'Martin: "Since television is often the most accessible avenue to the research of social science via it's products (advertising and pop culture entertainments), etc."
[WS:] When you study bowel movement, taking a small sample is sufficient - you do not need to take the full load on a daily basis. Ditto for television and pop culture.'
Actually, you and many other people need to have studied a vast number and array of bowel movements in order to know how that particular small sample should be understood.
Not that I'm buying the argument that TV is justifiable because it's a sample of society. TV *is* society, as much as this list, the apparently endless renovation of the house across the street from me, or this stupid paper I should be writing and for some reason have decided a return to LBO will be a distraction from.
Catherine
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:57 PM, martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Angelus Novus wrote:
>
>> I was just irritated by the
>> suggestion that those who choose not to watch television are joyless,
>> self-denying hairshirts.
>
> Since television is often the most accessible avenue to the research of social science via it's products (advertising and pop culture entertainments), those who watch are the 'hairshirts', tracking the division and decline of civilization.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk