The past half-century has been the age of electronic mass media. TV has reshaped society in every corner of the world. Now an explosion of new media devices is joining the TV set: DVDs, computers, game boxes, smartphones and more. A growing body of evidence suggests that this media proliferation has countless ill effects.
The US led the world into the TV age, and the implications can be seen most directly in the US’ long love affair with what US writer Harlan Ellison memorably called “the glass teat.” In 1950, fewer than 8 percent of US households owned a TV; by 1960, 90 percent had one. That level of penetration took decades longer to achieve elsewhere, and the poorest countries are still not there.
True to form, Americans became the greatest TV watchers, which is probably still true today, even though the data are somewhat sketchy and incomplete. The best evidence suggests that Americans watch more than five hours per day of TV on average — a staggering amount, given that several hours more are spent in front of other video-streaming devices. Other countries log far fewer viewing hours. In Scandinavia, for example, time spent watching TV is roughly half the US average.
The consequences for US society are profound, troubling and a warning to the world — though it probably comes far too late to be heeded. First, heavy TV viewing brings little pleasure. Many surveys show that it is almost like an addiction, with a short-term benefit leading to long-term unhappiness and remorse. Such viewers say that they would prefer to watch less than they do.
Moreover, heavy TV viewing has contributed to social fragmentation. Time that used to be spent together in the community is now spent alone in front of the screen. Harvard political science professor Robert Putnam, the leading expert on the US’ declining sense of community, has found that TV viewing is the central explanation of the decline of “social capital,” the trust that binds communities together. Americans simply trust each other less than they did a generation ago. Of course, many other factors are at work, but TV-driven social atomization should not be understated.
Certainly, heavy TV viewing is bad for one’s physical and mental health. Americans lead the world in obesity, with roughly two-thirds of the US population now overweight. Again, many factors underlie this, including a diet of cheap, unhealthy fried foods, but the sedentary time spent in front of the TV is an important influence as well.
At the same time, what happens mentally is as important as what happens physically. TV and related media have been the greatest purveyors and conveyors of corporate and political propaganda in society.
The US’ TV ownership is almost entirely in private hands, and owners make much of their money through relentless advertising. Effective advertising campaigns, appealing to unconscious urges — typically related to food, sex and status — create cravings for products and purchases that have little real value for consumers or society.
The same, of course, has happened to politics. US politicians are now brand names, packaged like breakfast cereal. Anybody — and any idea — can be sold with a bright ribbon and a catchy jingle.
All roads to power in the US lead through TV, and all access to TV depends on big money. This simple logic has put US politics in the hands of the rich as never before.
Even war can be rolled out as a new product. Former US president George W. Bush’s administration promoted the premises of the Iraq war — former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction — in the familiar colorful, fast-paced and graphics-heavy style of TV advertising. Then the war itself began with the so-called “shock and awe” bombing of Baghdad — a made-for-TV live spectacle aimed at ensuring high ratings for the US-led invasion.
Many neuroscientists believe that the mental-health effects of TV viewing might run even deeper than addiction, consumerism, loss of social trust and political propaganda. Perhaps TV is rewiring heavy viewers’ brains and impairing their cognitive capacities. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently warned that TV viewing by young children is dangerous for their brain development, and called on parents to keep children under two away from the TV and similar media.
A recent survey in the US by the organization Common Sense Media reveals a paradox, but one that is perfectly understandable. Children in poor US households today not only watch more TV than children in wealthy households, but are also more likely to have a TV in their room. When a commodity’s consumption falls as income rises, economists call it an “inferior” good.
To be sure, the mass media can be useful as a provider of information, education, entertainment and even political awareness. However, too much of it is confronting us with dangers that we need to avoid.
At the very least, we can minimize those dangers. Successful approaches around the world include limits on TV advertising, especially to young children; non-commercial, publicly owned TV networks such as the BBC; and free (but limited) TV time for political campaigns.
Of course, the best defense is our own self-control. We can all leave the TV off more hours per day and spend that time reading, talking with each other and rebuilding the bases of personal health and social trust.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs