TV or not TV? that is still a question

Good Post from Sarah. I agree TV is useful, I’m not anti TV as such and yes, Danger Mouse is of course, awesome. I think I have a problem with the way everything is packaged and sound-bited (new word!) for TV. The Lyrics of 1991’s “TV the drug of the nation” I reckon are still profound …. for example,
“Where straight teeth in your mouth
are more important than the words
that come out of it”

I want to understand and appreciate the culture around me but I guess my prefered mediums are listening/talking, radio and Films. I’m very grateful to everyone who keeps me up to date with TV though (and lets me watch theirs!)and every year I buy the DVD compilation of the best adverts of the year as I’m very intersted in the way that advertisers target culture(s)! Interestingly TV viewing figures overall have been going down. Let the debate continue …………

3 Replies to “TV or not TV? that is still a question”

  1. I suppose it ought to be sound-bitten… Adverts are definitely very useful for studying cultural developments. However, it is also very interesting to see the ads in the context of what sort of target audience is expected for certain TV programmes. Cars, dishwashers and insurance companies are favoured during ad breaks for an evening’s whodunnit drama, while the interval in the middle of Friends on C4 sees plenty of shampoo, hair dye and Immac easy leg-wax. I’ve been taught by a critical theory lecturer: “Text without context is a con”, and I think that that principle can probably be applied fairly effectively to a number of other areas of cultural study.

  2. Definitely sound bitten! That’s what I was going to say! I’m trying to ignore mediums instead of media!

  3. aaaarrggghh, can’t help responding. Normally I defer in all matters grammatical and the like however I have decided to stand my ground over “sound-bited”. The rationale for not using “sound bitten” is this, that sound-bite relates to the bite size chunk of information packaged not to the active biting thereof. Therefore, bite relates to the piece and not to the act of removing the piece. “Sound-bited” is meant to convery that this is a continual process whereby information is compressed, packaged and (over)simplified to a “sound-bite”, the acvtive nature of this therefore in this tense is “sound-bited”. Sound-bitten would merely imply taking a chunk out of it, not the full outworking of the process rendered by “sound-bite” in it’s understood media and cultural context.
    This is what I am going to nail (metaphorically) to the OED door as the need for this unique but neccessary construct.

Comments are closed.