On my TVC-15, oh oh, TVC-15

(Transition . . . transmission . . . )

On occasion, I hear people talking about how "stupid" television is these days. These same people will point to shows such as America's Got Talent, Don't Forget The Lyrics, and pretty much anything on FOX to back up their opinion.

Despite the tone of that previous statement, I don't disagree with those people. There is a lot of stupid television out there, and thanks to the hundreds of new channels which have sprung up in the last few years, there is a lot more stupid television than ever before.

However, the people who complain about all the "stupid" (quotes being used interchangably to distinguish my perception of stupid from others') television are overlooking two points:

1) There has always been stupid television, and

2) There's nothing wrong with stupid television.

As far as the first goes...well, there HAS always been stupid television. Yes, "American Idol" is just us watching people sing, not always well. But was "American Bandstand" any different? Is "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?" really any more intellectually-objectionable than "The Sonny & Cher Show"? Were "Hee-Haw" and "Laugh-In" smart? Have I made my point yet? Sure, television isn't exactly smart these days, but it never has been!

And as for my second comment...when not taken off the air by writers' strikes, I watch The Office, I watch Scrubs. I enjoy both shows, but I would never classify either of them as "smart". They're both very funny (and despite what some may say, the character development in both is very paint-by-numbers), and they're great for giving my brain something to do while it rests after a strenuous day of classes. Neither of these shows should be considered smart - that doesn't mean, however, that they're not good.

So the obvious question: why is there no smart TV? I believe that it has something to do with the nature of the medium itself. Unlike print, television can be consumed by a crowd - you can't have five people reading the same copy of the same book, but you can have them watching the same program off the same TV. And if people are doing something together, they're likely to start discussing it - which, with television, means producers have to keep their productions moving at a rapid pace, so as to not have the consumers distract themselves.

Additionally, we have now seemingly been brainwashed into believing that television is something you are meant to sit in front of for fifteen, thirty, sixty minutes at a time, turn off your brain for a bit, and enjoy. In that context, it's almost impossible for smart programming to survive. Those who do want to present an intelligent message in an audio-visual environment generally prefer another form - that of the documentary, which requires intense concentration for a prolonged period of time.

I wasn't intending for this to become a rant about television. I was planning on sharing information on a few good television programs which I WOULD consider smart - but I guess I'll do that tomorrow.