88% of Americans use a second screen while watching TV(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
88% of Americans use a second screen while watching TV
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/12/88-of-americans-use-a-second-screen-while-watching-tv-why/
226 comments
That quote presents a good story, but I don't think it is true. I could hardly be more engaged than I was this evening sitting at my brother's kitchen table, drinking wine while he cooked and talking about the endeavor of providing food for the family. That I watch two screens sometimes when the TV is on has hardly changed that. If anything it has made my enjoyment of in person conversation more acute.
That's fair but it also doesn't mean much to be able to provide an exception to his general statement, since we still don't know if it's not the case for the majority.
True, but I'm implying by my provision of an anecdote that I disbelieve the (also unsupported) assertions in the quote.
> That I watch two screens sometimes when the TV is on has hardly changed that. If anything it has made my enjoyment of in person conversation more acute.
Could you elaborate?
Could you elaborate?
I'm certain this isn't what the OP means, but from my own personal experience I think it's one of utility. Since you posted this 8 hours ago and no one's replied yet, it can't hurt to give you at least one other illustration.
When watching something on television with family or friends, if a question ever comes up about how something works (what it does, or what it is) that may not be made clear by the show, looking it up on another screen (e.g. mobile device) can lead to a much deeper conversation and better enjoyment of the subject matter. It can also lead to conversations afterwards discussing what we watched in greater detail than if we knew only what was presented in the show.
As an example that happened to me over the holidays, I was watching Alaska Aircrash Investigations with my parents as my mother has a fascination with investigative things, and she spent part of the time on her tablet looking up information on the NTSB staff in the show and, occasionally, some of the accident reports (if she could find them). This lead to both an interesting series of conversations about the people involved and greater appreciation for the program since we collectively knew more about the investigators and their backgrounds.
Tangentially, this is also why I think streaming YouTube to a television is such a beautiful thing (sometimes having the comments on a second screen while watching can be hilarious or depressing).
When watching something on television with family or friends, if a question ever comes up about how something works (what it does, or what it is) that may not be made clear by the show, looking it up on another screen (e.g. mobile device) can lead to a much deeper conversation and better enjoyment of the subject matter. It can also lead to conversations afterwards discussing what we watched in greater detail than if we knew only what was presented in the show.
As an example that happened to me over the holidays, I was watching Alaska Aircrash Investigations with my parents as my mother has a fascination with investigative things, and she spent part of the time on her tablet looking up information on the NTSB staff in the show and, occasionally, some of the accident reports (if she could find them). This lead to both an interesting series of conversations about the people involved and greater appreciation for the program since we collectively knew more about the investigators and their backgrounds.
Tangentially, this is also why I think streaming YouTube to a television is such a beautiful thing (sometimes having the comments on a second screen while watching can be hilarious or depressing).
I found that I have changed my ideas on "enjoyment" per-activity, but not overall. For example: I've developed the habit of watching a movie while exercising in the evenings and listening to discussions on YouTube while gaming. As a result the idea of sitting down for a couple of hours to just watch TV or a movie is almost painfully boring.
But I don't (seem to) have that need for sensory saturation with other activities. I have no problem just sitting down to read for hours.
But I don't (seem to) have that need for sensory saturation with other activities. I have no problem just sitting down to read for hours.
As if nobody ever read the newspaper while the radio is on. Or watched the tv and listened to the radio. Or talked to other people while scanning the newspaper. All of that is old as dirt. Come on...
> watched the tv and listened to the radio
I am fine with your other examples but do people really do this?
I always had the tv OR radio on while doing other things, but the idea of having both on at the same time seems incredibly strange to me.
I am fine with your other examples but do people really do this?
I always had the tv OR radio on while doing other things, but the idea of having both on at the same time seems incredibly strange to me.
At least for sports, muting the TV and listening to the radio broadcast of the same game can greatly improve the experience. Muting the weather channel and a few others is already a net gain even without the radio.
Not OP but I think that the comment about both TV and radio on at the same time was more generic than that.
I'd argue that it's a known fact, at least for anybody that follows any mainstream sport, that sports radio commentary is a lot more exciting that its tv counterpart.
I'd argue that it's a known fact, at least for anybody that follows any mainstream sport, that sports radio commentary is a lot more exciting that its tv counterpart.
Right, I was surprised by the idea one could be listening to two different things at once, not mixing different audio/video streams.
I used to play a lot of Team Fortress 2 on half my wide screen with Seinfeld playing on Plex on the other half.
It was very zen and relaxing, to the point where I did it with other shows and games. For example, Dynasty Warriors 4 on a PS2 emulator, with NewsRadio reruns playing on the other half.
For some people it's just relaxing, not really about boredom.
It was very zen and relaxing, to the point where I did it with other shows and games. For example, Dynasty Warriors 4 on a PS2 emulator, with NewsRadio reruns playing on the other half.
For some people it's just relaxing, not really about boredom.
Yeah, there's nothing more relaxing for me than putting on a comedy podcast and working through a 2D metroidvania game on DS or my hacked Switch. For some reason the two parts of my brain that process audio and that style of game are completely independent.
It's no different than knitting or solving a crossword while listening to the radio 100 years ago.
The only problem is that I only have one more DS and GBA Castlevania game before I've beaten all of them. I've already worked through every Metroid and 2D Zelda game as well as Hollow Knight.
The pickings are getting slim.
It's no different than knitting or solving a crossword while listening to the radio 100 years ago.
The only problem is that I only have one more DS and GBA Castlevania game before I've beaten all of them. I've already worked through every Metroid and 2D Zelda game as well as Hollow Knight.
The pickings are getting slim.
Comparison to knitting and crosswords seems fair for stimuli, I think the difference is during a dinner conversation your knitting wouldn’t be vibrating in your pocket luring you into a “bathroom break” to work on it.
I speedsolve Rubik's cubes. For the longest time I listened to podcasts while solve; two different parts of my brain. But recently I've noticed that in order to break the next big time barrier for me, I need to dedicate my full attention. No more podcasts. Two different parts of the brain still, but now it's only one active part.
I did nearly the same thing for a long while, except it was Dynasty Warriors 3 on the TV and Mr. Show reruns on my computer. Although Newsradio is a show I rewatch and use as a background show often.
I felt very similar, like it was a zen feeling. I didn't get a similar feeling with another game until Minecraft, where I could just carve out giant holes in the land while watching TV shows.
I felt very similar, like it was a zen feeling. I didn't get a similar feeling with another game until Minecraft, where I could just carve out giant holes in the land while watching TV shows.
I've done similar with MST3K and I find it sort of fills a social need. It's like hanging out with familiar friends.
I think boredom has been redefined many times over human history. That's where leisure activities are borne from.
There was a point in our collective history when "where will my next meal come from?" is the overarching concern of every member of the species. Becoming a producer in such an environment would be nearly unthinkable, yet it's not a second thought today.
There was a point in our collective history when "where will my next meal come from?" is the overarching concern of every member of the species. Becoming a producer in such an environment would be nearly unthinkable, yet it's not a second thought today.
Tribal societies had time for stories, music, dance, art and ritual. Kids still had time to play. You’d have to go pretty far back or during extreme times to find a period when our ancestors had no time foe leisure.
Compared to what we have today? I don't think you have to go very far back at all. Even in medieval times they didn't have the free time we have now.
This is a common misconception, but until the modern age most people had lots of free time. It was only after the industrial revolution that this state of affairs changed. See e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28q7l5/how_m...
Ack, that's pretty interesting
It depends mostly on the period, the availability of food etc.
One anecdote: I visited the (replica of) Chauvet Cave, in France, a few months ago, in which some of the best-preserved cave paintings in the world can be seen. They were painted around 30000 years ago from now by the Aurignacian, people very similar to us modern humans, including in height. We were told that they would spent only 4 to 5 hours a day hunting or gathering the necessary raw materials to survive. The rest of the time could be dedicated to the making of splendid clothes, a large variety af daily items, art, etc.
Edit: relevant wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian
One anecdote: I visited the (replica of) Chauvet Cave, in France, a few months ago, in which some of the best-preserved cave paintings in the world can be seen. They were painted around 30000 years ago from now by the Aurignacian, people very similar to us modern humans, including in height. We were told that they would spent only 4 to 5 hours a day hunting or gathering the necessary raw materials to survive. The rest of the time could be dedicated to the making of splendid clothes, a large variety af daily items, art, etc.
Edit: relevant wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian
Citation needed.
Cursory googling indicates hours weren't all that different.
https://www.lostkingdom.net/medieval-workday-working-hours/
Cursory googling indicates hours weren't all that different.
https://www.lostkingdom.net/medieval-workday-working-hours/
We live way better than a king did about 500 years ago.
I'd say even 200 years ago.
No electricity, no antibiotics, no cars or planes or trains (maybe early ones, but not widespread). No thank you!
No electricity, no antibiotics, no cars or planes or trains (maybe early ones, but not widespread). No thank you!
[deleted]
[deleted]
You tricked me! I thought it was a comedy. Slavoj Žižek is pretty interesting.
It is a joke, but I don’t think Zizek’s in on it.
>>According to data from Nielsen, the TV metrics company, 88 percent of Americans "use a second digital device while watching TV." Seventy-one percent of Americans "look up content related to content they are watching," while 41 percent of Americans are busy messaging "friends/family about content they are watching."
Has anyone here actually watched Nielsen TV recently? This is the oldschool stuff. Comcast. Not netflix/hulu/Disney. The commercials are INSANE. I stopped watching sitcoms a few years ago when they switched to 21 minute shows. A third of primetime content is now ads. For reruns, thanks to compression tech/editing, ads are on the screen almost half the time. And those ads are ALL for old people. Diabetic testing supplies. Laxatives. Investment consulting. Erectile dysfunction. Medicare part B. Incontinence products. That's what the second screen is for: To distract one's self until the animated colon commercial goes away.
Has anyone here actually watched Nielsen TV recently? This is the oldschool stuff. Comcast. Not netflix/hulu/Disney. The commercials are INSANE. I stopped watching sitcoms a few years ago when they switched to 21 minute shows. A third of primetime content is now ads. For reruns, thanks to compression tech/editing, ads are on the screen almost half the time. And those ads are ALL for old people. Diabetic testing supplies. Laxatives. Investment consulting. Erectile dysfunction. Medicare part B. Incontinence products. That's what the second screen is for: To distract one's self until the animated colon commercial goes away.
I'm not sure of the exact year, but sometime in the early 2000's I stopped paying for cable and went 100% online or purchased DVD's (netflix was just starting to stream).
Every once in a while I experience regular television at someone's house and it always blows me away that people are ok watching something and being interrupted constantly while doing it.
I've been told cable now has commercials, which cracks me up since the advantage of cable used to be not having commercials because you paid for it.
Every once in a while I experience regular television at someone's house and it always blows me away that people are ok watching something and being interrupted constantly while doing it.
I've been told cable now has commercials, which cracks me up since the advantage of cable used to be not having commercials because you paid for it.
>now has commercials
Commercials had invaded Cable TV thoroughly, well before the 2000s. I know it was 20 years ago, but I'd be surprised for someone to forget about the existence of commercials.
Today's are much more intrusive, however.
Commercials had invaded Cable TV thoroughly, well before the 2000s. I know it was 20 years ago, but I'd be surprised for someone to forget about the existence of commercials.
Today's are much more intrusive, however.
My daughters only experience with linear television programming is in lobbies and my families houses for the holidays/visiting grandpa. It’s interesting to watch a generation grow up that literally doesn’t know what traditional TV looks like, and I’m fucking glad because it sucked.
Too bad new issues of content fragmentation are developing in its place - I’m at least thankful Apple is starting to tackle it with “channels” in the Apple TV app and hardware, I still have to juggle subscriptions but at least I have a consistent interface to all of them.
Too bad new issues of content fragmentation are developing in its place - I’m at least thankful Apple is starting to tackle it with “channels” in the Apple TV app and hardware, I still have to juggle subscriptions but at least I have a consistent interface to all of them.
What do you mean, content fragmentation? You just search for what you want to watch on Telegram and pick your preferred resolution for your device and bandwidth. As an added bonus, there's usually better localization available, too!
could be an area thing, but I certainly never had a show or movie interrupted in order to play a commercial. They would do the small commercials in between programs to let you know some show or movie was available to watch, but that's not my understanding of commercials as they exist today on cable.
I feel the same way when I browse the web with ads...
When I install a new OS what I do goes in this order.
1. start OS updates
2. install FF if it's not installed (aka if its windows)
3. install ublock origin
I'm grateful there are people who take the hit and keep the internet free for people like me, but I could never deal with those ads.
1. start OS updates
2. install FF if it's not installed (aka if its windows)
3. install ublock origin
I'm grateful there are people who take the hit and keep the internet free for people like me, but I could never deal with those ads.
Cable always had commercials, not sure what special cable you recall having, but Comcast was full of commercials 20 years ago.
> Has anyone here actually watched Nielsen TV recently? This is the oldschool stuff. Comcast. Not netflix/hulu/Disney.
Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, and Amazon Prime are all tracked by Nielsen, which deployed tracking of streaming platforms starting in 2017.
Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, and Amazon Prime are all tracked by Nielsen, which deployed tracking of streaming platforms starting in 2017.
The content itself took a nosedive after the writer's strike too. It feels like 2/3 of broadcast television these days is some kind of low effort singing/dancing contest.
Considering it's basically a live music video, there's no reason why you wouldn't browse the internet at the same time.
Considering it's basically a live music video, there's no reason why you wouldn't browse the internet at the same time.
I feel this way about everything.
GoT took a nose dive when they stopped having source material to work off of. It became stupid, mindless drama. People talk about the ending as if that's where the problems started. No, the writing was crap for the last several seasons.
The latest season of The Expanse was disappointing. It went from a slow burning, character driven series to an action packed run-of-the-mill drama laden mess, like most of the television shows you see nowadays. I'm happy Amazon picked it up, but they basically butchered the show, it will never live up to its potential.
Everything just kind of becomes samey because they're all learning how to do it from the same sources, and the lessons they're learning is unnecessary drama pulls people in and keeps them there. Except it drives me nuts when an entire season's worth of plot points could literally evaporate if character A articulated why they were angry at character B, who would then explain it was a misunderstanding.
GoT took a nose dive when they stopped having source material to work off of. It became stupid, mindless drama. People talk about the ending as if that's where the problems started. No, the writing was crap for the last several seasons.
The latest season of The Expanse was disappointing. It went from a slow burning, character driven series to an action packed run-of-the-mill drama laden mess, like most of the television shows you see nowadays. I'm happy Amazon picked it up, but they basically butchered the show, it will never live up to its potential.
Everything just kind of becomes samey because they're all learning how to do it from the same sources, and the lessons they're learning is unnecessary drama pulls people in and keeps them there. Except it drives me nuts when an entire season's worth of plot points could literally evaporate if character A articulated why they were angry at character B, who would then explain it was a misunderstanding.
The Expanse S4 was going off the fourth book, I believe. I didn’t like it as much as the last two seasons, but it’s supposed to be a setup season for what comes in the next couple books.
Also, Chernobyl was fantastic and Watchmen was delightful, for the most part. And Evil is an interesting supernatural/cutting edge Tech mix. Then there’s the final season of Mr. Robot.
Also, Chernobyl was fantastic and Watchmen was delightful, for the most part. And Evil is an interesting supernatural/cutting edge Tech mix. Then there’s the final season of Mr. Robot.
I'm a little surprised that you would say this about the recent season of the expanse. I found it to be quite the opposite: mostly character development with not nearly as much plot movement as I had hoped for. I didn't like it as much as the third season, but that's a pretty high bar to meet. the main conflict with murtry was pretty contrived, I'll give you that. holden has been sent personally by chrisjen, literally has a warship parked outside of town, and the guy is going to push his buttons over a single person he wants to kill?
I don't feel the same about expanse. Maybe it's just me, but I felt the show is progressing just liked in the books.
Expanse Book 4 was absolutely terrible. The TV show is actually much better than the fourth book.
Actually I am thinking that the Expanse in general is a series where the screenwriters are outperforming the original authors.
Actually I am thinking that the Expanse in general is a series where the screenwriters are outperforming the original authors.
The source material for Season 4 was not really a Space Opera anymore. There's a bit of similar material in book 5, and then it's back to Space Opera for the remainder of the series.
Season 4 was always gonna be trouble, and I suspect that contributed to SyFy cancelling it.
Season 4 was always gonna be trouble, and I suspect that contributed to SyFy cancelling it.
fair enough, I haven't read the books. I purchased them as ebooks, but for whatever reason I can't seem to get into the first book. Love the series though.
It was that way before the writer's strike.
The slow decline that started with The Real World had picked up pace, and the airwaves were slowly filling with reality show after reality show.
Then Lost went on the air, and nobody noticed at first, but by Season 2 it had competition from story-driven shows again. And I dunno who rushed out Lost Season 1 on DVD a few months before the second season aired, but that was an inspired decision. Tons of new viewers for Season 2, and probably for the first time ever people were binge-watching a TV show.
It ended with a whimper, but boy did it start with a bang.
The slow decline that started with The Real World had picked up pace, and the airwaves were slowly filling with reality show after reality show.
Then Lost went on the air, and nobody noticed at first, but by Season 2 it had competition from story-driven shows again. And I dunno who rushed out Lost Season 1 on DVD a few months before the second season aired, but that was an inspired decision. Tons of new viewers for Season 2, and probably for the first time ever people were binge-watching a TV show.
It ended with a whimper, but boy did it start with a bang.
> but boy did it start with a bang.
Lost got some crazy publicity (for the time) as well: Lots of people thought the shot of the plane from the inside being torn in two was real, not from a TV show.
Lost got some crazy publicity (for the time) as well: Lots of people thought the shot of the plane from the inside being torn in two was real, not from a TV show.
> The content itself took a nosedive after the writer's strike too
I find this a weird take because we're in a renaissance of quality story telling TV right now. Keeping in mind Sturgeon's Law, only 66% of tv being crap is a win.
I find this a weird take because we're in a renaissance of quality story telling TV right now. Keeping in mind Sturgeon's Law, only 66% of tv being crap is a win.
Yes but that is for "prestige" shows, of which you get 6-12 episodes for a season. Used to be you would get an average of 22 episodes a season of any show. Also season breaks are getting longer used to be 6-4 monthes between season now you get 8 months to two years in some cases.So now a network as to fill a lot more time with a lot of inexpensive content so we get tons of crap tv shows.
There is no middle ground any more. it is either cheap simi-scripted reality series, music/tallent shows, and game shows or high budget prestige dramas.
There is no middle ground any more. it is either cheap simi-scripted reality series, music/tallent shows, and game shows or high budget prestige dramas.
> renaissance of quality story telling TV right now
Not on broadcast television, which is what OP was referring to. It’s all monster of the week procedurals, low effort sitcoms, and reality garbage.
Not on broadcast television, which is what OP was referring to. It’s all monster of the week procedurals, low effort sitcoms, and reality garbage.
This isn't something I hear too much, but maybe content restrictions are actually starting to become a disadvantage to broadcast TV.
You could once tell a thrilling serial (whether it's crime drama, or sci-fi) within TV-14 guidelines that many people will watch, but now people expect more grit I guess. They want more gut-wrenching violence or adult language that feels more real and doesn't hold back.
You could once tell a thrilling serial (whether it's crime drama, or sci-fi) within TV-14 guidelines that many people will watch, but now people expect more grit I guess. They want more gut-wrenching violence or adult language that feels more real and doesn't hold back.
“The Good Place”
And what happened with the ending of game of thrones? Shouldn’t professional writers be smarter than the average viewer? I didn’t seem like that was the case.
I think they realized around season five that they weren't going to be able to hold onto the whole cast for long enough to finish the show properly so they sped things up a lot. they also caught up with the books around here so they had to start making stuff up themselves.
this is a classic problem with long running tv shows. it's hard to get the pacing right when you don't know in advance how many seasons you're going to make.
this is a classic problem with long running tv shows. it's hard to get the pacing right when you don't know in advance how many seasons you're going to make.
That would be new to me. What I have heard is grrm wasn't involved after season 4. Also HBO offered more seasons to do what ever they needed. The two writers decided to make the last season short.
My understanding is the show runners were trying to jump ship onto a Star wars project, so they rushed out crap, and then star wars fell through.
What's been the biggest factor do you think is the decline of broadcast TV? Writer's strike made a dent to be sure but that should affect all of TV. Television shows in general had underwent a big boom recently, but it's just not happening through the rabbit ear antennas. But there's still some good stuff there if you know where to look (mostly in form of comedy, Brooklyn 99 for example).
Is it that major media conglomerates allocating less budget on their broadcast TV business and more into their movies and subscription based business models?
My other guess is that content restrictions of broadcast TV are now really holding it back.
Is it that major media conglomerates allocating less budget on their broadcast TV business and more into their movies and subscription based business models?
My other guess is that content restrictions of broadcast TV are now really holding it back.
I’ve gotten to the point with ads where I absolutely refuse to be subjected to a single ad. I don’t care whatsoever about any websites or companies making a single cent on forcing advertising on my precious mental resources. I will block all ads and steal all content and torrent everything. It’s amazing never having seen a television commercial the past 5+ years. Plus, I make strong efforts to even avoid buying anything at all from an ad once I’ve been subjected to their marketing. I hope it continues to spiral this way.
Be sure to keep complaining about quality content not being targeted to you!
> I stopped watching sitcoms a few years ago when they switched to 21 minute shows. A third of primetime content is now ads.
That is not a new thing. 21 min has been the norm for decades.
That is not a new thing. 21 min has been the norm for decades.
I'm getting the feeling people in this thread have actually forgotten what video content was like before the internet.
21-23 minute shows is the standard run time for a half hour block.
21-23 minute shows is the standard run time for a half hour block.
"Ads have become a tax on the technically illiterate." -- Scott Galloway
Unrelated to this comment, thread or OP in any way, you mentioned to me the concept of Complexity Catastrophe ~4 months ago from the book Design Rules by Baldwin and Clark. I’ve finally gotten around to reading it and I feel compelled to thank you. I haven’t yet finished, but it’s an absolutely fascinating read that is providing me with a lot of food for thought. I find it both well written and easy to understand. I honestly can’t remember the last time I was so fascinated by the contents of a book. I’m trying to find a new career right now, and this book may single handedly have changed the direction of that journey. So again, thank you.
I haven't paid for cable or similar in a decade. Every time I visit friends or family and they have a TV playing ads 50% of the time at 200% the volume of the show (exaggerated, but not by much), I start to get restless and agitated. TV ads have gotten to the point where they have become mentally painful to tolerate and are so bad that even with a phone I can't escape them.
Not watched that stuff for years. There's always youtube if you want sitcoms.
I suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while the first one is showing adverts.
That's kinda old-fashioned thinking. It's true that people who only watch one screen will find something else to do during a commercial, but people who habitually use two screens will use both regardless of what's on the TV.
Source: A company I used to work for did a metric buttload of research on this subject.
Source: A company I used to work for did a metric buttload of research on this subject.
> It's true that people who only watch one screen will find something else to do during a commercial, but people who habitually use two screens will use both regardless of what's on the TV.
Then they are only using the handheld (or laptop) screen, and they are not watching the TV
Then they are only using the handheld (or laptop) screen, and they are not watching the TV
[deleted]
What is the unit fundamental derivative of 1 buttload? Kilogram? Or is it more of an electromagnetic thing?
At least for me, that is not the case.
Most television and film content is just unbelievably boring, self-important, and undemanding of the viewer's attention. Frankly, content producers have become more and more disrespectful of the viewer's time.
In very rare cases, I suddenly notice I've lost track of the plot--if that happens a couple times, that's when I know I need to put away my phone/laptop and focus on the show.
It is not obvious which content is actually demanding. For example, the film The Martian was very dense and demanding of attention, while the more recent Ad Astra could be summarized with the single sentence "sad sack mopes around space." Dialog rich comedy is generally the most demanding.
Most television and film content is just unbelievably boring, self-important, and undemanding of the viewer's attention. Frankly, content producers have become more and more disrespectful of the viewer's time.
In very rare cases, I suddenly notice I've lost track of the plot--if that happens a couple times, that's when I know I need to put away my phone/laptop and focus on the show.
It is not obvious which content is actually demanding. For example, the film The Martian was very dense and demanding of attention, while the more recent Ad Astra could be summarized with the single sentence "sad sack mopes around space." Dialog rich comedy is generally the most demanding.
> Dialog rich comedy is generally the most demanding.
Really? I find that the easiest to just listen to, especially once I know who all the characters are.
Generally it's not important what they're doing, just what they're saying, so I can just listen while doing other things.
Like the shows I relisten to all the time (not watch) while working on the computer are Newsradio, Corner Gas, Larry Sanders, Mr. Show, Red Dwarf, Scrubs, Psych, Arrested Development, Mighty Boosh, Flight of the Conchords, Yes Minister, Mitchell and Webb Look, and a more recent addition, Letterkenny. Pretty much none of that requires my visual attention, except to know that there's a visual gag here or there.
Granted, I usually paid attention the first time I watched it, but not on the rewatch.
Really? I find that the easiest to just listen to, especially once I know who all the characters are.
Generally it's not important what they're doing, just what they're saying, so I can just listen while doing other things.
Like the shows I relisten to all the time (not watch) while working on the computer are Newsradio, Corner Gas, Larry Sanders, Mr. Show, Red Dwarf, Scrubs, Psych, Arrested Development, Mighty Boosh, Flight of the Conchords, Yes Minister, Mitchell and Webb Look, and a more recent addition, Letterkenny. Pretty much none of that requires my visual attention, except to know that there's a visual gag here or there.
Granted, I usually paid attention the first time I watched it, but not on the rewatch.
Maybe? Between the DVR and TV from non-ad sources, we rarely see any commercials at all -- and yet my wife and I both routinely have another screen up during SOME shows.
We find there are two kinds of movies/TV: stuff that's kinda just relaxing and during which you can browse twitter or whatever, and stuff that's more serious where you can't really multitask without missing important aspects of the show, either because of the filming style or the density of the material or the pace of events or whatever.
The canonical example of the latter is The Wire. More recently, I'd put The Crown or Watchmen in this category. For the former, well, pretty much any traditional network show counts.
However, even in high-attention programming, it's pretty common for one of us to pause the show and check a screen to verify where we saw a given actor before, or look up a related bit of information (e.g., during the Crown, we often check on historical context).
We find there are two kinds of movies/TV: stuff that's kinda just relaxing and during which you can browse twitter or whatever, and stuff that's more serious where you can't really multitask without missing important aspects of the show, either because of the filming style or the density of the material or the pace of events or whatever.
The canonical example of the latter is The Wire. More recently, I'd put The Crown or Watchmen in this category. For the former, well, pretty much any traditional network show counts.
However, even in high-attention programming, it's pretty common for one of us to pause the show and check a screen to verify where we saw a given actor before, or look up a related bit of information (e.g., during the Crown, we often check on historical context).
I'm often on IMDB trying to figure out where I've seen some bit part character before.
I was watching a movie the other night and there was an uncredited cameo and it's still bugging me because I can't seem to figure out where I've seen him before.
I was watching a movie the other night and there was an uncredited cameo and it's still bugging me because I can't seem to figure out where I've seen him before.
Anecdotal, but I usually have something on TV in the background (a random youtube video/music set) and use a laptop to browser reddit/HN all the time. (Obviously this is when I'm chilling by myself and not when I have friends/people over)
Same here. It's basically the same thing as people 100 years ago reading a newspaper while a radio was on. It's nice to just have a bit of background noise.
I'm the total opposite: I have no music or TV in the background as I like my environment to be as silent as possible so I can hear my own thoughts. But when people are over, I play music and turn the TV on so they don't figure out right away I'm a boring weirdo (to them; I don't bore myself).
I use my cell to queue up videos on the YouTube app, while watching the current one.
True. I always mute the TV too.
Or to put it more generally, the second screen is there for when content on the main screen is rubbish. The implication that if you watch a movie you should watch 100% of it without looking away is preposterous, as let's face it a "good" movie today is 40% rubbish cinematic trope filler.
Sometimes, the TV is just background noise. But, I also catch myself doing this when I watch more serious TV shows for the first time.
I feel like a junkie saying this but maybe TV alone isn’t enough stimulation.
I feel like a junkie saying this but maybe TV alone isn’t enough stimulation.
The pacing of TV shows is, in my opinion, not that great. There’s a lot of story or visual lulls where if I don’t have a second screen, I’ll just end up wandering away from the TV and won’t finish the show.
Before we had screens, we had newspapers, magazines and coffee table books. I remember this happening quite a bit when watching TVs prior to second screens even existing.
Before we had screens, we had newspapers, magazines and coffee table books. I remember this happening quite a bit when watching TVs prior to second screens even existing.
> There’s a lot of story or visual lulls where if I don’t have a second screen, I’ll just end up wandering away from the TV and won’t finish the show.
I think a lot of people feel this way, and not to place too much faith in TV show writers but this seems like a shame as it limits what experiences can be delivered by the medium.
This is exactly what has happened with movies, as well. At some point in the 2010's I noticed that in many movies I watched almost every shot was in motion. No moment of stillness or quieter reflection, just constant noise and motion, even in movies I thought were particularly good like the new Mad Max movie.
I think it's essentially a battle being fought between screens: the movie can't let the modern audience's attention waver for even a second, otherwise they might look down at their "second screen", lose track of the plot and consequently believe the movie wasn't that great.
This sucks because restful or reflective moments can give you a sense of sheltering, or the calm before a storm (for example), but you just can't get that feeling without moments where the camera calms down and people stop shouting.
I think a lot of people feel this way, and not to place too much faith in TV show writers but this seems like a shame as it limits what experiences can be delivered by the medium.
This is exactly what has happened with movies, as well. At some point in the 2010's I noticed that in many movies I watched almost every shot was in motion. No moment of stillness or quieter reflection, just constant noise and motion, even in movies I thought were particularly good like the new Mad Max movie.
I think it's essentially a battle being fought between screens: the movie can't let the modern audience's attention waver for even a second, otherwise they might look down at their "second screen", lose track of the plot and consequently believe the movie wasn't that great.
This sucks because restful or reflective moments can give you a sense of sheltering, or the calm before a storm (for example), but you just can't get that feeling without moments where the camera calms down and people stop shouting.
Marvel movies are a good example. They even use cutting of food and sandwiches as a very common transition to slow things down but keep them “tight”.
Marvel movies are all a prime example of the “all filler” garbage remake movies with sequel after sequel, advertising to you and fulfilling the lowest common denominator. Marvel movies are trash. All the phony superhero movies are made distractions for grown men to act like kids with superhero figures. They all are getting political, I can’t believe how duped they have “critical thinking” “hackers.”
I've taken to relentlessly using the 30-second skip if there's a side-plot that doesn't entertain me on a show I otherwise enjoy.
Depends for me. Lossless tv like a hockey game is plenty of stimulation. Lossy tv like a baseball game just isn't.
What do lossy and lossless mean in this context?
Lossy = I don't need all the data. I can look away for most of a baseball game and still enjoy it. But if it's some intense drama like Game of Thrones then I need to see it all. You miss a scene and you're confused for episodes to come.
If you only pay attention for 10% of the content, GoT is much lossier than baseball. Sparse vs dense would be more sensible terminology.
Regardless of terminology, I'm trying to communicate the idea that some media demands your full attention while others don't.
Maybe a better example is a podcast vs. music. You don't really need to absorb, consciously, every note and lyric of a song. But a podcast demands your attention.
Maybe a better example is a podcast vs. music. You don't really need to absorb, consciously, every note and lyric of a song. But a podcast demands your attention.
No, it depends on what content you're looking for. There are certain series where if I only care about the plot, I can find a synopsis on a wiki somewhere, or just listen to the show in the background. But if I want to get the full visual experience in the acting, cinematography, and production, I need to watch in order to be emotionally engaged.
many of us, myself included, find silence distracting. I prefer to have something going on around me, whether the buzz of a coffee shop or a tv show I’ve seen lots of times droning on in the background.
Lately since Disney+ launched that’s been episodes of The Simpson’s for me. I’ve seen all the early stuff enough that I don’t need to give it anywhere near my full attention to still enjoy it and occasionally chuckle while I’m writing an email or putting together some low complexity code.
Lately since Disney+ launched that’s been episodes of The Simpson’s for me. I’ve seen all the early stuff enough that I don’t need to give it anywhere near my full attention to still enjoy it and occasionally chuckle while I’m writing an email or putting together some low complexity code.
I think our brains have gotten so dopamine-wired that our attention span has suffered. I am reading Digital Minimalism which touches on this a bit, but I'd be interested to know if there are any rigorous studies relating to this topic.
I can feel my brain being caught in a fog as my attention span has dropped drastically due to the over-stimulation. I'm going to start leaving my phone at home a few days a week and meditate in the mornings to improve on myself.
Oh absolutely. IMO - If you're _not_ like this that's a clear advantage at work.
I do sometimes look up details about a show I’m watching, but I’m with the author on this, I can’t fully keep track of what’s going on if I’m not watching.
Moreover, I prefer to watch with subtitles because I feel like I absorb information drastically better if I read it. On that point, I pretty much hate watching YouTube videos to learn anything - I’d rather read the docs and my favorite sources tend to be things like a programming language’s official documentation or the manual for whatever software I’m using (Logic Pro X comes to mind - I’d much rather read factual, authoritative text on a feature than watch some random YouTuber talk for 10 minutes and try to get me to subscribe to his or her channel while I could have easily read the docs in half the time). I think a big part of this “text vs video/audio” learning dilemma is that you can’t easily skim a videos contents and intuitively know what to skip and what parts are interesting. Text will always have its place.
Moreover, I prefer to watch with subtitles because I feel like I absorb information drastically better if I read it. On that point, I pretty much hate watching YouTube videos to learn anything - I’d rather read the docs and my favorite sources tend to be things like a programming language’s official documentation or the manual for whatever software I’m using (Logic Pro X comes to mind - I’d much rather read factual, authoritative text on a feature than watch some random YouTuber talk for 10 minutes and try to get me to subscribe to his or her channel while I could have easily read the docs in half the time). I think a big part of this “text vs video/audio” learning dilemma is that you can’t easily skim a videos contents and intuitively know what to skip and what parts are interesting. Text will always have its place.
I feel you so much on this one. Visuals certainly help me, but i would take a purely written source over a purely video one any day of the week (talking only about learning material throughout this whole comment btw). For one, with readable sources i can go at my own pace, set pauses, skip over parts that i already know or find to be fluff, etc. The source and the structure of a written source are one and the same, which allows me to consume the material in the way that is personally the most efficient for me. With videos, i have zero control of the flow and zero knowledge of the structure of the material, let alone being able to traverse the structure and control it. This alone makes videos way less efficient for me.
The only scenario where i would prefer videos for learning something are when the material is very short in length and very single-minded, like “explaining how that one specific formula works and how it is used for that one specific application and why” or when i need to fill a small gap in my knowledge of something. And even then, there is some potential for the creator of such video to misuse the video and pad it with fluff and poor narration, though this is not unique to video as a medium and can be done in a text-based material as well.
The only scenario where i would prefer videos for learning something are when the material is very short in length and very single-minded, like “explaining how that one specific formula works and how it is used for that one specific application and why” or when i need to fill a small gap in my knowledge of something. And even then, there is some potential for the creator of such video to misuse the video and pad it with fluff and poor narration, though this is not unique to video as a medium and can be done in a text-based material as well.
Yep. I wonder if there’s been a bunch of research on the topic and it really boils down to us just being written versus visual learners, or if it has to do with something like age-bias - maybe because YouTube wasn’t really a thing yet when I was a teen I never caught the bug. I’ve noticed it seems like kids these days love watching YouTube videos to learn stuff I would never watch videos on, like programming.
I had the same hypothesis as you about the generational preferences kind of thing, but personal anecdata seems to run against it. I am in my mid twenties, have plenty of friends spanning from early twenties to early thirties (with a few in their late 30s/early 40s), and have noticed zero correlation between the age and their willingness and preference to learn things from youtube videos vs. written sources.
Not accounting for some specific types of things (e.g., I cannot for the life of me learn intricate details of operating physical things like fixing something on a motorcycle without a video, despite heavily preferring written sources for learning otherwise), the general preference for learning through youtube vs. reading seems to come down (at least from what I've observed) purely to the individual's own preference.
Not accounting for some specific types of things (e.g., I cannot for the life of me learn intricate details of operating physical things like fixing something on a motorcycle without a video, despite heavily preferring written sources for learning otherwise), the general preference for learning through youtube vs. reading seems to come down (at least from what I've observed) purely to the individual's own preference.
Because TV is absolute trash. low quality, full of filler, 25% commercials (!!)[0].
[0]https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/30/television-too-many-c...
[0]https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/30/television-too-many-c...
Does watching Netflix, HBO, or Hulu count as watching TV? That's how I usually watch television shows and none has commercials.
If I watch broadcast TV it's through my DVR and I skip commercials.
Pretty much the only live TV I watch is sports and there's a lot of advertising there.
I'd argue that TV isn't trash though. There's an unbelievable amount of stuff being made and it isn't hard to find something great to watch. My to-watch list still has Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mr Robot, Westworld S2, Game of Thrones, and about 20 other series on it.
If I watch broadcast TV it's through my DVR and I skip commercials.
Pretty much the only live TV I watch is sports and there's a lot of advertising there.
I'd argue that TV isn't trash though. There's an unbelievable amount of stuff being made and it isn't hard to find something great to watch. My to-watch list still has Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mr Robot, Westworld S2, Game of Thrones, and about 20 other series on it.
There's certainly a lot of boring, formulaic content out there. I recently watched Easy Rider and season 4 of Rick and Morty and in both cases my phone was left on a shelf and forgotten for hours. Yesterday I tried to watch the first episode of Witcher and it just wasn't my thing, I was fiddling with my phone after 10 minutes. (YMMV obviously)
US TV is so disappointing when you expect an hour long episode but, because of the ads, it's only 42-43 minutes long. A mid-way intermission would be fine, but instead you get shallow plots driven by the need to shove in ads every 12 minutes. And all the procedurals are built around that, like the lives of those characters in that universe pause so some shitty marketing material can play. Of course, they're also 24 episodes long so they run for most of a year, and 90% of the show is the baddie of the week. The 10% of actual substance is distributed in 3-4 episodes throughout so you have to deal with all of it to get the real plot.
I've been watching the last season of Mr Robot on Amazon (and my god is it a cracker). As soon as I went to reddit to check out the fanbase reaction, so many of the posts were about how the vibe was ruined by ads appearing so often. But for me...it was a solid 50 minutes of TV, completely uninterrupted. I imagine those who enjoyed The Expanse on cable are now delighted about season 4 being a pure continuous stream on Amazon. I was.
Of course, you still get the blatant product placement. Death Stranding is my recent fave example for that, where you get Monster energy cans rubbed in your face. Same as with the old Splinter Cell games you'd be climbing across a massive billboard advertising Axe body spray.
I think the US has a serious problem with its special blend of capitalism, individualism, and consumerism. Everybody is out there to get something from you.
I've been watching the last season of Mr Robot on Amazon (and my god is it a cracker). As soon as I went to reddit to check out the fanbase reaction, so many of the posts were about how the vibe was ruined by ads appearing so often. But for me...it was a solid 50 minutes of TV, completely uninterrupted. I imagine those who enjoyed The Expanse on cable are now delighted about season 4 being a pure continuous stream on Amazon. I was.
Of course, you still get the blatant product placement. Death Stranding is my recent fave example for that, where you get Monster energy cans rubbed in your face. Same as with the old Splinter Cell games you'd be climbing across a massive billboard advertising Axe body spray.
I think the US has a serious problem with its special blend of capitalism, individualism, and consumerism. Everybody is out there to get something from you.
> Of course, they're also 24 episodes long so they run for most of a year,
This hasn't been true for shows I'm interested in for a long time, and to be honest I kind of miss it. Especially for shows that used to have longer runs but are now shorter, the pacing seems off. There used to be a season-wide arc alongside individual episodes that may or may not have anything to do with that arc in particular.
You might say that episodes that don't tie into the season are filler, and I get where you're coming from. But in sci-fi specifically, I'm so sick of the trope of "there's a thing that threatens the very fabric of the universe", and literally everything the main characters do between learning about it and resolving it are related. I miss lower stakes episodes that balance out the larger stakes in the overall season.
I'm thinking specifically of Doctor Who in that last paragraph. (which to be fair is not US TV, but I can name some US/Canadian shows that took a similar route) It used to be that the doctor could have a romp around a new planet or an interesting period in history, the doctor or his companions would learn something new, and then they'd move on. Those kinds of one-offs are what the show is built around IMO. But now with fewer episodes every season, the very fabric of the universe is always threatened, and every companion is the most important person ever born, and everything you see on screen reinforces those two ideas. They keep mentioning adventures off-screen, I think because the writers recognize that they're losing something by not having those unrelated adventures happen where the audience can see.
(The latest season of Doctor Who is at least a step back from that, but it had plenty of its own problems, not least of which is a very crowded main cast that ended up underdeveloped as a result. The only character that I felt was interesting in the first episode didn't make it to the main crew, which is probably why they were developed so much better than the rest.)
This hasn't been true for shows I'm interested in for a long time, and to be honest I kind of miss it. Especially for shows that used to have longer runs but are now shorter, the pacing seems off. There used to be a season-wide arc alongside individual episodes that may or may not have anything to do with that arc in particular.
You might say that episodes that don't tie into the season are filler, and I get where you're coming from. But in sci-fi specifically, I'm so sick of the trope of "there's a thing that threatens the very fabric of the universe", and literally everything the main characters do between learning about it and resolving it are related. I miss lower stakes episodes that balance out the larger stakes in the overall season.
I'm thinking specifically of Doctor Who in that last paragraph. (which to be fair is not US TV, but I can name some US/Canadian shows that took a similar route) It used to be that the doctor could have a romp around a new planet or an interesting period in history, the doctor or his companions would learn something new, and then they'd move on. Those kinds of one-offs are what the show is built around IMO. But now with fewer episodes every season, the very fabric of the universe is always threatened, and every companion is the most important person ever born, and everything you see on screen reinforces those two ideas. They keep mentioning adventures off-screen, I think because the writers recognize that they're losing something by not having those unrelated adventures happen where the audience can see.
(The latest season of Doctor Who is at least a step back from that, but it had plenty of its own problems, not least of which is a very crowded main cast that ended up underdeveloped as a result. The only character that I felt was interesting in the first episode didn't make it to the main crew, which is probably why they were developed so much better than the rest.)
I've been rewatching the first season of Fringe lately and really enjoying the type of pacing you're talking about here. While the standalone episodes often have some piece tying into the overarching conspiracy, they're also valuable for offering time to build the relationships between the characters. Often in more contemporary shows, with hour-long episodes in 8-12 episode seasons, I feel like the interpersonal relationships rise and conflict abruptly and feel more contrived as a result; these longer seasons make the relationships feel more natural, as they're built on-screen rather than partially between episodes.
Fringe is an interesting case because the first season got one less commercial break per episode so there were five extra minutes compared to the other shows on network TV. That doesn’t sound like much but it’s amazing how different it feels from other shows in that first season. Also make sure you decode the glyphs: https://fringeglyphs.com :-)
Thank you, that's an excellent way to phrase what I was trying to say.
> But in sci-fi specifically, I'm so sick of the trope of "there's a thing that threatens the very fabric of the universe", and literally everything the main characters do between learning about it and resolving it are related.
This made me think of “The Mandalorian”. An 8 episode “season”, and a good half of the episodes were unrelated to the main story arc. Is this a good thing or not? It’s hard to say. I don’t feel terribly attached to the show, frankly.
This made me think of “The Mandalorian”. An 8 episode “season”, and a good half of the episodes were unrelated to the main story arc. Is this a good thing or not? It’s hard to say. I don’t feel terribly attached to the show, frankly.
Exactly.
Take late night talk show hosts' shows for example.
Ill watch the monologue of the shows and thats it. Most times - I will just watch the clip on youtube. I dont give a shit about which actor is promoting their crap, or what musician is going to perform a song.
I get the same jokes told in a slightly different angle from Colbert, Kimmel, Meyers, Noah, etc... and I get all their propaganda angles from both sides in short order.
Whats worse is that people like Bill Meyer are so freaking smug about their "unique" perspective....
Its all garbage.
The news is even worse than the "comedy" -- reality is a freaking joke.
Take late night talk show hosts' shows for example.
Ill watch the monologue of the shows and thats it. Most times - I will just watch the clip on youtube. I dont give a shit about which actor is promoting their crap, or what musician is going to perform a song.
I get the same jokes told in a slightly different angle from Colbert, Kimmel, Meyers, Noah, etc... and I get all their propaganda angles from both sides in short order.
Whats worse is that people like Bill Meyer are so freaking smug about their "unique" perspective....
Its all garbage.
The news is even worse than the "comedy" -- reality is a freaking joke.
I assume you're meaning Bill "Maher," right?
And I'm sure you're probably aware of it, but you're not getting "both sides" from the hosts you've listed.
And I'm sure you're probably aware of it, but you're not getting "both sides" from the hosts you've listed.
I am aware... and Yes I forgot how to spell his name.
Just that the late night shows dont usually have a bunch of pro-trump comedy...
Regardless, its all garbage.
Just that the late night shows dont usually have a bunch of pro-trump comedy...
Regardless, its all garbage.
throw into the mix fallon and oliver
Jimmy Fallon is usually really annoying to me. It's something about the constant laughing and him being pretty bad at 'getting it' when it comes to the flow with guests, even though on a shallow level he's quite likeable.
The weird part is that when he gets into bantering with the other cast members (miming stuff at the desk, exchanging dumb jokes, etc), he's really, really entertaining to me in a way that the rest of the show doesn't manage at all, and yet he barely does it.
The weird part is that when he gets into bantering with the other cast members (miming stuff at the desk, exchanging dumb jokes, etc), he's really, really entertaining to me in a way that the rest of the show doesn't manage at all, and yet he barely does it.
We need Craig Ferguson back.
Add in how their humor generally doesn't amount to much more than bad faith descriptions of real world issues, senseless comparisons accompanied with a bad Photoshop and it's no wonder people use a second screen at the same time! John Oliver especially ran this sort of thing into the ground.
Noone seems to have mentioned the potential for a second screen to augment what's being watched on TV. I'm frequently reaching for phone or tablet to look up details about actors, or references I don't get, or just other related info.
The author of the article did!
I’m often times checking the live match thread of the game I’m currently watching on /r/soccer (or on /r/baseball if I’m watching a baseball game). It definitely adds up to the basic “watch TV” experience, for better or worst. I’m also actively checking for live scores of other matches playing at the same time.
Honestly, while I'm one of the people who does this a lot, I don't think it always benefits me. I don't watch 'TV', just streamed stuff but I rarely bother to pause it when I look up these details. And that absolutely impacts my viewing experience because if a movie is plot-heavy enough, I can miss chunks of it easily why I try to figure out why that actress in a minor part seems familiar or what the song playing in the background is. Would love to kick the habit but it's surprisingly tough!
I strongly agree! I'd actually quite like a sort of end-notes equivalent for TV shows, but it would have to be tailored to me. Maybe an app that I can tell what I'm watching, that will let me just click a button to store a 'point of interest'. Then, when the show is over (or maybe during the next ad break), I can review the list; each point would tell me actors in the scene, last 10 seconds of dialogue, maybe geographical location - those sort of details.
People watching a twitch.tv stream on their tv would have the livechat on their phone/tablet. Seeing the people in the chat react can make even the dullest stream fun.
This is what amazon x-ray does, but it would be nice if you could connect a phone app with the streaming app so you could look up xray data on the second screen.
I love the Amazon X-Ray feature. I wonder if they patented it, because I’m surprised other players like Netflix or cable providers are not offering something similar. I personally find it adds a lot to my viewing experience without being too intrusive.
[deleted]
I wonder how they get the "actors in this scene" data. I suspect mechanical turk but maybe they have the movie scripts.
Amazon owns IMDb. They have been gathering data about actors for literally decades. They probably have well-trained machine learning models to identify actors on screen.
It's really not that hard since they can run it against a narrowed down dataset with the names of the cast.
You can actually cast Amazon video to a chromecast from a smart phone, and then use the smart phone for X Ray. Works pretty seamlessly.
Noone seems to have mentioned the potential for a second screen to augment what's being watched on TV. I'm frequently reaching for phone or tablet to look up details about actors, or references I don't get, or just other related info.
A number of apps developed to do just this have come and gone, but none seem to have succeeded.
A number of apps developed to do just this have come and gone, but none seem to have succeeded.
But that might not be because the use case doesn't exist; it could be just that google search does a better job than an app
TFA shows a slide w/ data from Nielson. Apparently 71% of people do.
the show "Beat Shazam" does this where you play alongside the contestants.
>can it possibly be any good for us ?!?!
Oh sorry, let's get back to the "correct" behavior of sitting still watching a screen with no interaction.
The author seems aware that this opinion is elitist. But the idea that putting on a TV as background noise is somehow wasting the planets resources... I mean, but why not compare it to other things you can be doing? Driving a car... Or traveling to a far off country... Using a phone while a TV is on has got to be one of the least pollutant activities a person can spend their time doing.
Oh sorry, let's get back to the "correct" behavior of sitting still watching a screen with no interaction.
The author seems aware that this opinion is elitist. But the idea that putting on a TV as background noise is somehow wasting the planets resources... I mean, but why not compare it to other things you can be doing? Driving a car... Or traveling to a far off country... Using a phone while a TV is on has got to be one of the least pollutant activities a person can spend their time doing.
Martin Scorcese recently publicly lamented his excellent Netflix project The Irishman because he didn't like the way people were watching it, on the small screen. I guess he'd be doubly upset that 88% of those small screen viewers had another even smaller screen holding their attention.
I think this is an interesting transition period for the art and artists.
I think this is an interesting transition period for the art and artists.
Probably unpopular idea on HN, but my company synchronize digital ads with TV commercials for this exact reason.
When we detect a commercial on the TV for a brand, we run instantly ads on Facebook for the same brand.
When we detect a commercial on the TV for a brand, we run instantly ads on Facebook for the same brand.
Definitely going to be unpopular. But good to finally have a confirmation that this is actually being done, and done automatically. I guess there's no escape now (at least for those who don't use ad blockers).
Myself, I'm going to add this to my ever-growing article about negative impacts of advertising.
Myself, I'm going to add this to my ever-growing article about negative impacts of advertising.
> When we detect a commercial on the TV
How exactly? Is the app always listening?
How exactly? Is the app always listening?
You could do this without targeting that narrowly using the ads that are broadcast on popular channels.
[deleted]
I've caught myself doing this as well and also questioned why this was happening. My initial guess is that it is just manifestation of phone addiction, but perhaps it is also selective boredom. For instance the majority of the time when I look at my phone is when the show I am watching switches to a scene that is showing some plot line I don't care about. As an example, when I am watching a Sci fi show, and there is some romantic sub plot. I simply don't care, and will look at hacker news while it plays out.
My mom used to record all her soap operas (on VHS) so she could FF through the ~1/2 of storylines she didn't care about at all. I think this is, or at least used to be, fairly common.
I watch boring parts at 1.5x speed, especially speeches.
Then you still get all plot information, but do not become bored
Actually, now I have trouble listening to speeches or tutorials at normal speeds.
Then you still get all plot information, but do not become bored
Actually, now I have trouble listening to speeches or tutorials at normal speeds.
I think it’s even simpler than selective boredom - it’s that the things that interest you in TV shows are highly unlikely to be constant throughout. So as the interesting bits ebb and flow, instead of drifting off into an internal daydream, we drift off into interesting things on our second screens.
I work from home generally 4 / 5 days per week for a lot of reasons (commute, environment etc.). I am one of those people who cannot code in absolute silence, whatever, maybe from years of coding in a loud environment... who knows. But I am most productive with mindless yammering in the background. Which generally is things like, NPR, TV News, CSPAN etc. Music is no good, it has to be just blabbing in the background. So I generally have the TV on in the background on some dumb channel, I am not listening but just talking in the background that I am not interested in at all, in some weird way helps me concentrate. I dunno if I am weird but I am guessing a lot of people have it on in the background as just sort of comfort while they do other things.
It's no different from interacting with people while watching tv together. Only now much of that interaction is via electronic devices.
In my case, (and I assume this is common) is using the TV as a second screen and my laptop as a first when watching normal entertainment stuff like a comedy, talk shows, etc. And just the TV when I'm watching an interesting movie or tv show.
Because American TV is deadly dull most of the time, but people like background noise.
Most mass-market TV shows and movies are such that you can tune out a good 25% of the time and still follow them just fine. Some of the worse ones aren't even as demanding as that.
Also, people want to do something with their hands while watching things, and not everyone knits or (especially, these day) smokes, or pops popcorn before every movie they watch at home. Bet a huge percentage does something else while watching TV/movies. Sudoku books, whatever.
Also, people want to do something with their hands while watching things, and not everyone knits or (especially, these day) smokes, or pops popcorn before every movie they watch at home. Bet a huge percentage does something else while watching TV/movies. Sudoku books, whatever.
The article mentioned installing Wing Commander III in the DOS days- I feel like Wing Commander III was a better TV show than most TV shows out these days.
Maybe it's when I was born, or the fact that we lived in a somewhat rural area, but I categorically don't get the "background noise" desire.
I live in the city now, and city background certainly doesn't bother me. But I don't feel a desire to artificially adding more.
Is silence that bad?
I live in the city now, and city background certainly doesn't bother me. But I don't feel a desire to artificially adding more.
Is silence that bad?
For me it's not the noise, it's the conversation. Something about TV or YouTube tricks me into feeling like I'm around humans when I'm not.
This probably isn't healthy but it's the easy coping mechanism for the problem of not socializing enough.
This probably isn't healthy but it's the easy coping mechanism for the problem of not socializing enough.
Silence is easier to interrupt unintentionally than constant noise. For example, if my room is quiet, I can be easily distracted by a random noise caused by my cat across the house. If, however, I have the TV on (usually with YouTube build videos), I won’t hear the random but sudden noises that provide no value to me.
This is at least partially related to my own difficulties in directing my attention. What I can’t hear can’t distract me from what I want to be focusing on. Music is also good for this.
This is at least partially related to my own difficulties in directing my attention. What I can’t hear can’t distract me from what I want to be focusing on. Music is also good for this.
It's a cultural/socialization thing. Lots of people grow up with the TV always on in the background at home, going to sleep to the TV, and so on, so they keep doing that when they're on their own. Some who don't do it when they're alone will turn it on when someone's over, as it's just "what you do". I doubt they even think about it, they just do it.
As to why people started doing that to begin with: dunno. Sports being on often, so having the TV on just becomes normal? Not sure.
Like many social behaviors, you could map it pretty well to one or more Fussellian class, in the US at least.
As to why people started doing that to begin with: dunno. Sports being on often, so having the TV on just becomes normal? Not sure.
Like many social behaviors, you could map it pretty well to one or more Fussellian class, in the US at least.
I am an only child, which likely has something to do with my preferences...
At the risk of sounding bougie, it seems kind of trashy to me to just constantly keep the TV on. Echoes of 1984's mandatory viewing, coupled with ignorance of advertising's effect on your brain.
But I've certainly observed that people fall fairly heavily into one category or the other. Either they can't stand it not being on, or they can't stand it being on.
At the risk of sounding bougie, it seems kind of trashy to me to just constantly keep the TV on. Echoes of 1984's mandatory viewing, coupled with ignorance of advertising's effect on your brain.
But I've certainly observed that people fall fairly heavily into one category or the other. Either they can't stand it not being on, or they can't stand it being on.
I play music through my TV, often by finding a recorded musical performance on an app like YouTube. Does that count as “having TV on in the background?”
Point. I guess the more 1:1 analogy would be having the radio on in the background. muses
The closest I can come to explaining where my distaste seems to come from is wasted opportunity.
In the modern era, we have unrivaled access to the thing (e.g. the musical piece, specific performance, news report, piece of information, best show or movie of all time) itself. And yet we're so in need of filler that we're willing to put any damn thing on?
That seems close to it, as I don't have nearly the adverse gut reaction to music as I do to television. Or even to television-sans-ads to television-with-ads.
The closest I can come to explaining where my distaste seems to come from is wasted opportunity.
In the modern era, we have unrivaled access to the thing (e.g. the musical piece, specific performance, news report, piece of information, best show or movie of all time) itself. And yet we're so in need of filler that we're willing to put any damn thing on?
That seems close to it, as I don't have nearly the adverse gut reaction to music as I do to television. Or even to television-sans-ads to television-with-ads.
Old Slashdot Meme:
“I haven’t owned a TV in 10 years. Does anyone still watch TV”?
But more to the point. Between Netflix, Hulu with No Commercials, Amazon Prime Video, and occasionally CBS All Access w/no commercials and STARZ, I hardly ever see commercially.
“I haven’t owned a TV in 10 years. Does anyone still watch TV”?
But more to the point. Between Netflix, Hulu with No Commercials, Amazon Prime Video, and occasionally CBS All Access w/no commercials and STARZ, I hardly ever see commercially.
I really enjoy complete pin drop silence, but when that isn't available (like when working at a computer that just can't be completely quiet) it's far more preferable to have some sort of conversation or music blocking out the sound instead of the whirring of fans and hard drives.
The only time I ever watch broadcast TV anymore is for (NFL) football. And in that case, I'm usually also , participating in chats and discussion forums, following box scores, and the like.
On the other hand, I've also noticed when watching movies on my computer (which is pretty much how I do it anymore), it can be really easy to get distracted.
On the gripping hand, when I watch shows on Amazon Prime, I generally don't have any difficulty watching through an entire episode without getting distracted. Possibly because I usually watch Prime on my tablet, where it's (a little) harder to switch between apps.
On the other hand, I've also noticed when watching movies on my computer (which is pretty much how I do it anymore), it can be really easy to get distracted.
On the gripping hand, when I watch shows on Amazon Prime, I generally don't have any difficulty watching through an entire episode without getting distracted. Possibly because I usually watch Prime on my tablet, where it's (a little) harder to switch between apps.
This is why I love the cinema. I'm forced to watch the actual movie. Even if it's not great, it's 2 hours where I will be focused on something and not mindlessly scrolling. Sometimes I even enjoy the movie!
Agreed.
Recently I watched The Irishman (3.5 hours) at the theatre. Since the reviews mentioned the sombre mood of the film (unlike Scorcese's other gangter films), I was fully expecting to fidget around after some time.
I had no trouble with my attention span throughout the film so full credits to Scorcese and Thelma Schoonmaker for superb pacing. The audience was quite sparse and mostly film fans so I was able to watch it in a quiet atmosphere with occasional applause. In other words, the perfect movie watching experience.
If not at the theatre, I would have caught this at home. I would have taken more than 5 hours to complete the film. Numerous pauses throughout the film for bathroom breaks, googling names and trivia, simply getting distracted etc.
Now sometimes, you watch a movie that has a mind blowing twist, or something happens in the film that makes you go WTF and pause. Even then, you have to admit that watching the same film in the theatre (where you cannot just pause and take it in), with an audience who are going through the same thing, will probably be a better experience.
Recently I watched The Irishman (3.5 hours) at the theatre. Since the reviews mentioned the sombre mood of the film (unlike Scorcese's other gangter films), I was fully expecting to fidget around after some time.
I had no trouble with my attention span throughout the film so full credits to Scorcese and Thelma Schoonmaker for superb pacing. The audience was quite sparse and mostly film fans so I was able to watch it in a quiet atmosphere with occasional applause. In other words, the perfect movie watching experience.
If not at the theatre, I would have caught this at home. I would have taken more than 5 hours to complete the film. Numerous pauses throughout the film for bathroom breaks, googling names and trivia, simply getting distracted etc.
Now sometimes, you watch a movie that has a mind blowing twist, or something happens in the film that makes you go WTF and pause. Even then, you have to admit that watching the same film in the theatre (where you cannot just pause and take it in), with an audience who are going through the same thing, will probably be a better experience.
I agree. My wife and I have the AMC A+ movie subscription service as a “commitment device”. It forces us to get out of the house, away from our screens. We go to a movie at least once a week if there is anything remotely interesting playing.
It’s more that I have the TV on while I use my first screen
What else am I supposed to do when 30% of the content is ads? The second screen is for me to look at while the ads are muted and I'm waiting for them to go away.
Once I caught myself doing this enough times, of course I just canceled the cable subscription, but a lot of my family members still seem to do this. At my parent's house, Law and Order marathons are essentially their choice of background noise. They rarely seem to sit down to watch a show on purpose.
Once I caught myself doing this enough times, of course I just canceled the cable subscription, but a lot of my family members still seem to do this. At my parent's house, Law and Order marathons are essentially their choice of background noise. They rarely seem to sit down to watch a show on purpose.
I don't watch much TV but occasionally I'll have the Reddit thread for the current/previous episode up for background information. But I definitely can't multitask if it's an engaging show.
What does the Reddit thread typically provide?
Most recent case being Mr Robot it was primarily references and connections that went over my head from seasons back. But it's also fascinating to see people's reactions to the same reveals I'm watching. And of course, the predictions. Similar thoughts on Westworld.
The last show I did that with was Lost, albeit not in realtime. So I get what you're saying.
If you don't mind me prying (I'm honestly fascinated), does it feel different watching while not having that simultaneous feed? If so, how?
If you don't mind me prying (I'm honestly fascinated), does it feel different watching while not having that simultaneous feed? If so, how?
Not prying at all! I suppose without the feed it's like watching a typical movie in a theater: I'm limited to what I notice/pick up/deduce on my own; and if I miss something I might go the rest of the movie without noticing more things. End result is I might miss fascinating angles I would've otherwise noticed, but still enjoyable.
Because I have allowed my phone to absolutely ruin my attention span. If a show isn’t immediately engaging enough, I find myself reflexively reaching for my phone to fritter away time.
In the same vein, I have to consciously avoid taking my phone out while sitting at a stop light or going to the bathroom
It didn’t used to be this way and I hate it
In the same vein, I have to consciously avoid taking my phone out while sitting at a stop light or going to the bathroom
It didn’t used to be this way and I hate it
I can't wait until I can get rid of home Internet. And just have a dumbphone as the only way to contact me. Or mail. I'll just hit up a coffee shop or the library every week or two to pay bills and see family photos or whatever. Savings on Internet and related bills would let me buy more physical media than I'd have time to consume anyway, while still saving money, even if I just threw away everything after reading/watching/listening once.
I am amazed at how many of my friends watch movies while playing video games. It's like they need to make sure something is ready to stimulate them the moment the game fails to.
A particular friend will have the game, youtube playing, and also be betting on online poker on his phone.
A particular friend will have the game, youtube playing, and also be betting on online poker on his phone.
I watch new/good things like I'm watching a movie. Dark, silent, uninterrupted. I spend maybe 2-4 hours every week watching shows like this. Things like Game of Thrones or Rick and Morty come to mind.
Then there's background watching, which usually means re-watching something I've already watched. I'm almost always using a second screen during this time. This is probably more like 15-25 hours every week, maybe even more when I work from home. I get a significant amount of my work/chores/tasks done during this time.
Then there's background watching, which usually means re-watching something I've already watched. I'm almost always using a second screen during this time. This is probably more like 15-25 hours every week, maybe even more when I work from home. I get a significant amount of my work/chores/tasks done during this time.
What percentage of Americans use a screen while also listening to the radio? Doesn't seem much different to me. Especially for things like rolling news, political coverage, documentaries.
How much of American radio consumption is done in the car?
I don't know? Is that a rhetorical question? I almost always have the radio on while working - music or talk.
Because most TV isn't that good?
in recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows. I have seen Game of Thrones fans staring at their phone while the newest episode was running, only to ask everyone else in the room what just happened five seconds later.
This is definitely not just boredom or background noise TV. It seems that more and more frequently people are unable to maintain singular uninterrupted focus or attention on something without staring at phones or laptops.
I actually started to pay attention to this because it started to get on my nerves when people in cinemas were doing it, and it even seems to happen more and more in actual in-person conversations. The next time you go to a coffee shop or a bar pay attention to how often people in discussions with each other go for their phone and interrupt each other. It's pretty sobering.
Personally I had an epiphany about this years ago when I started checking mail and Reddit when I was sitting down to read fiction and I was so embarrassed because I was less able to read than my teenage self when I could sit down and read for a whole day, and I just felt like the fat people in Wall-E.
This is definitely not just boredom or background noise TV. It seems that more and more frequently people are unable to maintain singular uninterrupted focus or attention on something without staring at phones or laptops.
I actually started to pay attention to this because it started to get on my nerves when people in cinemas were doing it, and it even seems to happen more and more in actual in-person conversations. The next time you go to a coffee shop or a bar pay attention to how often people in discussions with each other go for their phone and interrupt each other. It's pretty sobering.
Personally I had an epiphany about this years ago when I started checking mail and Reddit when I was sitting down to read fiction and I was so embarrassed because I was less able to read than my teenage self when I could sit down and read for a whole day, and I just felt like the fat people in Wall-E.
> in recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows
This. The internet (and thus phones) has matured into a platform for behavioral addiction. Even if we want what's on the main screen, our brains need to interface with the second screen with an alarming degree of regularity.
This. The internet (and thus phones) has matured into a platform for behavioral addiction. Even if we want what's on the main screen, our brains need to interface with the second screen with an alarming degree of regularity.
Most TV I watch is shows I've already seen. It's background.
Is this only for regular (broadcast / commercial) TV, or does it include other things that you would watch in front of the TV (movies, or streaming episodic content)? Because for broadcast, I can see using a phone during commercial breaks.
I use my phone to find out more about a place, person or topic mentioned in a tv show. Maybe a coffee shop where Larry David’s is in Curb - or it could be something a bit more cerebral.
Aside from being about a quarter commercials, TV shows often feature quite a bit of filler/padding content. It'd be odd if people didn't pick up on some of it and play with their phone when they have the option.
I always think to this Mitchell and Webb gift shop sketch that parodies the worst of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc
I always think to this Mitchell and Webb gift shop sketch that parodies the worst of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc
Is this just TV? How many of you second screen while watching Netflix? I’m talking about watching a show for the first time, not reruns just as background noise.
How does Nielsen know 88% of Americans are using a second device while watching TV? How is that data gathered, and how is the research conducted?
Smart TVs know what you're watching and when. Smartphones know what you're doing on it and when. It's simply connecting the two at this point.
That still seems a little too simple. How are they controlling for multiple people in a household from the same IP address? How are they capable of telling the same person watching TV is performing the activity on the smartphone?
You can get RAEL people to examine that ;)
Don't worry, we, unlike machines are still capable of doing that
Don't worry, we, unlike machines are still capable of doing that
Voice detection.
Because our friends aren’t on TV.
Just wait until AI puts likenesses of ourselves and our social circles into the stories.
Just wait until AI puts likenesses of ourselves and our social circles into the stories.
Who wants to watch commercials? With your phone or tablet you can have an uninterrupted dopamine flow.
[deleted]
I feel like this is the death of tightly written television. Getting my wife to pay attention to things well enough to pick up clever nuances has proven nearly impossible. Kids these days.
It's the opposite for me. I can't watch anything but tightly written media. The second I pickup an inconsistent plot point made to fill time or product placement, I zone out.
I agree with the other response, well written entertainment would retain the viewer's attention consistently. I can binge 24 episodes of a well written show without looking at my phone at all, but something that doesn't require much attention will have me immediately reaching for the phone to catch up on other things.
I feel like TV now just means Muzak with visuals in the home, tenth time watching an episode of the Simpsons I have my phone out and a movie I’ve never seen, it’s silent and charging.
If I can manage to find something on netflix (this is rare), I will watch it on my old TV using xbox360. I don't subscribe to cable TV.
My primary focus is on several other computer screens.
My primary focus is on several other computer screens.
Well the vast majority of TV is horrible and/or very boring, so I'm not too surprised.
There have never been more terrible shows to watch than there are today.
There have never been more terrible shows to watch than there are today.
> I suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while the first one is showing adverts.
Inverted: excessively slow software builds. :)
Inverted: excessively slow software builds. :)
what does "watching tv" mean nowadays? I only watch videos through a phone, laptop, or desktop, and when I watch I'm not fidgeting on a 2nd screen unless it's related to what I'm watching on my first screen. I guess I don't watch things that don't require some form of actual thought (e.g. sports). Don't get me wrong I love soccer, but I only watch highlights!
For the same reason 50% of Americans will be obese within 10 years and why similar numbers also use a second screen while someone is trying to talk to them.
New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301?query=fe...
New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301?query=fe...
It’s a thing in our social circle that during an awards show, we all get on Facebook for live commentary.
I've gone so far I don't even watch the TV anymore. Just the 2nd screen (only screen?).
I definitely agree with the comments here. For me, TVs have the screen size I want but not the software/hardware or content I prefer. Smartphones have great access to software and content but at a screen-size that is limited. Casting works but needs dedicated hardware or else it feels slow and clunky.
So, the habit of sleeping or reading a book got replaced?
Unless subtitles. Then it's hard to even eat to.
How many consider the TV as being the second screen?
I do when my wife picks the show (most of the time).
for the same reason why you work better at a cafe than alone at home. the tv keeps others occupied but also maintains background noise
By TV they mean the device or open/cable TV?
Can't get enough of them telescreens.
Multi screens is the same as multi cores.
What is it you were saying? Sorry, I wasn't listening, I was glancing at my smartphone.
Only during commercials
TL;DR: "Screens bad"
> The more I consume, the more I need to consume, the more bored I feel. I often turn to video games to release the tension. I can spend two solid hours shooting at virtual objects until I start to feel less entertained. I then find myself pulling up my phone closer to consume more scrollable content while still playing the game. Only when all my sense are stimulated at the same time, I feel relieved.
> This becomes the new norm. Anything less will result in that acute sense of boredom. Have a conversation with a friend, you'll feel bored. They can't possibly compete with a video game, a political rant and a funny video at the same time. Right in the middle of a conversation you hear that familiar beep from your phone and you have to pick it up. It's not that you ignore your friends, or the dinner conversation, it's that you need to have them all occur at the same time to feel normal.
[1]: https://idiallo.com/blog/im-bored-what-do-i-do