Does watching TV make you smarter?
The New York Times Magazine argued Sunday that today's TV plot lines on the top dramas put more cognitive load on viewers and therefore improve their thinking. It pointed at the fact that most modern dramas such as "24", "Alias", and even "The West Wing" now have so many story interwoven story lines that they could be considered calesthenics for the brain.
Now Blackfriars knows that entertainment is a different animal than our work in business communications. Great art does not have to be simple and clear; the musical works of Bach and Mahler are good examples of very complex structures that have great emotional impact. But we do see a danger in this author's hypothesis that we don't have to design and tell stories well. And while the shows cited are all quite good, many of them don't do nearly as well in attracting viewers and selling advertising -- the goal of any commercial TV show -- as single story line shows like the "C.S.I" series of shows. And lets face it: if intellectual challenge were ne plus ultra of TV, PBS would be the top rated network, and Fox would be dead last. TV reality is otherwise.
Blackfriars is all in favor of great and challenging programming for TV and other performance media. But producers have to recognize that the harder you make viewers work, the more comfortable they are going to be changing the channel. Look at shows like "Arrested Development" that may win critical acclaim, but struggle to win ratings. Producers should be careful to challenge viewers when it is appropriate, but not to view the technique as a panacea for poor (and expensive due to maintaining all the characters and plot lines) story-telling. The proof? None of the challenging shows the author cites are in the top 10 rated shows today.
Now Blackfriars knows that entertainment is a different animal than our work in business communications. Great art does not have to be simple and clear; the musical works of Bach and Mahler are good examples of very complex structures that have great emotional impact. But we do see a danger in this author's hypothesis that we don't have to design and tell stories well. And while the shows cited are all quite good, many of them don't do nearly as well in attracting viewers and selling advertising -- the goal of any commercial TV show -- as single story line shows like the "C.S.I" series of shows. And lets face it: if intellectual challenge were ne plus ultra of TV, PBS would be the top rated network, and Fox would be dead last. TV reality is otherwise.
Blackfriars is all in favor of great and challenging programming for TV and other performance media. But producers have to recognize that the harder you make viewers work, the more comfortable they are going to be changing the channel. Look at shows like "Arrested Development" that may win critical acclaim, but struggle to win ratings. Producers should be careful to challenge viewers when it is appropriate, but not to view the technique as a panacea for poor (and expensive due to maintaining all the characters and plot lines) story-telling. The proof? None of the challenging shows the author cites are in the top 10 rated shows today.
posted by Carl Howe at
8:05 AM
| View blog reactions
| 
