I stopped watching TV, how about you?
I stopped watching TV for a few weeks now.
Triggers: advertisements, advertisements and lack of interest in the tv programs
Effects: more time, more peacefulness
58 comments
I've never been much of a TV person, since growing up doing mostly other things, and haven't wanted to agree to the ToS of any of the paid services.
But sometimes it is helpful to do something that doesn't require much thought, for a little while, after I'm tired of reading or whatever. Internet radio is one (the radiodroid app is really cool, on f-droid.org, and newsblur).
But back on topic, I was glad to discover https://wwitv.com/portal.htm (no affiliations) w/ internet TV from around the world: mostly news stations, but a few seem to have more than that, like couple of them in Spain. (Occasionally have to switch channels if there is content I particularly don't want, but that is common.)
(Edit: fwiw, I put other ideas on fun/relaxing, here: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854618463.html )
But sometimes it is helpful to do something that doesn't require much thought, for a little while, after I'm tired of reading or whatever. Internet radio is one (the radiodroid app is really cool, on f-droid.org, and newsblur).
But back on topic, I was glad to discover https://wwitv.com/portal.htm (no affiliations) w/ internet TV from around the world: mostly news stations, but a few seem to have more than that, like couple of them in Spain. (Occasionally have to switch channels if there is content I particularly don't want, but that is common.)
(Edit: fwiw, I put other ideas on fun/relaxing, here: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854618463.html )
I haven't had a television since 2004. I stream everything.
TV ?! What's that ?
I use to watch tv at my grand ma's when my parents leave me there for the weekend.
Then I never watched TV.
Why would you watch tv ?! This is crazy. Why not read a book or spend time with your family and friends or... So many things to do and to learn, too many people to be with (a whole planet indeed). I do not understand this "watching tv" stuff. Aren't you going to die soon ? Nothing better to spend your time on ?
I use to watch tv at my grand ma's when my parents leave me there for the weekend.
Then I never watched TV.
Why would you watch tv ?! This is crazy. Why not read a book or spend time with your family and friends or... So many things to do and to learn, too many people to be with (a whole planet indeed). I do not understand this "watching tv" stuff. Aren't you going to die soon ? Nothing better to spend your time on ?
:-)
I find tv good if I am tired. Something to keep a tired mind occupied where coding or even reading might be too much. If I am not tired I do feel like it’s a waste of time.
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television:
1. The mediation of experience.
2. The colonisation of experience.
3. The effects of television on the human being.
4. The biases of television
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimina...
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=448E80906BCD92C0AA0...
By Jerry Mander, 1977. An advertising executive with a deep personal and professional familiarity with his subject.
1. The mediation of experience.
2. The colonisation of experience.
3. The effects of television on the human being.
4. The biases of television
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimina...
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=448E80906BCD92C0AA0...
By Jerry Mander, 1977. An advertising executive with a deep personal and professional familiarity with his subject.
As for myself:
1. Grew up in a household which adopted television late, B&W for years then, and tightly restricted viewing.
2. Never owned my own.
3. Uni was the pivotal point for me. Whilst there'd been a TV at home, occasionally watched, I didn't have one at school. And by the time I'd graduated, the habit was all but entirely broken. I didn't relate to the programmes then current, and never got back into the habit.
4. Occasionally lived in households with TV. Have found it increasingly intrusive.
4. Would typically watch only whilst travelling. Some years back I found that even this was simply a timesink and cesspit. Stopped.
I'm rarely inclined to even bother watching. Little programming is of any interest, vast amounts are insulting or worse, discovery is opaque, even the good programming is conspicuously engineered toward addiction. ("Lost" comes especially to mind -- I've ... lost ... several friends to that. One of whom, poor sweet summer child, thought that the finale would offer some sense of closure....)
I'm not going to dispute that there is some good programming available, though when I seek that out, I use on-demand services (typically online videos). HBO especially have put out some excellent programmes, and I've caught small portions of series such as The Sopranos, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, and ... that's about all I can really think of. Exception: The Wire which was excellent (watched the first season on DVD).
I read. I listen to lectures. I watch demos. Occasional puppies and kittens and other floofs. But I don't miss the distraction, ads, manipulation, etc.
Not watching television simply opens up hours every week.
Oh, and yes, it's probably something of a social signifier:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22333879
1. Grew up in a household which adopted television late, B&W for years then, and tightly restricted viewing.
2. Never owned my own.
3. Uni was the pivotal point for me. Whilst there'd been a TV at home, occasionally watched, I didn't have one at school. And by the time I'd graduated, the habit was all but entirely broken. I didn't relate to the programmes then current, and never got back into the habit.
4. Occasionally lived in households with TV. Have found it increasingly intrusive.
4. Would typically watch only whilst travelling. Some years back I found that even this was simply a timesink and cesspit. Stopped.
I'm rarely inclined to even bother watching. Little programming is of any interest, vast amounts are insulting or worse, discovery is opaque, even the good programming is conspicuously engineered toward addiction. ("Lost" comes especially to mind -- I've ... lost ... several friends to that. One of whom, poor sweet summer child, thought that the finale would offer some sense of closure....)
I'm not going to dispute that there is some good programming available, though when I seek that out, I use on-demand services (typically online videos). HBO especially have put out some excellent programmes, and I've caught small portions of series such as The Sopranos, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, and ... that's about all I can really think of. Exception: The Wire which was excellent (watched the first season on DVD).
I read. I listen to lectures. I watch demos. Occasional puppies and kittens and other floofs. But I don't miss the distraction, ads, manipulation, etc.
Not watching television simply opens up hours every week.
Oh, and yes, it's probably something of a social signifier:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22333879
I stopped watching TV more than 12 years ago and never missed it. I just think it's boring. That being said, I don't think watching TV is fundamentally different from any other kind of entertainment, be it YouTube, reading HN, Twitter, games, or whatever. It just appeals to a different (older?) audience. Stopping the consumption of any kind of mass media will give you similar benefits.
Just like readers of newspapers and magazines have been declining, TV will continue to decline as the generation of older viewers dies out. We have more interactive entertainment now.
My mom, who is retired, watches TV for 12+ hours a day, simply because she doesn't "understand" the newer options of entertainment. I can already see the same pattern in myself. I love playing videogames because I grew up with them and I'll probably play them until I die. But I am unable understand or find fun in the entertainment options of the younger generation, such as spending hours on Instagram or Snapchat. It sucks getting old, haha.
Just like readers of newspapers and magazines have been declining, TV will continue to decline as the generation of older viewers dies out. We have more interactive entertainment now.
My mom, who is retired, watches TV for 12+ hours a day, simply because she doesn't "understand" the newer options of entertainment. I can already see the same pattern in myself. I love playing videogames because I grew up with them and I'll probably play them until I die. But I am unable understand or find fun in the entertainment options of the younger generation, such as spending hours on Instagram or Snapchat. It sucks getting old, haha.
Same here. My last TV broke about 12 years ago and I never bothered to get another one.
I do, however, think that there is a difference between TV, HN, YouTube, and Twitter/Snap/Insta. Each gives you more and more control over what you're seeing.
This is particularly stark on Twitter. People keep writing about how divisive and political it is, how social media lead to depression, and I see none of that. My feed is filled with jokes, esoteric memes, and architecture, with a dashing of netsec.
YouTube is similar. I hear how it's supposedly radicalising toddlers or something but my front page and recommendations are just lifting tips, golden retrievers, standup/sketch comedy, and clickbait science stuff.
You get what you want from these new mediums. And many people don't like what they see in the mirror.
I do, however, think that there is a difference between TV, HN, YouTube, and Twitter/Snap/Insta. Each gives you more and more control over what you're seeing.
This is particularly stark on Twitter. People keep writing about how divisive and political it is, how social media lead to depression, and I see none of that. My feed is filled with jokes, esoteric memes, and architecture, with a dashing of netsec.
YouTube is similar. I hear how it's supposedly radicalising toddlers or something but my front page and recommendations are just lifting tips, golden retrievers, standup/sketch comedy, and clickbait science stuff.
You get what you want from these new mediums. And many people don't like what they see in the mirror.
> That being said, I don't think watching TV is fundamentally different from any other kind of entertainment, be it YouTube, reading HN, Twitter, games, or whatever.
No, for most of them there are one or two fundamental differences. TV is complete passive consuming, while gaming and communication is usually something active. Additionally they can have a social component, you have a broader variation of content and more control over consuming time and topics you consum/learn about.
It's only the same in the sense that they are mostly unproductive "waste of time". Though depending on the content you can learn relevant things for your life and job, so this is take with a grain. At the end it depends on every individual what they consider as entertainment.
> But I am unable understand or find fun in the entertainment options of the younger generation, such as spending hours on Instagram or Snapchat. It sucks getting old, haha.
I thought the same for a long time, and one day it kinda clicked and I embrassed the shame of social media for some months. At the end entertainment and engagment-systems are all the same, just different in culture and interface.
No, for most of them there are one or two fundamental differences. TV is complete passive consuming, while gaming and communication is usually something active. Additionally they can have a social component, you have a broader variation of content and more control over consuming time and topics you consum/learn about.
It's only the same in the sense that they are mostly unproductive "waste of time". Though depending on the content you can learn relevant things for your life and job, so this is take with a grain. At the end it depends on every individual what they consider as entertainment.
> But I am unable understand or find fun in the entertainment options of the younger generation, such as spending hours on Instagram or Snapchat. It sucks getting old, haha.
I thought the same for a long time, and one day it kinda clicked and I embrassed the shame of social media for some months. At the end entertainment and engagment-systems are all the same, just different in culture and interface.
I loathe the television advertisement industry. Commercials are tailored for an IQ of about 80 or less.
Half of people are below average
Once the internet became mainstream, I dropped TV and never missed it.
I do not watch television so often. Sometimes I do watch television (and sometimes listen to the CBC radio, too), but usually I prefer to read a book, or work on computer, or something else. (I don't use YouTube at all.)
Unfortunately for a lot of people, TV may have just been replaced by equally wasteful online pursuits like social media. And these new formats can be far more harmful than a simple TV show.
20 years and a week ago:
https://www.theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-d...
Most relevant reply I've ever seen.
Haven't watched anything from cable television in roughly twenty years. I like the ability to choose what I will or will not watch at any given time, without advertisements.
I'm not going back to listening the the radio or reading newspapers any time soon, either.
I'm not going back to listening the the radio or reading newspapers any time soon, either.
I watch sports, so I'm kind of stuck. But I'll usually be on my phone during the ads, looking at Twitter/Reddit/etc.
All cable and network shows I don't watch live so I can either skip through or completely avoid the commercials.
All cable and network shows I don't watch live so I can either skip through or completely avoid the commercials.
Stopped watching when I was about 13.
Now retired internet news junkie.
Now retired internet news junkie.
hideous(1)
I've never owned a working broadcast TV receiver.
On a related note am curious about these conversations at work where someone names a film and a lot of people have seen it, and that pattern applies to many films across many genres leading me to think “most people” watch 1000s o hours of film but not only that can recall the plots of those films. I’m sort of jealous as those conversations seem interesting but i feel. can’t contribute much as I hate most films!
If you’re interested in a quick crash course in film appreciation, I recommend the documentary series The Story of Film: An Odyssey [0]. The whole thing is 15 hours, but you can easily skip the episodes you’re not interested in and still learn a lot.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Film:_An_Odysse...
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Film:_An_Odysse...
There's a lot of junk. I imagine if you could name books or storyline games, etc...someone could recommend a few films with similar appeal.
Of the movies I like, "Shawshank Redemption" is often cited by others.
Of the movies I like, "Shawshank Redemption" is often cited by others.
Ages ago. Keep at it, you won't miss it.
I dont touch anything where I have no control over fast forward/pause/rewind.
How about a DVR?
Downloading same content directly, often at higher quality, is just easier and faster.
So you don't watch "broadcast TV", but you do watch..TV shows, yes?
TV/cable is a transmission medium, TV shows are content. Netflix/amazon/dvd/bd boxsets/pirate trackers are alternative sources of content. Unlike TV, they all have advantage of you being in the driver seat of your own attention.
Fair enough, but I think it's clear quite a few comments are interpreting the question to encompass even spending time on the content.
One thing that helps society unify is a shared media experience. Used to be oral poetry reading and plays. Then books. Then radio. Then TV. Now a massive milleu of various social platforms.
I've dropped out of almost all of these, but there is a downside.
As Jesus says, "be in the world, but not of it."
Unfortunately, completely dropping out makes me "not in the world."
Not being in the world, hard to say whether I am not of it.
I've dropped out of almost all of these, but there is a downside.
As Jesus says, "be in the world, but not of it."
Unfortunately, completely dropping out makes me "not in the world."
Not being in the world, hard to say whether I am not of it.
I see what you‘re saying and have been wondering the same thing for a while (although I don‘t have Jesus to back me up :D).
The way I see it is, there‘s only so many hours in a day and most of them I spend at work anyway. So, instead of clinging on to shallow forms of connection like commenting on the latest political scandal I try to take the time out of my day and get a good talk in with people I care about about topics that actually matter to both of us in the real world (friends, family, plans, problems, maybe some of the latest office gossip, etc.)
I wish you a happy weekend!
The way I see it is, there‘s only so many hours in a day and most of them I spend at work anyway. So, instead of clinging on to shallow forms of connection like commenting on the latest political scandal I try to take the time out of my day and get a good talk in with people I care about about topics that actually matter to both of us in the real world (friends, family, plans, problems, maybe some of the latest office gossip, etc.)
I wish you a happy weekend!
Funny you should mention Jesus but not mass.
From about the 4th century onward, it was weekly religious services (in Europe, though also, on their respective sabbaths, in the Jewish and Islamic worlds) which served to gather a ... mass ... audience to receive a common message. Some of that was religious in nature, a fair bit was not.
Market days likely played a similar role.
But at least once a week, a community would come together and hear a common message, from a large and centralised authority (the Catholic Church, in Europe), reorient their moral compasses, and catch up on the latest news. As well as, and here is where broadcast media depart strongly, have the opportunity to meet and converse amongst themselves.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the population were illiterate, and written communications expensive and bespoke, played a strong role. And the fact that service was delivered at least in part in Latin, not* intelligible to the congregation.
In modern contexts, variations on the variety show have played that role. I'd argue that programmes such as Saturday Night Live, and more especially Garrison Keillor's "Prarie Home Companion", something of a secular religious service, complete with sermon (and playing not only on Saturday nights, but the following Sunday morning in many public radio regions) filled in that role.
The unifying role of broadcast media -- radio and television -- is much commented on by media studies researchers. That's had some positive results, and some negative: Father McCoughlin, Adolph Hitler, and Benito Mussolini, notably. Fascism and mass-media co-evolved.
I'll note that I've not had a practice of regular religious attendance or TV viewing, though I may have been known to tune into certain radio programmes ... religiously.
From about the 4th century onward, it was weekly religious services (in Europe, though also, on their respective sabbaths, in the Jewish and Islamic worlds) which served to gather a ... mass ... audience to receive a common message. Some of that was religious in nature, a fair bit was not.
Market days likely played a similar role.
But at least once a week, a community would come together and hear a common message, from a large and centralised authority (the Catholic Church, in Europe), reorient their moral compasses, and catch up on the latest news. As well as, and here is where broadcast media depart strongly, have the opportunity to meet and converse amongst themselves.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the population were illiterate, and written communications expensive and bespoke, played a strong role. And the fact that service was delivered at least in part in Latin, not* intelligible to the congregation.
In modern contexts, variations on the variety show have played that role. I'd argue that programmes such as Saturday Night Live, and more especially Garrison Keillor's "Prarie Home Companion", something of a secular religious service, complete with sermon (and playing not only on Saturday nights, but the following Sunday morning in many public radio regions) filled in that role.
The unifying role of broadcast media -- radio and television -- is much commented on by media studies researchers. That's had some positive results, and some negative: Father McCoughlin, Adolph Hitler, and Benito Mussolini, notably. Fascism and mass-media co-evolved.
I'll note that I've not had a practice of regular religious attendance or TV viewing, though I may have been known to tune into certain radio programmes ... religiously.
I stopped about 17 years ago. After I entered university, I stopped watching TV. I don't even watch it when I'm at a friend's house.
Quite possibly the best decision I made in my life. TV and news, especially the news channels, are massive time sinks that just slowly eat your life away. And not only do you get absolutely nothing from it, they make your life miserable too. I'm pretty sure that people who don't watch TV are happier than those who do. Someone should do a study on that.
Quite possibly the best decision I made in my life. TV and news, especially the news channels, are massive time sinks that just slowly eat your life away. And not only do you get absolutely nothing from it, they make your life miserable too. I'm pretty sure that people who don't watch TV are happier than those who do. Someone should do a study on that.
That’s a shame. TV is amazing these days. HBO especially, is pumping out amazing shows, like Succession, Watchmen, Chernobyl, etc. I’m only subscribed to HBO and Netflix, so I never see any ads either.
Whatever floats your boat though.
Whatever floats your boat though.
After my divorce I went over to a friends house and when he opened the door you could hear a women screaming in terror on the TV. I was in a bad emotional state and it was jarring and abrasive. I haven't willingly watched TV since. 25 years.
When you say you stopped watching TV, do you mean you stopped watching linear television with commercials, or all visual entertainment?
Because if you mean the first thing, I stopped watching linear TV in 1999 when I got a Tivo.
I guess technically that's not true, I still watch Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune live with commercials. But other than that no linear TV.
Unless you count sports. Sometimes I watch live sports.
But other than that no.
Because if you mean the first thing, I stopped watching linear TV in 1999 when I got a Tivo.
I guess technically that's not true, I still watch Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune live with commercials. But other than that no linear TV.
Unless you count sports. Sometimes I watch live sports.
But other than that no.
I've actually done the opposite in a way - trying to ween myself from most social media in favor of more relaxing forms of entertainment. More in the direction of video games or YouTube science/engineering videos than traditional TV, but I still feel it's a better use of time and helps me to relax better for the next day at work than say, getting in a big argument or reading some extremist political thread on reddit or twitter does. That stuff was eating my time in ways that just left me angrier and deriving less enjoyment out of my life, firing up Red Dead or watching Technology Connections or Tom Scott - decent improvements in my book, if still a "waste" of time.
I keep Cable TV for the WWE shows. The DVR records them so I don't miss them. WWE has a ton of lawyers looking for people who pirate their shows, much more than Disney or others. So it would have to be streaming services like WWE Network to watch them if Cable TV is gone for me. I got Amazon Prime Video, Disney Plus, Hulu, etc.
There's something about many non-TV watchers that compels them to announce that they don't watch TV, with a crazed look in their eyes and desperation in their voice, pleading with the world to validate their religious beliefs. I picture them occasionally cracking, hunched over in the closet with a blanket over their head, watching Adam Sandler movies and crying in shame.
From my personal experience with not having a TV for the last ~10 years. I think the reason this comes up a lot is because people talk a lot about what on TV. When I was one of the only people around who did not have a TV and the conversation turned to some TV program, I was "forced" to say that I did not have access to it and couldn't have seen it. I think some people took it as slightly condesending that I actively choose to remove some activity from my life they themselves enjoyed.
When there are only a few people in a group who do not do as everyone else and it's a frequent conversation topic, they stick out. I have been on the other side with veganism. I'm not vegan. People talk a lot about food. Vegans say they don't eat meat. I would be slightly disheartened that they can't relate to the tasty greasy burger I was taking about.
As a lot of my peers now don't have flow TV and a fair amount is vegan, the default of everybody, my self included, is not to assume that you have a TV or eat meat, but to ask if you don't know. When you don't have a TV program or some types of food in common, the conversation shifts to something else. I see a lot less friction now than a few years ago.
When there are only a few people in a group who do not do as everyone else and it's a frequent conversation topic, they stick out. I have been on the other side with veganism. I'm not vegan. People talk a lot about food. Vegans say they don't eat meat. I would be slightly disheartened that they can't relate to the tasty greasy burger I was taking about.
As a lot of my peers now don't have flow TV and a fair amount is vegan, the default of everybody, my self included, is not to assume that you have a TV or eat meat, but to ask if you don't know. When you don't have a TV program or some types of food in common, the conversation shifts to something else. I see a lot less friction now than a few years ago.
And how many of the ones who don't announce this are you aware of?
There's also something about many TV-watchers which compels them to comment as you have (though similarly: those who don't are far less visible).
In a complex social context, behaviours and adornments are social signifiers. They indicate tribal affiliations, and status. What you wear, eat, drive, listen to, do recreationally, watch, and other elements, aren't simply goods and activities, they're social signals, and they act as such because the underlying realities are far too complex to express succinctly.
And what others do, or criticise, isn't simply about behaviour, but about tribe and status.
Which is almost certainly why the urge to state one's own preferences, and to comment on the expression of preferences by others, is so ingrained. And so emotionally-laden.
Incidentally, I think this is one of the reasons why markers such as hairstyles, beards (generally for men), tattoos and bodymarkings, and the like, are such culturally-persistent indicators of status or relationship. It's possible to change your clothes in a few moments. A hairstyle is a committment -- of at least a few days or weeks, but potentially of years. Tattoos are as enduring as diamonds, effectively, and cannot be worn or doffed. Complex braiding, dreadlocks, and the like, require hours, or months, of cultivation.
(Or the ability to spend conspicuously on hairdresser services.)
Even within a given religion, different monastic orders will often have subtly (or profoundly) different hairstyles. Some rounded, some squared, some shaved, some long.
(Also notable: shortening hair, rather than lengthening it, is a rapidly-attained style, requiring only a few minutes with shears and a razer. Tan patterns may take a few days to normalise, but also adapt quickly. Which may be why shaved heads and faces are frequently seen as less credible, or are applied to, e.g., prisoners and fresh recruits, as a rapidly-achieved unifying (within the cohort) and distinguishing (from society) mark.)
There's relatively little serious work on the topic of fads and fashions, which extends to other areas, also typified by complex underlying structures: academia, music, literature, technology, law, and business management. Thorstein Veblen is among those who's written on the topic.
There's also something about many TV-watchers which compels them to comment as you have (though similarly: those who don't are far less visible).
In a complex social context, behaviours and adornments are social signifiers. They indicate tribal affiliations, and status. What you wear, eat, drive, listen to, do recreationally, watch, and other elements, aren't simply goods and activities, they're social signals, and they act as such because the underlying realities are far too complex to express succinctly.
And what others do, or criticise, isn't simply about behaviour, but about tribe and status.
Which is almost certainly why the urge to state one's own preferences, and to comment on the expression of preferences by others, is so ingrained. And so emotionally-laden.
Incidentally, I think this is one of the reasons why markers such as hairstyles, beards (generally for men), tattoos and bodymarkings, and the like, are such culturally-persistent indicators of status or relationship. It's possible to change your clothes in a few moments. A hairstyle is a committment -- of at least a few days or weeks, but potentially of years. Tattoos are as enduring as diamonds, effectively, and cannot be worn or doffed. Complex braiding, dreadlocks, and the like, require hours, or months, of cultivation.
(Or the ability to spend conspicuously on hairdresser services.)
Even within a given religion, different monastic orders will often have subtly (or profoundly) different hairstyles. Some rounded, some squared, some shaved, some long.
(Also notable: shortening hair, rather than lengthening it, is a rapidly-attained style, requiring only a few minutes with shears and a razer. Tan patterns may take a few days to normalise, but also adapt quickly. Which may be why shaved heads and faces are frequently seen as less credible, or are applied to, e.g., prisoners and fresh recruits, as a rapidly-achieved unifying (within the cohort) and distinguishing (from society) mark.)
There's relatively little serious work on the topic of fads and fashions, which extends to other areas, also typified by complex underlying structures: academia, music, literature, technology, law, and business management. Thorstein Veblen is among those who's written on the topic.
For the last 10+ years, I had TV service from my Internet access provider and three nice TV sets but NEVER watched TV, never turned on two of the TV sets, and used the third set only to watch VCR tapes of good movies. I had TV service from my ISP ONLY because getting all three of TV, Internet, and land line phone was cheaper than the other two and no TV.
I finally gave up on TV after looking, clicking and clicking on the remote control, for something worth watching and could never find it.
For NBA? Then the resolution was so low that the game just looked like a blur, and I could never learn anything about what plays, tactics, etc. the teams were using. Same for NFL -- just a blur with no insight into the pass patterns or pass defense. For the rest, just noise. So, I gave up.
Now my ISP gives me some TV over the Internet and for the first time in 10+ years I watched some, the most recent superbowl. Now the video technology, apparently some use of video cameras on drones, lots of replay, etc. made what was going on in the game at least a LITTLE meaningful. What I'd really like, from both the NFL and NBA would be game films with lots of slow motion, high resolution, and expert explanation -- as close to the most analytical information I could get. For the drama and which team to root for, I flatly, absolutely, positively do not care -- I care only about learning about strategy and tactics, say, as a coach, scout, general manager, etc. would. E.g., for the superbowl I watched, I came away with some understanding of the quarterbacks and pass receivers but NOTHING on the four lines, offensive, defensive, for the two teams. Soooo, for any good view, at LEAST also permit understanding the four lines. Etc.
But likely no more TV until, say, the next superbowl!
I finally gave up on TV after looking, clicking and clicking on the remote control, for something worth watching and could never find it.
For NBA? Then the resolution was so low that the game just looked like a blur, and I could never learn anything about what plays, tactics, etc. the teams were using. Same for NFL -- just a blur with no insight into the pass patterns or pass defense. For the rest, just noise. So, I gave up.
Now my ISP gives me some TV over the Internet and for the first time in 10+ years I watched some, the most recent superbowl. Now the video technology, apparently some use of video cameras on drones, lots of replay, etc. made what was going on in the game at least a LITTLE meaningful. What I'd really like, from both the NFL and NBA would be game films with lots of slow motion, high resolution, and expert explanation -- as close to the most analytical information I could get. For the drama and which team to root for, I flatly, absolutely, positively do not care -- I care only about learning about strategy and tactics, say, as a coach, scout, general manager, etc. would. E.g., for the superbowl I watched, I came away with some understanding of the quarterbacks and pass receivers but NOTHING on the four lines, offensive, defensive, for the two teams. Soooo, for any good view, at LEAST also permit understanding the four lines. Etc.
But likely no more TV until, say, the next superbowl!
No, cling to TV, we are in the golden age of television! There are so many great shows. And these are worthwhile: there's narrative arcs, stories told, actual art.
Let go of TV, you fall into 3 minute YouTubes, then into 15 second TikToks, and I don't know what's after that but it's not good.
Let go of TV, you fall into 3 minute YouTubes, then into 15 second TikToks, and I don't know what's after that but it's not good.
Its been a couple of decades since..
I stopped watching TV 8 years ago.
it is a long time i don't own a tv and don't see much on the laptop even. For one main reason, compared to the 80-90, today programs are very bad. I can't stand them.
I'm not sure what this question means.
TV as the brodcast platform ? ie OTA programs, with ads ? TV as the content format, ie scripted shows, unscripted shows, sports, news, .... TV as "video content on a screen" ?
Looking at the younger type around me, they kind of brag about no-TV; but replace that with lots of social and viral which have very low info content and prod values. And sports; which is the emptiest of empty contents.
TV as the brodcast platform ? ie OTA programs, with ads ? TV as the content format, ie scripted shows, unscripted shows, sports, news, .... TV as "video content on a screen" ?
Looking at the younger type around me, they kind of brag about no-TV; but replace that with lots of social and viral which have very low info content and prod values. And sports; which is the emptiest of empty contents.
Well, I switched off my Horizon box...
TV is just a platform. There are good and bad channels.
But did you also stop the habit of consumption? No netflix or other Video-Platform? No Youtube, lurking on twitch or other social medias? Do you embrase now more active content or beneficial things for your life?
There are different ways to use your time. Some are beneficial, some are more for wasting time till the more benefecial parts are back again. Where is your focus now without TV?
There are different ways to use your time. Some are beneficial, some are more for wasting time till the more benefecial parts are back again. Where is your focus now without TV?
As a child of the 70's, TV is pretty much a fundamental part of my life, and I have never really explored the idea of "quitting" it. My 11 year old son however, I don't think he's watched 100 hours of broadcast TV in his entire life, and probably zero in the last five years. He's watched exponentially more YouTube than I have though.
We dropped cable about 10yrs ago, just streaming services. It’s pretty great.