What? You don’t have a TV! (part 3)
[For previous installments of this series, see Part 1, and Part 2]
The amount of time Americans spend watching TV has gone up in recent years. Studies differ, but it’s usually estimated we watch on average nearly three hours of TV a day. Since I don’t have a TV, what do I do with my time? And, what must I be missing?
Besides work, cooking, cleaning, blogging, running, and that sort of thing, I do have some leisure time. So, mainly, I read. There’s magazine: TIME, The Christian Century, Harper’s, The Atlantic and others. There’s books: mostly fiction, sometimes churchy. There’s the web: dozens of blogs, news sites, social media. There’s radio: MPR (OK, I only listen to MPR, but that’s because it’s the best). And, there’s also the TV one can stream online.
About once a week, I’ll stream a show on Netflix (Mad Men is my current project). I’ll also sometimes stream The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report. Netflix gives options for streaming movies (though the selection is lacking). Amazon Prime, as of very recently, offers streaming, as does, of course, Hulu.
By far the most frustrating aspect of my non-TV life is the lack of streaming sports online. My Internet Service Provider does not offer ESPN3, so I can’t easily watch ESPN-broadcast sports online. While Major League Baseball and the NFL now package some online-related programming — via smart phones and iPads — neither allows realtime streaming of in-network games, even at a price. I’d gladly pay a few bucks for the joy of watching an occasional Twins game on my iPad, or Vikings, or FSU anything. I hope television networks release their hold on the rights to distribute such games as soon as possible. I mean, come on! I’ll pay, but I just want the option to watch sports online.
This way of watching TV — streaming shows after they air, but seldom — I see as a sort of DVR TV approach, but only more extreme. If folks who DVR have the option of watching only the top shows they want, at the times they want (and with the commercials they don’t want), then I take same sort of approach, just a little more intensely.
If there’s a great show about which I hear a lot — like The Wire, and Mad Men — I can figure out a way to watch it, but sometimes it takes a few years. If John Stewart was particularly strong one night, I can go back and watch it the next day. I’ll usually only do so, however, if I hear, or see online chatter, about a high quality show. So I don’t watch much mindless stuff. My TV watching — or streaming, as the case may be — is very intentional. And, due to the limitations of TV online these days, it’s also limited to significantly less than three hours a week. Just the way I like it.
What? You don’t have a TV! (part 2)
[For previous installments of this series, see Part 1]
When I’m traveling for work and staying in a hotel room, I’ll often turn on the TV set. Generally, I’ll watch live sports, ESPN highlights, or CNN. It’s sort of a treat. On vacation, however, I never watch TV. For me, TV watching is somehow antithetical to vacation. Let me explore both of these claims.
First, though I don’t have a TV at home, I watch television in hotel rooms because it’s novel. I enjoy catching a baseball game or seeing what personalities in the news actually look like. When I travel for work I’m usually busy 10+ hours a day, so when I get back to the room I like to veg if I can. TV access makes that easy.
If I had a television at home, I might use it this way as well, but I think the unusual nature of TV access while traveling makes it more enjoyable. Like that delicious smoked turkey each Thanksgiving (and maybe Christmas), it’s best enjoyed as a special treat.
In fact, this leads me to the second point, that I don’t watch television on vacation (one exception being FSU football games). For me, vacation is a time to rejuvenate, read books, take walks, surf the Internet, just be. So it just happens, without me really meaning for it to occur, that on vacation I rarely watch television. Movies, I’ll watch. But more on that next post.
In fact, I’m beginning to feel like these posts are more parts self-disclosure than helpful reflection, so I’m stopping here for today. I don’t like it when my blog descends into navel gazing rather than more broad-minded critique. I do plan, though, to post soon regarding the media I do watch online — including several TV shows.
What? You don’t have a TV! (part 1)
Megan and I are part of the 1% — we don’t have a television. In fact, we haven’t for over five years (well, ten years, if roommates’ TVs don’t count). The decision to eschew a television was not one we pondered for long. It was not a measured countercultural stand against multinational corporations’ braincell-destroying dross called “entertainment” these days. Rather, we just figured, “Nah, guess we don’t really want a TV.”
People’s reactions to the disclosure that we don’t have a TV can be put into two categories. The first, is plain disbelief. Folks sputter, ask rapid-fire clarifying questions, search our cupboards and bookshelves for a surely-hidden flatscreen. They’re flabbergasted, gobsmacked, bewildered even.
The second reaction is even more telling. Many people respond by saying something like, “Oh, well, I don’t actually watch much TV at all. I mean, I should probably get rid of it too.” As if our decision not to have a TV is intended to cast aspersions at them.
This reaction — and it is quite common — cracks me up because it turns out that my decision not to have a television is in no way an attack on all televisions everywhere any more than my decision not to make french press coffee is a rebuke of delicious beverages. I’m not a TV hater. They do not offend me. I have never smashed one to pieces (though I have turned off a few that play Fox News in public spaces).
So, believe me when I say, “I’m not trying to make you feel guilty.” I promise. Therefore I don’t need to hear you apologize for the little television you do watch. I don’t need to have you explain, “I only watch one show a week.” Or, “we really should get rid of it.” Come on, folks. Own it, don’t apologize. (Or, if having a TV really does make you feel guilty, get rid of it.)
Over the next while, I’m going to take some posts to reflect on our lack of TV. I do this, in a small way to “come clean” — after all, it’s hard to know what to say when people say, “Hey, you know that commercial when….” Invariably, I don’t.
Mostly, though, I’m writing this series as an exercise in self-reflection. I wonder about things. How has not having a television for 10 years shaped me? Does that fact I don’t consume much television media influence my consumption of other media? In what ways is not watching TV a “spiritual practice,” or even a protest of powers and principalities?
Any questions of your own? Do me a favor: on a commercial break, send them my way.
image by Jay Lopez
Word of Praise, Part Two: The Wire
The Wire is the best television show ever made. After nine months of Netflix, iTunes, and other methods, I have finally watched all five seasons. Every single episode was well done — like it’s own mini movie — but they tied together from episode one straight through to the end.
I don’t watch much TV, so my calling The Wire the best show ever is judging from a very small sample size, but it’s got every element you’d every want in a show — character development out the wazoo, gripping adventure, socio-political themes left and right, perfect script, and tackles deep moral questions left and right. I’m also not alone, of course, as many a critic has labeled it the best ever as well as President Obama calling The Wire his favorite. The show is tied to its setting of Baltimore as much as any show can, and it takes Baltimore head on — in its glory and nastiness. The Wire was criticized in its day as demanding too much from its viewers, but that’s what makes it so good. A twenty second scene from one episode can drive a scene in an episode even a season down the road.
Now The Wire is not for everyone. There’s promiscuity, profanity, bad cops, alcoholism, thieving and lying — and that’s just one character. The Wire is not your usual rosy TV pick-me-up. It’s not Hollywood, it’s real life. And true of most good art, The Wire did not receive much popular success when it aired regularly on HBO.
The Wire was never a show I watched to wind down after a long down. It always revved me up. I’d finish episodes sweating and with my pulse racing, at the same time itching to analyze the themes of that episode while agonizing over when to start the next. I’m not one who knows these things, but if good TV takes on life at both its riches and most base, drawing out a thread so that viewers might see the world in a new way, then The Wire is the best TV I know. I will miss it deeply.
Media Culture Moment
In the old world, way back when I was a kid, TV networks made the content that drove our lives. In some ways that’s still the case, but with web 2.0 (or 3.0 or whatever) more and more often billionaires are beaten by the little guy. With YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, and Twitter, a simple clip can get more hits and make more web fuss than even the best advertiser could muster.
For more on this general concept, check out this awesome (though longer) video h/t to Mary:
A few weeks ago, on my favorite TV show (the only one I watch, actually) the little guy drove the big guy big time. The culminating scene at Pam and Jim’s wedding, the processional, was a play on this video:
Yes, a random awesome wedding march in Minneapolis determined the content of The Office. That is the world in which we live today. That is awesome.
ER Theology: a chaplain and post-modern counseling
I used to be a huge ER fan, but stopped watching religiously when I didn’t have a TV in college. So I’m out of the ER loop, but have picked up that they now seem to have a regular chaplain character. I saw a full show a few weeks ago in which she led some weird prayer service without prayers–fascinating, actually, and not all bad. (I’d love to hear more about this chaplain character….)
Well here’s a fascinating clip from an episode called “Atonement” in which the patient wants answers–is literally screaming for answers–and the chaplain only seems to have the resources to ask more questions.
It’s unclear from the short scene if she’s limited by her job description, or personal beliefs, but my heart goes out to the patient. He’s totally right. I’m not expert here, but it seems like such a situation calls for confession in at least two ways. First, the patient–as he is trying to do–should confess his sin. Second, in response to his confession, there needs to be a confession in God who forgives. The dying patient doesn’t need any more questions, as important as they are, but to hear a public confession that Jesus is Lord, and that nothing the patient could do can separate him from Christ’s love.
I don’t know how the chaplain character is in other ER episodes, but kudos to the writers for such a powerful scene.
Cranford concludes
The last time I grieved the end of a TV show was in 1993 when “My So-Called Life” aired its final episode (wow, that makes me feel old). Fourteen years later, I’m grieving again, but this time for a very different sort of show.
“Cranford” is a five-part BBC period drama with all-star cast, impeccable acting, solid story, stunning costumes, and pretty good script.
Based upon three novels by Elizabeth Gaskell (how one writes a five-hour script from three novels is beyond me), the story is set in Cranford, an 1840s Chesire market town. It’s got all it needs for a beloved period drama: a rebellious leading woman, class issues galore, old fashioned notions of parenthood and progress, rumor mills, world-class acting, and of course, love miscommunicated.
Though I had some initial misgivings–contrived plot devices, lack of sub-plot follow-up, an overly G-rated feel–the final two episodes were stunningly done and tonight’s, especially, seemed clean, believable, and compelling.
Do not fret, American readers. A quick google reveals the drama will feature in January on the PBS re-work of Masterpiece Theater to go by the new name “Masterpiece Classic.” I’m a bit perplexed, however, why PBS describes it as a three-part series. I can’t imagine the story still working by cutting out two of the hour-long episodes. If PBS elects to do so, it would be a travesty. The BBC five hour segments is the way to go.
Here, then, is fodder for the expectant PBS watcher.
And, of course, the BBC preview…
Connect Online
