Smart and Smut: the Fine Line

There seems to be a time in everyone’s life after watching a television program where they stop and ask themselves “Is this show making me any smarter?” In Gerald Graff’s argument in “hidden Intellectualism” Graff thinks that no matter what the show, there is some form of intellectual analysis that the viewers must have in order to make them smarter. While many say that most television shows are dumbed down so the masses can understand without thinking, Graff thinks there is just as much going on in a sitcom as there is in a History channel program.
One who agrees with Graff’s argument is Antonia Peacocke, a student at Harvard University. In her essay “Family Guy and Freud” Peacocke once thought a show like Family Guy had no class, though after viewing the program more and more, she realized, like Graff, that there was something to take from the 30 minute program, something to dissect, and keep through everyday life. In part of Graff’s argument he explains how the supposed non-intellectual activities he was participating in were actually smarter than others would think. Graff says, “I was practicing being an intellectual before I knew that was what I wanted to be” (Graff 300). Like Peacocke, Graff was partaking in various routines that were making him think more about what could happen in a debate about sports, or in Peacockes essay, Family Guy.
Both Peacocke and Graff have the same view, though throughout Peacockes essay, she is sure to remind her audience that some humor can go too far and stray away from its intellectual pursuit to educate the masses. The same is with Graff’s argument, no matter where you dive your interests into, there are going to be times when the intellectual bits disappear into non-intellectual zones, it’s just a matter if you can go back into more sophisticated work without staying in the same place where nothing is beneficial.

A Perfect Show

Shows on networks come and go these days, it seems sit-coms are having the toughest time maintaining apposition on the weekday line up, and I can see why. Out of the successful shows today, one that stands out to me and most of my friends is LOST on the ABC network. Not only does the show implement parts of suspense, action, and thriller aspects, but a large portion of the show throws comedy in the mix which doesn’t seem like it work on paper, but it is all about how the actors deliver these lines. In my view, what makes LOST so popular among the American population are the storylines, the multiple characters, and the sound of the show.
LOST has something that many would relate the hit show 24 on the FOX network, which would be the multiple storylines and complicated non linear storytelling. I agree with this and disagree at the same time. One the one hand both shows do have complicated storytelling, but on the other hand no one on the show LOST are safe to say they will live throughout the season, while I am fairly sure they won’t kill off Jack Bauer anytime soon due to ratings. Having multiple well fleshed out characters is essential to captivate an audience and I think 24 lacks in that department with only a few good characters that audiences actually care for.
Throughout the seasons in LOST there have been multiple, well fleshed out characters that have their own personalities and every decision they make seems right with the way they are introduced throughout the episodes. What America loves so much about the show is that the writers stay so true to the characters and never stray away from them for too long when focusing on another main character. My friends and I have loved the show LOST because of this feature it carries to keep the audience actively engaged to keep remembering every mini story even if they do not live long enough to play a huge role.
LOST is a television show that I think will live on for a very long time because of its delivery and how each person acts with one another. LOST asks so many questions that one might forget, but then later give the answer to that question a season later. This is a perfect way to keep and audience, and have them stay tuned for each episode, a perfect marketing ploy. Though there are plenty of marketing techniques used in the show LOST there are also plenty on genius methods that make the show an individual from the rest of the shows that try to take their own spotlight from the rest. I think LOST is one of a kind.

Cyborg America

In Sherry Turkle’s article “Can You Hear Me Now?” Turkle shows just how reliant people are on technology in the present day world. Whether it be from a Blackberry to contact a friend, or laptops to search email and hard to find answers, Turkle believes we as people, have lost the aspect of being a human. Throughout her article, Turkle gives five main focus points on which she thinks has the most valid points that have effect on the reader. I am one of the readers she had effect on.
In the article, Turkle has five main points she wants to address to her audience, showing just how neglective we have become of our peers, even though we have the world in our hands. During one part, Turkle tackles the argument of people being too dependent on wireless devices rather than a close friend or perhaps a dictionary. “We are learning to see ourselves as cyborgs, at one with our devices” (Turkle 274). Turkle is right in this aspect, we have become way to reliant on what he have strapped on belts rather than wit and mind power we have been building up since grade school, but this is not the only thing Turkle is right about.
To me, Turkle has shown what is wrong with today’s society in a very humorous way. Her constant use of imagery and different examples are perfect for setting the scene in each of the five points she sets out to show modern day. I think when Turkle talks about a kid being in a city with a cell phone and having security you know she understands the importance of security of a young mind going through unfamiliar places. Turkle also goes on to tell that even though security is a good thing, having a kid know the sense of being completely independent is possibly more important than having the said security at all. This article by Sherry Turkle has to be one of the few articles I have read where I have agreed with everything the author has said.

Are We as Smart as Our Parents?

It seems parent have another thing to put on the “brain rotting check list,” the internet. The internet has been a growing sensation since the mid to late 80s and is now accessible to almost everyone around the world today! That said, it has been targeted by many people such as researchers who say the internet is one of the main reasons why generation Y has come to a screeching halt in basic history and literature knowledge. Today over 33 million Americans use the internet to check out personal interest articles, update their blog space, or just to sit and play games on. But what most parents are saying today is that the internet has put a constricting bubble on their child’s will to learn. I think the internet is not constricting, but liberating in all aspects of the word. With the internet teens can find information in a way they find suitable for their needs without the hassle of feeling like they are meeting a deadline.
Amy Goldwasser, a freelance editor for magazines such as Vouge, seventeen, and the New Yorker, takes side with me saying teens are using the internet for more beneficial uses than parents give them credit for. In her article “What’s the Matter with Kids Today?” Goldwasser shows just how much teens are keeping up on their literature readings. “The average teen chooses to spend an average of 16.7 hours a week reading and writing online” (Goldwasser 239). This quote from the freelance editor shows just how much teens will read voluntarily to educate themselves (even if they are unaware they are doing so). Goldwasser also goes on to say that teens who blog about their everyday lives while reading headlines on online newspapers could quite possibly be the next famous writer to show up on the New York Times Best. I agree with Goldwasser a hundred percent that without a doubt teens should be able to continue their daily routines without being shunned by the older generation of the way they learn.
I think teens should use the internet no matter what they are using it for. Teens who go on the internet and have Yahoo! As their homepage will always see the headline article as the first thing they see. Even this little headline page opener, will keep teens up to date on the current events. If teens want to know more about Stalin in World War 2 they can easily go right to Google and find the information they want without having to stay in a classroom and hear a dry lecture for 50 minutes of their day. Now, this is not to say that the educational system in America is obsolete, I am merely saying educational systems and older generations of people should embrace the fact their children are using the internet as a tool for their futures. Whether they are on a CNN headline article researching what is happening in Afghanistan or just on their Facebook updating what they did for the day, I think their brains are soaking up precious information they will need later on in life to succeed.

Television smarts

In Dana Stevens’s article “Think Outside the Idiot Box” Stevens directly criticizes Steven Johnson several times for his claims in his article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” Johnson says in his article that watching television makes people smarter by shows involving intricate plot lines that people have to follow in order to make sense of the program. Stevens argues against this when she says a show like 24 “discourages them from thinking too much about the vigilante ethic it portrays” (Stevens 232). What Stevens is saying is that while the show 24 may educate audiences somewhat of what other countries and peoples are like, there is plenty more that the show is leaving out, therefore educating its audiences in a biased way. Stevens also criticizes Johnson for excluding other present day televised shows, while he mainly focuses on the Sopranos and 24, Stevens argues there are plenty of dumbed down shows on air today which do not at all make people smarter.
To me, the more persuasive of the two arguments is Johnson. What he does to the reader is make him think about the present day shows and the shows that were on in the 80s in a very funny way. He proves with this diagrams that shows such as Starsky and Hutch were not complex at all in story telling , but very linear and unimaginative. Johnson also shows that many shows today are related to the culture we live in or we hear about. Even dumbed down televised shows may include a reference to something that is huge and smartly put together the way the line is delivered. Stevens argument, while being valid at times, is nothing but a bashing of what she thought was right at the time. Even in her article she says it had only been a day since Johnson had posted his article. What I think Stevens did was come up with what seemed like a smart argument in her head, but clearly misses the whole point Johnson was trying to get across.

Don't get me wrong

1) In making a case for the medical use of marijuana, I am not saying that marijuana should be on the shelves of convenience stores next to the Advil, I am suggesting to limit the amount of THC in marijuana by genetically altering the growing process.

2) But my argument will do more than prove that one particular industrial chemical has certain toxic properties. In this article, I will also uncover how many water cleaning plants around the world put this chemical in their water to make the water look clearer and cleaner, when in fact it is actually adding more harmful bacteria.

3) My point about the national obsessions with sports reinforces the belief held by many health experts that people tend to be more competitive about the smallest situations. Watching more sports gives people reason to differentiate themselves from one another, therefore giving an unbalance of trust.

4) I believe, therefore, that the war is completely justified. But let me back up and explain how I arrived at this conclusion. Researching about the Vietnam war, the war in Afghanistan is no different from a political standpoint. Both wars have shot war bonds through the roof which is a good thing, if you own a portion of the company. But think of the men and women giving their lives in the war right now, and for what, a quick buck? It makes me sick to think there are people in the world are trying to get money out a of a situation where there can be no national gain. In this way, I came to believe this war is a big mistake.