Thread: is tv a bad i to influence

Originally Posted by joshuagault

im doing a debate on television a bad influence?


please help me on this

it can be good or bad depending on the person's interest, and purpose. no one really knows.

thank you im doing this for my school grade.
i hope to get more like this

it depends on the use really. you stay at home do nothin but see tv -thats bad .
but if you want some info stuff and you watch channels like i dunno , national geography? or animal planet? then its a good thing...unless ur again wasting your time on useless crap =p

why dont you google your subject of debate ? you'll get tonnes of ideas for your homework that way .good luck with the Hw

It's like anything good in life: always in moderation.

thank you guys for ur thoughts today was the last day of the debate thank you alot ill post any more debates when i get to get another one built to the standards of the schools appropriate round i really apprishiate this hope you guys get lucky on the build a new animation game good luck

Jersey Shore is definitely a bad influence. I like Suze Orman though for fiscal health on PBS. PBS has educational shows that are really quality television. For those learning about religion there is TBN. News is always helpful, and comedies like late night talk shows add humour. The commercials help with the economy by stimulating shopping especially if you are looking to buy a car. I watch tv mostly to enjoy sports like NBA.
TV is iconic when they showed Star Trek. I think it also depends on the ratings and whether or not is is rated R or PG-13. There are shows and commercials at night for mature audiences that kids should not see. But if you are a grownup you can laugh at Southpark and Adult Fan Swim. I like Futurama. Mom likes drama fever. I wish they'd show anime on tv. We'd have to download it at crunchyroll.com

No piece of television is bad provided the viewer is mature and smart enough to understand the purpose of a given show. For instance, there are some programs made clearly to entertain, and ONLY entertain. Now of course these shows may have a message they're also try to give, but ultimately it's about attracting viewers and increasing ad revenue. That said, some programming is not intended for younger, less mature, less intelligent viewers; hence the TV ratings. It only becomes a bad influence when there is not a parent there to teach proper context, or prevent a younger viewer from seeing certain TV content all together.

The other side of TV is informational. Granted some of this can still be entertaining to a mind passionate about the content, but generally it exists to inform you, and hopes to gain ad revenue from viewers who have a thirst for knowledge. News stations, weather channels, science channels, and the like. However even channels like these can be subjected to the need to entertain in order to gain more viewers, which has been happening a lot to channels like discovery and history channel. News can get boring, so news channels have turned to sensationalism and hyperbole to make every tiny bit of news seem incredibly important, which often scares viewers and prevents proper context on an issue, ultimately preventing it from being properly understood by the general public. Especially when it comes to politics...but that's a different thread.