HOW DID WE EVER LET TV GET SO BAD?
The principal stands on the roof of the school building, his suit coat flapping
in the wind, all the kids and teachers, arrayed in a big circle below.
Dramatically, he heaves a drug-delivery device down into a dumpster. It could
be a carton of cigarettes or a heroin needle or a packet of crack, but it is
none of these. It is a TV set.
That picture, snapped this April at the Sergeant Bluff-Luton Elementary School
in Clinton, Iowa, just stopped me. I stared at it, wondering how we could have
let our television programming sink so low that educators declare it dangerous
Rich Caldwell, the principal on the roof, is by no means alone in that opinion.
This year's "TV-Turnoff Week" was endorsed by the National Association of
Elementary School Principals. And the American Federation of Teachers. And
the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians,
the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School
Psychologists, 39 other national organizations, 38 governors, and 10 state
departments of education.
That is no lightweight line-up. All these professional associations think kids
are better off without TV. What else do station owners, producers,
advertisers, performers -- and parents -- need to hear?
The picture of the principal tossing the TV is on the cover of the spring 1998
newsletter of TV-Free America, the group that instigates the annual turn-off.
This year 45,000 schools and 5 million people joined in. TVFA also works with
110 schools in a program called "More Reading, Less TV." Students fill out a
paper strip for each book they read and tape the strips to a television,
"burying" the set. Some schools this year buried three sets.
If you ever, caught in your own addiction, wonder what's so bad about TV, the
newsletter is full of reminders, many from ex-addicts.
"Seeing our two-year-old daughter lying lifeless in front of the tub, watching
the same shows over and over ... well, it made us stop and consider what
television really is."
"We unplugged the morning our three-year-old, watching some mindless
commercial, refused to give my husband a hug as he left for work. Getting rid
of the television was one of the smartest and healthiest choices we've made."
"Why did I turn off the TV? Because my husband and I don't talk when the TV is
on.... Because I am tired of the constant barrage of consumer messages telling
me what I need to buy to be fulfilled."
"I turned it off after an experience I had while working at a local news outfit
in New York City. The editors had been a little disappointed over a slow news
day. Around 5 PM the police department called to report that a young girl had
been shot on the subway. The editors literally jumped for joy at having a
'good' lead story. My disgust at what otherwise good people had turned into
helped me make my decision."
"When I was pregnant with our first child, our house was robbed and we decided
not to replace the TV. After a few weeks of wondering what was happening on
'Hill Street Blues,' the ... TV ceased to be part of our lives. I sympathize
with people who already have children and want to get rid of the TV. As with
any other addictive drug, it is so much easier if they never start."
"Life seems far better without all the noise."
"What if you had a baby sitter who told your children bedtime stories rife with
sexual innuendo and gratuitous violence? Suppose you had a dinner guest who
tried to sell you things you didn't need every fifteen minutes?"
One of the most stirring testimonials comes from Al Vecchione, former president
of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions: "In the roughly fifty years since it was
introduced, television has evolved as a menace to our society's mental and even
physical health. Increasingly we see the world only through its lens. TV has
transformed everything it has touched -- politics, the justice system and the
presidency, to name a few. TV has distorted our values and standards and
shaped the minds of two generations of children.... TV's contribution to the
increasing violence in our everyday lives registers somewhere between
significant and enormous.... And new evidence demonstrates that heavy
viewership can lead to a decline in physical fitness.... Its influence on our
mores ... may surpass that of our religious institutions, its capacity to mold
public policy may be greater than our political institutions, its reach into
our children's minds may be stronger than our educational system."
In the last three years the percentage of violent prime-time programs has
increased from 53 to 67 percent on the networks and from 54 to 64 percent on
cable. Fifty-four percent of American children have a TV set in their bedroom.
The average American watches nearly four hours per day. The most popular show,
until it recently went off the air, was "about nothing." Its producer proudly
admits that the premise of its fictional characters was: "No hugs, no
No hugs. No learning. Sex, violence and selling. Somehow we have allowed a
fine invention, a neutral technology, a way to speak to one another powerfully,
to be so corrupted that it corrupts us. Until we fix it, if we ever fix it, we
need to keep it out of the hands and minds of our children.
(TV-Free America can be contacted at 1611 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 3A,
Washington DC 20009, phone 202-887-0436, www.tvfa.org.)
(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
> Felado : Meszaros Laszlo (Budapestrol)
> "A Fold erdosegeinek kozel a fele eltunhet bolygonkrol 2100-ra,
> jelentettek be a Tokioi Kutatointezet munkatarsai. Amennyiben tovabbra is
> ilyen utemben folyik a felmelegedes, akkor ez a joslat a megadott idopontra
> valosagga valhat. A bejelentest alapos szimulacios kutatasok eloztek meg. A
> vizsgalat szerint a varhato 3,5 fokos homerseklet emelkedes az erdok 43
> %-anak kipusztulasat idezheti elo."
> (az avana egyesulet hirleveleben olvastam, ok pedig az ET-ben).
kerlek ne tekintsd szemelyeskedesnek, ha ennek a hirnek kapcsan
felhivnam a figyelmet nehany tipikus fogalmazasi momentumra. Az elso
ilyen a hivatkozas: talalkoztam valakivel, akinek a sogora ott volt,
ahol meseltek. Probald ki - akar forditas nelkul is - mennyi a
harmadkezbol kapott hir igazsagtartalma (lasd Karinthy).
A fontosabb: a felteteles mod: valHAT, idezHETi elo ...
Egyebkent masok szerint a megnovekedett CO2 koncentracio a
fotoszintezis intenzivebbe valasat okozHATja. Ugyanis a meteorologia
modellek szerint az erdok zomet ado tropusokon a homerseklet kozel
allando maradHAT, mikozben a sarkokon az atlagosnal jobban noHET a
Nem folytatom, mert nem ez a lenyeg, hanem a "megtortenhet". Hogy
magyarazod el laikusoknak azt, hogy a valoszinusegi eloszlas szelen
mondjuk 1E-7 valoszinuseggel megjelenik egy extrem esemeny? Pl. hogy
jovo heten otosom lesz a lotton. Ugy, hogy elofordulHAT, hogy otosom
lesz. Mert az nem igaz, hogy nem fordulhat elo, tehat elofordulHAT.
Csak valoszinuleg nem fog elofordulni, mert a nem elofordulasnak
viszont 0.9999999 a valoszinusege. Egyebkent az emberek - tisztelet a
kivetelnek - alig erzekelik a 10^(-5) es a 10^(-10) kulonbseget,
pedig mecsoda...Pedig pl. 10^(-5) ev az kb. 5 perc, a 10^(-10) ev
pedig 3 ms.
Hat ennyit a felteteles modrol. Egyeb nyelvtani kerdesekrol es a
remisztgetes tovabbi lehetosegeirol kesobb.