social aspects of television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This was moved from the television section and will be re-written and added to as a new article.

Suggested elements for inclusion

There should be some mention of Newton Minow and his Wasteland Speech. I'm also looking for a landing spot for a reference to "boob tube" as slang for television, and this article seems like a reasonable place for that... . (I'll try to contribute rather than just comment as time allows)--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Bradbury's short story "The Pedestrian" should be included in this article somehow as well. It is about a man who instead of watching television like everyone else, goes for walks at night and is subsequently arrested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.3.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can include a section on literary commentaries on the subject. Kurt Vonnegut's "The Euphio Question" raised many of these issues (and more). The interesting aspect of this story is that it was written in 1951 (just about when TV was starting to take off--approx 12 mil sets in the US) and he was able to predict the social effects of the technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.85.162 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Issue

I tried cleaning up the "negative effects" section which had been written like anti-television propoganda, noting only studies supportive of the "causal" hypothesis, and not noting studies unsupportive of this hypothesis, or comments by the numerous skeptics of television violence effects. American Behavioral Scientist actually had a good issue this month with reviews from scholars on both sides of the debate, perhaps that ought to be noted more. Also note, I referenced some additional material in the reference section, but am not adept at doing the in-text citation thing...if someone could clean it up I'd appreciate it.

~~MV Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.92.177 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda Issue

I think that this section doesn't add much as is uninformative. If audiovisual media is the "second most" persuasive media, what's the first? This section (despite an oblique) cite reads more like hyperbole than anything factual. I recommend deletion, or at least significant cleanup.

~~ MV Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.92.177 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very US centric.

This article comes across as being very UScentric especially the Propaganda section which mentions specifically 'Presidential Candidates' and 'The military and State Department'. The second example deffinitly needs some kind of national qualifier as without one it sugests that all militaries and State Departments 'turn to media to broadcast into hostile territory or nation' which just simply isn't true. I don't really know what the answer is to this one. As to the first example, If we are to include Presidentual candidates we should also have a few more examples for non-Presidential nations and thus I'm removing the example and replacing it with politicians. (Morcus (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Another for of propaganda...

...may depend on the audience's assumption that the TV is representing visual samples from the entire world outside and, as such, create an expectation that what the news reports talk about might include any and all informations that may be relevant to the audience. In other words, I'm suggesting to mention some kind of "filter" being implicitly applied to what one gets to know about the world around by limiting one's self to watching TV. If applied "maliciously", this kind of filter may effectively keep people from knowing about something that largely influent organizations don't want them to know. You don't obviously realize you're being deceived: as long as you know, reported events are true and uncensored, but you simply don't get a trace of certain specific topics that would be relevant to your life. To some extent, this kind of filter is unavoidable: nobody, in a limited amount of time, could ever get to know everything about events significantly affecting one's life. And of course, I don't have any references to give, it's just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.37.207.254 (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Danger section

I got rid of this part

"

because the article clearly does not state this. It only discusses the effect of television viewing on children three years old. To include this reference and not be guilty of selectively quoting literature and misrepresenting whatever the consensus is, I think we would have to make this section far more comprehensive. This is just one study out of hundreds done in this area. Dextux (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've read that article, and that statement does seem to be quite consistent with the results of the article. I'm returnign the statment, but trying to add a bit more detail for clarity. Feel free to add more. Avalongod (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]