Friday, January 9, 2009
Media Television Is a Right
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM
And Obama's duty-bound to preserve it:
The countdown clock is ticking on the digital television transition and it is becoming increasingly clear that the nation will not be ready. Analog television broadcasts are scheduled to stop on Feb. 17 and, after that, only digital signals are to be available. Then millions of Americans who rely on analog TV sets and antennas must start using converter boxes that will allow them to receive digital signals, or see only a black screen.In 2005, Congress devised a program meant to ensure that this transition would be smooth. But with 40 days to go, it is now clear that we are heading for a train wreck — unless Congress delays the transition for a few months to allow more time to prepare.
I'm conflicted on this. The idea that government—after years of preparation, public service announcements, and appropriations—must cater to the American living room as a portal to the swill of American broadcast is disappointing. I mean, have you seen television recently? But I'm a little out of touch with broadcast television viewers, I suppose; considering I got my analog TV for $20 at a garage sale and share a cable bill with five other people. I don't need the ethereal connection to the towers that loom over my house.
Is television a right? The airwaves are owned by the government—the people—but you've got to pay for a working television. If you only have a radio, you don't have a right to watch television at home. As analog sets become the extinct technology, you've got to pay to keep up.
But somewhere in the cockles of my callous heart, I'm concerned that the viewers hardest hit by the television conversion will be the poor and the uneducated. Although broadcast television is a subpar conduit for information—man, is it subpar—these folks are the least likely to have an alternative news source. Owning a computer and an internet connection, or having a paid subscription to the newspaper, is a privilege of class, income, etc. So perhaps the government should wait a while. Nonetheless, I'd be happier about the delay if the Obama Administration also were to push a program for $100 computers in every home and free wifi across every city.
Share via
1
Um, a lot of the poor buy their cable or satellite subscriptions FIRST. It's a symptom of why they're poor in the first place. TV is not not not necessary for ANYTHING.
2
I don't even own a television and yet most of my entertainment comes from TV shows on DVD. There is better content on television right now than quite possibly any other time in the past 50 years.
have you seen television recently?
I don't even own a television and yet most of my entertainment comes from TV shows on DVD. There is better content on television right now than quite possibly any other time in the past 50 years.
3
I sent away for the $40 coupon, went and bought a converter box, and all it ended up costing me was $20. It's not that hard, it's inexpensive, the commercials are on all the time (not to mention that all of the networks have aired informational specials about the transition). It's really not difficult, people!
Oh, and by the way, the biggest fringe benefit I've noticed is that now I get 3(!) PBS channels, which is pretty damn cool.
Oh, and by the way, the biggest fringe benefit I've noticed is that now I get 3(!) PBS channels, which is pretty damn cool.
4
So they'll -- what? Have to read books and magazines instead?
You mean besides newspapers in libraries and sitting on the benches at bus stops?
Yeah, no. FAIL. Poor people can get access to news and information, for free, without television.
But somewhere in the cockles of my callous heart, I'm concerned that the viewers hardest hit by the television conversion will be the poor and the uneducated.
So they'll -- what? Have to read books and magazines instead?
Although broadcast television is a subpar conduit for information—man, is it subpar—these folks are the least likely to have an alternative news source.
You mean besides newspapers in libraries and sitting on the benches at bus stops?
Yeah, no. FAIL. Poor people can get access to news and information, for free, without television.
5
@2
There are some good shows out there, but many are only on cable or satellite. Broadcast TV is mostly a wasteland.
I suspect the delay is more about the AARP crowd than anything else. After all you don't want to cut the demographic most likely to vote off from their "Matlock" re-runs.
There are some good shows out there, but many are only on cable or satellite. Broadcast TV is mostly a wasteland.
I suspect the delay is more about the AARP crowd than anything else. After all you don't want to cut the demographic most likely to vote off from their "Matlock" re-runs.
6
All I know is that if my Granny's old black and white just stops working on Feb 17, there's going to be hell to pay.
7
What happens in emergencies or extreme cases when cable is out and the public must rely on broadcast? I'm not clear...is it a digital broadcast or like, what
8
Obviously very low income people (including the elderly and disabled) are the hardest hit and government over-the-air broadcasts are one of the few affordable entertainment/news options for these people.
If you live in low-income housing in Seattle, how do you get a digital converter? You have to either call or go to the library to use the Internet to sign up for a coupon, take the coupon to some far-off store to buy a converter box, spend $30 or so to make up the difference between the coupon and retail price, take the huge box back home on the bus, and then probably ask a young tech-savvy neighbor for help on how to install it -- if you have a young tech-savvy neighbor, which many who live in low-income housing do not. Now that the coupon program has ended due to lack of funding, these people now have to pay about $70 in a terrible economy for a converter for "free" government-controlled analog TV.
It's completely ridiculous. What a mess. I don't know what the best solution is (it seems like they can't go back and start handing out free converters), but a delay is a really good idea.
If you live in low-income housing in Seattle, how do you get a digital converter? You have to either call or go to the library to use the Internet to sign up for a coupon, take the coupon to some far-off store to buy a converter box, spend $30 or so to make up the difference between the coupon and retail price, take the huge box back home on the bus, and then probably ask a young tech-savvy neighbor for help on how to install it -- if you have a young tech-savvy neighbor, which many who live in low-income housing do not. Now that the coupon program has ended due to lack of funding, these people now have to pay about $70 in a terrible economy for a converter for "free" government-controlled analog TV.
It's completely ridiculous. What a mess. I don't know what the best solution is (it seems like they can't go back and start handing out free converters), but a delay is a really good idea.
10
Everybody broadcast station in Atlanta has been airing 24/7 news-ticker-style announcements about the changeover during literally every show, as well as commercials between show segments. If you have watched broadcast TV in the last six months and are literate in English, you would have seen them.
It's the "literate in English" part, actually, that might be the rub. Atlanta has a high immigrant population and I haven't seen any ticker-announcements in Spanish or other languages.
It's the "literate in English" part, actually, that might be the rub. Atlanta has a high immigrant population and I haven't seen any ticker-announcements in Spanish or other languages.
12
tv is disposable to us because we have access to the internet and news periodicals and the literacy to use them.
for the poor and infirm access to the outside world is limited. if the internet is not an option (trust me, i've tried to teach my grandmother to use the internet) and newspapers are failing (and elderly eyes can't read the newsprint anyways), the elimination of free tv will make it very difficult for those who cannot get around to maintain any concept of what is going on in the world around them and they will become even further isolated. for someone who is limited to sitting in a rocking chair all day waiting to see if someone bothers to visit, even the crap on tv is mentally stimulating.
for the poor and infirm access to the outside world is limited. if the internet is not an option (trust me, i've tried to teach my grandmother to use the internet) and newspapers are failing (and elderly eyes can't read the newsprint anyways), the elimination of free tv will make it very difficult for those who cannot get around to maintain any concept of what is going on in the world around them and they will become even further isolated. for someone who is limited to sitting in a rocking chair all day waiting to see if someone bothers to visit, even the crap on tv is mentally stimulating.
13
If you can afford the converter box and need it, and haven't gotten one yet, you're an idiot who doesn't deserve the waste of time and resources it'll take to get you up to speed.
If you can't afford the converter box when they're offering you a $40 coupon, why exactly are you spending your time watching TV? Shouldn't you be doing something more important like, I don't know, making money? Or, even crazier, reading a book?
If you can't afford the converter box when they're offering you a $40 coupon, why exactly are you spending your time watching TV? Shouldn't you be doing something more important like, I don't know, making money? Or, even crazier, reading a book?
14
I agree with @3. I did the same thing, well over six months ago - close to a year, actually. The commercials are on TV every other commercial break, the crawl at the bottom of the screen on our local newscast features it, and our PBS station even did a half hour special about it that airs once a day. If you haven't figured our that you need to purchase a converter box yet, you don't deserve to have TV come February.
And @1 is right. I can afford to have cable, but I choose not to have it because it is not worth the money for me. But I know an awful lot of people who live in subsidized housing, who are not working, and who are paying $100 a month or more for cable. My parents taught me to budget, and how to decide what was truly a necessity and what wasn't. As a result, we didn't have cable when I was a kid, so I don't miss it now. Not everyone had that advantage.
And @1 is right. I can afford to have cable, but I choose not to have it because it is not worth the money for me. But I know an awful lot of people who live in subsidized housing, who are not working, and who are paying $100 a month or more for cable. My parents taught me to budget, and how to decide what was truly a necessity and what wasn't. As a result, we didn't have cable when I was a kid, so I don't miss it now. Not everyone had that advantage.
16
@11/13, Oh, okay, problem solved then I guess. All of the elderly/disabled/poor people already bought their $70 converter boxes two years ago that they paid for with their tech jobs. I'm sure they all blogged about it. Whew, that was close.
PS There are no $40 coupons left.
https://www.dtv2009.gov/ApplyCoupon.aspx
Next, let's get rid of all the books in the library and convert everything to Amazon Kindles ($359 Kindles sold separately). If we give 2 years notice, everything will be fine, right?
PS There are no $40 coupons left.
https://www.dtv2009.gov/ApplyCoupon.aspx
Next, let's get rid of all the books in the library and convert everything to Amazon Kindles ($359 Kindles sold separately). If we give 2 years notice, everything will be fine, right?
17
Maybe someone can explain to me why it's so absolutely necessary for the government to outlaw analog broadcasts? It seems to me that the cable companies just couldn't stand the idea that a few people were still getting television for free through rabbit ears, and so they decided to lobby congress to put a stop to that. It wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for those condescending "public service" ads.
You people debating whether television is a right and whether poor people will have access to information are missing the point. This is about money; specifically, how much money the cable companies stand to make because we allow corporations to set our public policy.
You people debating whether television is a right and whether poor people will have access to information are missing the point. This is about money; specifically, how much money the cable companies stand to make because we allow corporations to set our public policy.
19
This may come as a surprise to some people, but once upon a time there was no television. Somehow our ancestors survived it. @1, I'm with you. I know a few people that are unemployed and/or on welfare and they all have cable tv and cell phones. Priorities, people; priorities.
21
@17 - It has something to do with emergency responders needing increased analog bandwidth for their communication devices. I don't completely understand it myself, but there is a reason I majored in English.
22
@15. You make it sound like a bad thing. It's not my job to take care of the people too incompetent to take care of themselves. And as far as being elitist goes, I've never seen a problem with excelling. Perhaps you like being a Sarah Palin/GW clone, getting by on other people's willingness to cut you slack. but I'd prefer not to live that way.
@16 They've been announcing this regularly--like, daily, on every channel--for the past 24 months, approximately. $70 is, what, less than 3 bucks a month? $30, or less than half that, if you got the coupon. If you didn't, well, you had two years to do so. Sorry you're incompetent, but that's not our fault. And, again, if you can't afford $70 spread out over 2 years, stop watching television!
@17 There are only so many analog channels, and only so much bandwidth available on them, and by switching to digital they can more effectively use the bandwidth available to them. Means higher quality, better transmission, and more efficient use of radio waves. It's a good thing all around, except to people too stubborn to want to change anything. These are the same people who still use the old pulse-dial telephones and get their water from lead pipes built in the Roman times (I'm kidding about the last part).
@16 They've been announcing this regularly--like, daily, on every channel--for the past 24 months, approximately. $70 is, what, less than 3 bucks a month? $30, or less than half that, if you got the coupon. If you didn't, well, you had two years to do so. Sorry you're incompetent, but that's not our fault. And, again, if you can't afford $70 spread out over 2 years, stop watching television!
@17 There are only so many analog channels, and only so much bandwidth available on them, and by switching to digital they can more effectively use the bandwidth available to them. Means higher quality, better transmission, and more efficient use of radio waves. It's a good thing all around, except to people too stubborn to want to change anything. These are the same people who still use the old pulse-dial telephones and get their water from lead pipes built in the Roman times (I'm kidding about the last part).
23
If you want HDTV, just use your OLED laptop to display 1 million colors at 1080p with a faster refresh rate online.
But why force broke Americans to buy new HDTV sets from foreign manufacturers when you don't have to?
Keep the money at home.
Obama's right.
But why force broke Americans to buy new HDTV sets from foreign manufacturers when you don't have to?
Keep the money at home.
Obama's right.
24
this has been in the works for a few years now and has been delayed and delayed numerous times. get a box or cable or one of the other options. I was unemployed for a while myself and had no cable or phone or electric for a while. so if your broke sorry man been there hope you get back to work soon and if you just want to whine about change to bad suck it up.
25
This reminds me of that scene in Cable Guy when the cable goes out and everyone looks around and then slowly they start to grab books...but then the cable turns back on and they throw the book behind them.
It was perhaps the only good scene of the movie.
But I think of that, and well, I say turn the cable off.
It was perhaps the only good scene of the movie.
But I think of that, and well, I say turn the cable off.
26
I figure the economy alone is a good reason to delay it. Or they could go ahead with the transition and give free converter boxes to anyone who has a blank screen - make it part of the stimulus!
27
Let the layabouts do without TV for a while; some of them may actually have a thought or do something like read or move if they can't just sit in front of the tube.
28
#8 and #15 - Is it hard to see the low income housing from your ivory tower, or are you using a telescope?
It's a nice fantasy image you have of elderly people sitting in an unheated room, watching a B+W tv with an aluminum foil rabbit ear. I have never seen an old folks home without cable. Basic cable is $13.95 a month. If you can't handle that, I doubt you have a place to live or food to eat.
If you want to use the internet, cell towers, roads, or anything else that society offers, you have to buy something to access them. The same applies here.
It's a nice fantasy image you have of elderly people sitting in an unheated room, watching a B+W tv with an aluminum foil rabbit ear. I have never seen an old folks home without cable. Basic cable is $13.95 a month. If you can't handle that, I doubt you have a place to live or food to eat.
If you want to use the internet, cell towers, roads, or anything else that society offers, you have to buy something to access them. The same applies here.
29
@28, Um, I work in very low income housing, and once the GAU (General Assistance - Unemployable) funding is cut completely in Gregoire's budget, a lot of people are going to have $0 income after their SS checks go straight to the landlord. For other people a little better off, they have money in the two digits every month after rent, and most of that goes to food. Not everyone has hundreds of thousands of dollars in their IRA. Do you seriously not even recognize the existence of the millions of people on fixed incomes? Hint: It will be you if you become one of the 1% of Seattle bike riders who gets seriously injured by drivers.
30
@22,
Don't assume that everyone who gives a shit about this stuff and disagrees with your elitist sentiments is a Republican, thank you very much. Believe it or not, seniors who rely on broadcast TV may process things somewhat more slowly than healthy young douchebags such as yourself.
You will own up to being an asshole though, right?
Don't assume that everyone who gives a shit about this stuff and disagrees with your elitist sentiments is a Republican, thank you very much. Believe it or not, seniors who rely on broadcast TV may process things somewhat more slowly than healthy young douchebags such as yourself.
You will own up to being an asshole though, right?
31
Judy Haley: No-one is "eliminating free TV".
The over-air broadcasts that the commercial channels (ABC, NBC, CBS) are sending out *for free* will continue to be blasted out over-the-air *for free*.
See that, where I wrote "for free" ?
What's happening is that the way those for-free signals are being blasted out over the air is changing. So there is a one-time expense to buy a convertor box, after which one can continue to receive those for-free broadcast signals from ABC, NBC, and CBS (and PBS too, I guess).
That one-time expense is sorta like the one-time expense to actually buy a TV. But a lot cheaper.
"Free TV" isn't being eliminated. By anyone.
The over-air broadcasts that the commercial channels (ABC, NBC, CBS) are sending out *for free* will continue to be blasted out over-the-air *for free*.
See that, where I wrote "for free" ?
What's happening is that the way those for-free signals are being blasted out over the air is changing. So there is a one-time expense to buy a convertor box, after which one can continue to receive those for-free broadcast signals from ABC, NBC, and CBS (and PBS too, I guess).
That one-time expense is sorta like the one-time expense to actually buy a TV. But a lot cheaper.
"Free TV" isn't being eliminated. By anyone.
32
I've questioned all along why there was such a "necessity" to switch from one transmission mode to the other, aside from the "need" manufactured by the television makers and the cable providers. The whole premise of the American economy has turned from building a good product that lasted to building a crappy product and then replacing it every six months; and yet we have increasing difficulty finding ways to cope with the massive amounts of waste and e-waste in our culture.
33
What about all the mountains of analog TV's that will be shitcanned in favor of sexy new HDTV's? No one will want to buy them. I haven't heard any talk about recycling. Maybe we could have Taliban style tv monuments in every town.
35
Argh. People are dumb.
I dunno who came up with the arbitrary 70 dollar price tag on digital converter boxes. They can be had for less than 30 bucks from some retailers, which makes them FREE with the government provided checks that they have been sending out for over a year now.
Shutting off the analog signal isn't going to force people to pay for television now. If you have a television that's been made in the past 5 years or so, it is more than likely equipped with an ATSC tuner. If it is, you can pick up over the air digital signals FOR FREE with a set of normal rabbit ears.
If your television is HD, you can pick up over the air HD signals FOR FREE with a set of normal rabbit ears.
If you have an analog television with any cable package, even the cheapest package, you don't have anything to worry about.
If you failed to get your 40 dollar coupon, and have sat on your hands while being inundated with digital switchover commercials for the past couple of years, then you are gonna have to drop 20 or 30 bucks to continue to use your old television. Worse things have happened in this world.
It's called progress. They can delay it all they want, but at no point will everyone in this country be prepared to make the change smoothly. It's a pretty dumb idea to think that every citizen has to be in lockstep with each other in order for our society to move ahead. Make the transition now, and let the unprepared catch up to everyone else.
I dunno who came up with the arbitrary 70 dollar price tag on digital converter boxes. They can be had for less than 30 bucks from some retailers, which makes them FREE with the government provided checks that they have been sending out for over a year now.
Shutting off the analog signal isn't going to force people to pay for television now. If you have a television that's been made in the past 5 years or so, it is more than likely equipped with an ATSC tuner. If it is, you can pick up over the air digital signals FOR FREE with a set of normal rabbit ears.
If your television is HD, you can pick up over the air HD signals FOR FREE with a set of normal rabbit ears.
If you have an analog television with any cable package, even the cheapest package, you don't have anything to worry about.
If you failed to get your 40 dollar coupon, and have sat on your hands while being inundated with digital switchover commercials for the past couple of years, then you are gonna have to drop 20 or 30 bucks to continue to use your old television. Worse things have happened in this world.
It's called progress. They can delay it all they want, but at no point will everyone in this country be prepared to make the change smoothly. It's a pretty dumb idea to think that every citizen has to be in lockstep with each other in order for our society to move ahead. Make the transition now, and let the unprepared catch up to everyone else.
36
So, war on poor people: What percentage of the US population do you think fall into that category you are describing? .05%? Whatever the answer, worst case scenarios are not a way to determine public policy. What a horror story that people may have to get their news from NPR (for free) on the radio! TV is an American birthright, I guess. You better get that bleeding heart looked at before you pass out. It's already making you dizzy.
37
TV's not necessary for me, but it is for my 82-year-old parents. They rely on their 20-year-old set, get about 5 channels, never had cable, and have no clue about the coming conversion.
My parents would think you're the one in the ivory tower, bike guy. Anyways, don't you know TV makes its $ through incessant advertising?
Yeah, I'll try to explain the conversion to them, and I'll buy them a converter box at Radio Shack, but can't afford cable (even for myself). Where they live it starts at $48.99/mo.
My parents would think you're the one in the ivory tower, bike guy. Anyways, don't you know TV makes its $ through incessant advertising?
Yeah, I'll try to explain the conversion to them, and I'll buy them a converter box at Radio Shack, but can't afford cable (even for myself). Where they live it starts at $48.99/mo.
38
Oh, just to restore some perspective to the callow elitist young assholes posting here - $20 is a practically the monthly food budget for a whole lot of senior citizens in this country.
For one personal example, I know seniors who heat water on the stove using electricity instead of running it from the tap because they can't afford the gas bill.
Fuck you.
For one personal example, I know seniors who heat water on the stove using electricity instead of running it from the tap because they can't afford the gas bill.
Fuck you.
39
@38 - this is why I posted the other thing about rice and beans.
Seriously, buy a honking big bag of rice and a honking big bag of beans.
Seriously, buy a honking big bag of rice and a honking big bag of beans.
40
Mmmm... rice and beans. It's what's for dinner.
Yeah, I can't believe the assholery I'm seeing on this thread. People who've never been hungry...
Yeah, I can't believe the assholery I'm seeing on this thread. People who've never been hungry...
42
This is such a non-issue. Someone's gonna help granny set her tv up. The "welfare-rich" are going to continue to pay for cable with the taxpayers' help. This is like the whole hype over Y2K. When February 16th rolls around, society as we know it is NOT going to come to a screaming halt. Everyone breathe deeply and repeat after me: NON-ISSUE.
43
Paying $50 for a month of basic cable is a good investment for people who can't afford to go to the movies, buy DVDs, buy books, or go to concerts, and who don't have easy access to a library. And paying less than $2 a day on a minor luxury isn't what makes poor people poor. Getting paid shit wages with no benefits and few government and charitable resources is what makes poor people poor.
44
TV addicts = sad bastards.
Boo hoo. People have to pay more to mainline junk into their eyes. Maybe they will have to start thinking for a change.
"I don't need a tv screen. I just stick the aerial into my skin and let the signal run through my veins."
Boo hoo. People have to pay more to mainline junk into their eyes. Maybe they will have to start thinking for a change.
"I don't need a tv screen. I just stick the aerial into my skin and let the signal run through my veins."
45
personally, i'm looking forward to the abandonment of the analog TV spectrum - it could make for a golden age of pirate TV.
46
@36 do the math, what is the number of "poor" that equals your percentage? 2007 rate of poor families are 7.6 million...thats about 380000 families. I think you've been riding your bike w/o a saddle for too long.
47
In 2006, 9.4 % of seniors had incomes below the poverty line (this was 12.6% for all citizens).
@38,
I stand corrected - you're just a callous elitist asshole.
Thanks for the clarification.
@38,
I stand corrected - you're just a callous elitist asshole.
Thanks for the clarification.
48
The real problem was getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine, you know. If we still had that, we'd all want a TV and we'd want everyone else to have one too. I wonder if Obama could actually undo what Reagan did?
50
I don't mind the idea of the change...more bandwidth, etc, I get it, fine...however, I've lost stations. I once could watch KOMO, after I got the box (which is not "huge" @ #8) and I did gain a few, which I won't ever watch (sports and cooking). Lame. Also, the digi signal disappears often, momentarily if it's windy or a bus drives past or sometimes just altogether for a few minutes/hours. Again, lame. SO...now I will need to spend more $$ on buying another antenna of some sort. Or cable...whats $14 a month for Basic when before the channels I watched were FREE? Thanks capitalism. And who's on the hook for the gov't subsidy of these boxes? TAXPAYERS...I find it hard (but not shocking) to believe we are asked to pay for these boxes, out of pocket or via tax money (no matter the cost) when it's the TV stations that need us to watch their lame assed adverts to pay their bills and make them $$. If not one is watching then they miss out on market share, so why are we responsible for having to figure out a way to watch their ads? Sure...I don't have to watch TV ever...yeah yeah yeah...
51
The extension request came via his transition team. The fear is the that some people's TVs will stop working shortly after Obama's inauguration.
52
I have lived below the poverty level and TV was not something I was worried about at the time. This is TV, not food, shelter, or heat. This is not necessary to survival.
@46 - I don't plan on getting a seat anytime soon
@47 - Thanks for noticing.
@46 - I don't plan on getting a seat anytime soon
@47 - Thanks for noticing.
53
The entire premise that free television precipitates programming that benefits the political consciousness of Americans that watch is completely unfounded.
54
We've got it quite easy over here in the US - I remember my father cursing and whining over something most Americans would be shocked to know even exists - an annual television licence. in the UK, you are charged $200 or so p.a. just for the privilege of tuning it to any channel. Most European and some Asian countries are the same way. But then again, that $200 goes to fund perhaps the highest quality range of programming in the world, pound for pound.
55
Dominic is right. TV was much superior in the days of The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour, Let's Make a Deal and One Day at a Time.
56
@44 as much as I love Daniel Miller, I don't take that song all too seriously. People are either critical thinkers or they're not, and they either placate themselves with low-quality programming, they seek higher-quality programming, or they forego it altogether - I refuse to blame the medium itself.
I happen to think television is a profound, brilliant, provocative, and versatile method of expression. I don't watch the vast majority of what's on TV, but who does? Who visits the vast majority of the internet? What someone watches or doesn't watch on TV says a lot about who they are, it says little about the medium or the art form.
now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch the same episodes of "murder most horrid" that I've seen 15 times already. Fernseh-overdös. Quick. Let's watch TV. Before you die.
I happen to think television is a profound, brilliant, provocative, and versatile method of expression. I don't watch the vast majority of what's on TV, but who does? Who visits the vast majority of the internet? What someone watches or doesn't watch on TV says a lot about who they are, it says little about the medium or the art form.
now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch the same episodes of "murder most horrid" that I've seen 15 times already. Fernseh-overdös. Quick. Let's watch TV. Before you die.
58
look, i don't see what the issue is. there's always going to be haves and have-nots. hell, there are people who can't even afford an ANALOG tv period or even housing (take a walk downtown and see how many homeless people are worried about losing their analog tv signal) much less a convertor box.
by the logic of some in this thread we should all give up progress because a small percentage of people can't afford a $70 box. guess what, save up for it, a dollar per month and in 5 years you'll have tv. until then, go to the library and read a newspaper.
of course if we want to make everything fair we should shut off ALL tv services and ALL internet services and go back to just radio programs until everyone in the country can afford a tv set, then afford the converter box and then afford the computer and internet connection.
do you see how stupid that line of reasoning is? make the switch in february and the small percentage of people who have to go without tv (oh, the horror) will catch-up one day. sometimes a few need to fall so the majority can move forward.
oh, and television isn't a right. it's not guaranteed in the constitution.
by the logic of some in this thread we should all give up progress because a small percentage of people can't afford a $70 box. guess what, save up for it, a dollar per month and in 5 years you'll have tv. until then, go to the library and read a newspaper.
of course if we want to make everything fair we should shut off ALL tv services and ALL internet services and go back to just radio programs until everyone in the country can afford a tv set, then afford the converter box and then afford the computer and internet connection.
do you see how stupid that line of reasoning is? make the switch in february and the small percentage of people who have to go without tv (oh, the horror) will catch-up one day. sometimes a few need to fall so the majority can move forward.
oh, and television isn't a right. it's not guaranteed in the constitution.
60
@57,
Now, let me get this straight. I'm advocating for low-income seniors on a board filled with posts by Social Darwinists who would make Ronald Reagan proud and you're calling ME a Republican? If this is where the Democratic Party is heading we're in more trouble than I thought.
Yes those awful poor folks deserve whatever they get. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Now, let me get this straight. I'm advocating for low-income seniors on a board filled with posts by Social Darwinists who would make Ronald Reagan proud and you're calling ME a Republican? If this is where the Democratic Party is heading we're in more trouble than I thought.
Yes those awful poor folks deserve whatever they get. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
61
If you're worried about you parents or grandparents, go help them.
If youre worried about those that have no one, then volunteer.
Bitching is worthless; take action.
If youre worried about those that have no one, then volunteer.
Bitching is worthless; take action.
62
@61,
As it happens, my mom has the converter box voucher (and the clock is ticking on the expiration date) but can't afford the rest of the cost for one of the boxes. I just helped her out with some other expenses, and I can't at the moment, either.
You don't know who I am or what I do for other people. Fuck you.
As it happens, my mom has the converter box voucher (and the clock is ticking on the expiration date) but can't afford the rest of the cost for one of the boxes. I just helped her out with some other expenses, and I can't at the moment, either.
You don't know who I am or what I do for other people. Fuck you.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (62) RSS