TV commercials cause reading to decline
nellebelle
Last night at my book group, one of the members (who happens to be a teacher) brought up the recent article in Parade Magazine, by Norman Mailer. In it, Mailer suggests that TV commercials are responsible for children's short attention spans, and therefore, a decline in reading: "High school students were showing reduced interest in books. In 2002, among our teenagers and young adults, the drop from 1982 in books read annually came to more than 25 percent."
Every parent has had the experience of picking up a 2- or 3-year-old who is busy at play. All too often, a tantrum occurs. Even as adults, we have to learn to contain our annoyance when our thoughts are broken into. For a child, an interruption to one's concentration can prove as painful as a verbal rebuke.>>>>
I said at book group that I didn't think Mailer supported his premise in the article, but several other women in the group vehemently agreed that TV causes people to read less and agreed that commercials do cause short attention spans. It wasn't the main topic of our discussion, so no more was said about it.
I though about it later and a couple of things came to mind.
1. The article was written by an "expert", therefore the information should be considered accurate. Norman Mailer - after all, isn't a successful published writer an "expert" in reading and writing? Never mind that there is no actual research or evidence to support his statements - 25% decrease in books read annually among high school students and young adults. How did they gather that data? And the children who read "for hours" 60 years ago? Who was keeping track?
2. We have no way of knowing how much these "high school students and young adults" would have read if they'd lived before TV. I suspect there have always been people who did not spend a lot of time reading. Some people enjoy sitting with a book, others prefer to do other things. The supposed decline in reading is blamed on TV, when we don't even know that there actually is a long term decline in reading. It seems to me, based on bookstores and the popularity of book groups, that reading is alive and well.
Mary Ellen
www.aupairfoundation.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>>snipped from this article by Norman Mailer: http://archive.parade.com/2005/0123/0123_one_idea.htmlSixty years ago, children would read for hours. Their powers of concentration developed as naturally as breathing. Good readers became very good readers, even as men and women who go in for weight-lifting will bulk up. The connection between loving to read and doing well in school was no mystery to most students.
Every parent has had the experience of picking up a 2- or 3-year-old who is busy at play. All too often, a tantrum occurs. Even as adults, we have to learn to contain our annoyance when our thoughts are broken into. For a child, an interruption to one's concentration can prove as painful as a verbal rebuke.>>>>
I said at book group that I didn't think Mailer supported his premise in the article, but several other women in the group vehemently agreed that TV causes people to read less and agreed that commercials do cause short attention spans. It wasn't the main topic of our discussion, so no more was said about it.
I though about it later and a couple of things came to mind.
1. The article was written by an "expert", therefore the information should be considered accurate. Norman Mailer - after all, isn't a successful published writer an "expert" in reading and writing? Never mind that there is no actual research or evidence to support his statements - 25% decrease in books read annually among high school students and young adults. How did they gather that data? And the children who read "for hours" 60 years ago? Who was keeping track?
2. We have no way of knowing how much these "high school students and young adults" would have read if they'd lived before TV. I suspect there have always been people who did not spend a lot of time reading. Some people enjoy sitting with a book, others prefer to do other things. The supposed decline in reading is blamed on TV, when we don't even know that there actually is a long term decline in reading. It seems to me, based on bookstores and the popularity of book groups, that reading is alive and well.
Mary Ellen
www.aupairfoundation.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Manisha Kher
--- nellebelle <nellebelle@...> wrote:
time kids spend with their video games or gameboys.
Those games require a lot of attention. So I don't
think attention spans have declined all that much.
I think there have always been people who liked to
read and people who didn't. Perhaps reading wasn't as
important 100 years ago as it is now and so the
non-readers weren't noticed as much.
Manisha
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
> it, Mailer suggests that TV commercials areAt the same time, I hear complaints about how much
> responsible for children's short attention spans,
> and therefore, a decline in reading: "High school
> students were showing reduced interest in books. In
> 2002, among our teenagers and young adults, the drop
> from 1982 in books read annually came to more than
> 25 percent."
time kids spend with their video games or gameboys.
Those games require a lot of attention. So I don't
think attention spans have declined all that much.
I think there have always been people who liked to
read and people who didn't. Perhaps reading wasn't as
important 100 years ago as it is now and so the
non-readers weren't noticed as much.
Manisha
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/2/05 11:28:01 AM, nellebelle@... writes:
<< In it, Mailer suggests that TV commercials are responsible for children's
short attention spans, and therefore, a decline in reading: "High school
students were showing reduced interest in books. In 2002, among our teenagers and
young adults, the drop from 1982 in books read annually came to more than 25
percent." >>
Well how does he know it's not granola bars, or FM radio?
<<The connection between loving to read and doing well in school was no
mystery to most students.>>
School only rewarded verbal skills and mathematical ability, so of course
reading would improve school performance.
<<And the children who read "for hours" 60 years ago? Who was keeping
track?>>
I read for hours 40 years ago, as escape. That sort of escape was rewarded
and praised. (Not by my mom, but I was learning to ignore her by then.)
Other sorts of escape ranged from frowned-upon to illegal. But reading was virtue.
<< I suspect there have always been people who did not spend a lot of time
reading. Some people enjoy sitting with a book, others prefer to do other
things. >>
Absolutely, and I think Howard Gardner's better to listen to about such
things than someone who himself (Mailer) is a word-rutting language hound. I love
language, but I know that most people don't.
-=-It seems to me, based on bookstores and the popularity of book groups,
that reading is alive and well.-=-
No kidding! There are book stores and magazine racks EVERYWHERE, and those
kids who are "not reading" but "just being on the internet," what---is it
reading aloud to them? Are they just listening to music? (Those who do could show
you all kinds of sites with lyrics and discussions of upcoming albums and
tours and legal cases involving copyright and analysis of musical styles, and...)
Are they just watching videos? (Ditto the all kinds of sites argument.)
Correlation isn't cause.
Sandra
<< In it, Mailer suggests that TV commercials are responsible for children's
short attention spans, and therefore, a decline in reading: "High school
students were showing reduced interest in books. In 2002, among our teenagers and
young adults, the drop from 1982 in books read annually came to more than 25
percent." >>
Well how does he know it's not granola bars, or FM radio?
<<The connection between loving to read and doing well in school was no
mystery to most students.>>
School only rewarded verbal skills and mathematical ability, so of course
reading would improve school performance.
<<And the children who read "for hours" 60 years ago? Who was keeping
track?>>
I read for hours 40 years ago, as escape. That sort of escape was rewarded
and praised. (Not by my mom, but I was learning to ignore her by then.)
Other sorts of escape ranged from frowned-upon to illegal. But reading was virtue.
<< I suspect there have always been people who did not spend a lot of time
reading. Some people enjoy sitting with a book, others prefer to do other
things. >>
Absolutely, and I think Howard Gardner's better to listen to about such
things than someone who himself (Mailer) is a word-rutting language hound. I love
language, but I know that most people don't.
-=-It seems to me, based on bookstores and the popularity of book groups,
that reading is alive and well.-=-
No kidding! There are book stores and magazine racks EVERYWHERE, and those
kids who are "not reading" but "just being on the internet," what---is it
reading aloud to them? Are they just listening to music? (Those who do could show
you all kinds of sites with lyrics and discussions of upcoming albums and
tours and legal cases involving copyright and analysis of musical styles, and...)
Are they just watching videos? (Ditto the all kinds of sites argument.)
Correlation isn't cause.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/2/05 12:40:40 PM, m_kher@... writes:
<< At the same time, I hear complaints about how much
time kids spend with their video games or gameboys.
Those games require a lot of attention. So I don't
think attention spans have declined all that much. >>
Marty has been reading graphic novels. They're 200 page comic books,
basically, it seems. He said the first book he ever sat down and read all the way
through without stopping, and without noticing he was doing it, was Sin City.
(He says it's a comic book. I'm not particular. <g>)
His dad read it too, and there are others in line after Marty's through.
The other night some of the boys were saying they had read that a movie was
being made of Sin City, and the script was going to be the words in the comic
and the story boards were going to be the very frames from the comics.
Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood, Clive Owen, Benecio del Toro, Jessica Alba and
another famous actor or two.
Sandra
<< At the same time, I hear complaints about how much
time kids spend with their video games or gameboys.
Those games require a lot of attention. So I don't
think attention spans have declined all that much. >>
Marty has been reading graphic novels. They're 200 page comic books,
basically, it seems. He said the first book he ever sat down and read all the way
through without stopping, and without noticing he was doing it, was Sin City.
(He says it's a comic book. I'm not particular. <g>)
His dad read it too, and there are others in line after Marty's through.
The other night some of the boys were saying they had read that a movie was
being made of Sin City, and the script was going to be the words in the comic
and the story boards were going to be the very frames from the comics.
Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood, Clive Owen, Benecio del Toro, Jessica Alba and
another famous actor or two.
Sandra
Kerrin or Ralph
>>>>Even as adults, we have to learn to contain our annoyance when ourthoughts are broken into. For a child, an interruption to one's
concentration can prove as painful as a verbal rebuke.>>>>
Amazing how people can agree so wholeheartedly that TV is the baddie....and
totally overlook the way that fragmented school programs are breaking kids'
attention into short spans all day 5 days a week!
Kerrin.
soggyboysmom
60 years ago (that would be the 1940s, just barely post-Depression
and heading into the war years), your choices if you wanted
entertainment and/or information were do it yourself or read. Unless
you had scraped up some cash and could go to a movie - and once you
saw whatever was playing that week, that was it for a bit until the
next movie arrived, no multiplexes back then.
30 years ago, you could do it yourself, read, watch a limited number
of TV channels (we got maybe 7 channels back then), or go to a
movie - duplexes were big so you could choose between TWO movies.
PCs were non-existant and things like Pong and PacMan were just
getting going.
Now, there are a whole lot more options available for
entertainment/information gathering so reading (as in picking up a
book and reading for hours) is not the premium it once was.
Last night, we were watching TV and the cellphone rang. I muted the
TV while DH answered it and DS (6 1/2) just switched from
watching/listening to watching/reading the captioning (which we have
set to pop up automatically when the TV is muted) without missing a
beat then switched back once the call was over.
and heading into the war years), your choices if you wanted
entertainment and/or information were do it yourself or read. Unless
you had scraped up some cash and could go to a movie - and once you
saw whatever was playing that week, that was it for a bit until the
next movie arrived, no multiplexes back then.
30 years ago, you could do it yourself, read, watch a limited number
of TV channels (we got maybe 7 channels back then), or go to a
movie - duplexes were big so you could choose between TWO movies.
PCs were non-existant and things like Pong and PacMan were just
getting going.
Now, there are a whole lot more options available for
entertainment/information gathering so reading (as in picking up a
book and reading for hours) is not the premium it once was.
Last night, we were watching TV and the cellphone rang. I muted the
TV while DH answered it and DS (6 1/2) just switched from
watching/listening to watching/reading the captioning (which we have
set to pop up automatically when the TV is muted) without missing a
beat then switched back once the call was over.
[email protected]
What I found interesting about the Mailer article was that it wasn't anti-TV,
just anti commercials.
Heck, I'm with Norm on that one! :)
Deborah in IL
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
just anti commercials.
Heck, I'm with Norm on that one! :)
Deborah in IL
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
soggyboysmom
--- In [email protected], DACunefare@a... wrote:
the winter X games) opened up a whole discussion of Mad magazine. DS
was thrilled and surprised to discover that DH has a whole book of
Spy vs Spy around somewhere.
The thing I dislike about the commercials is that the volume
changes - and we don't have one of those automatic sound evener
systems.
As far as reading, heck, the commercials are when I read a page or
two before getting back to the show. And that's when lots of people
head to the "reading room" (also know as the "thinking room",
the "throne room" and a whole bunch of eupehmisms).
> What I found interesting about the Mailer article was that itwasn't anti-TV,
> just anti commercials.I don't know - the Spy vs Spy ones on ESPN lately (we were watching
>
> Heck, I'm with Norm on that one! :)
>
> Deborah in IL
>
the winter X games) opened up a whole discussion of Mad magazine. DS
was thrilled and surprised to discover that DH has a whole book of
Spy vs Spy around somewhere.
The thing I dislike about the commercials is that the volume
changes - and we don't have one of those automatic sound evener
systems.
As far as reading, heck, the commercials are when I read a page or
two before getting back to the show. And that's when lots of people
head to the "reading room" (also know as the "thinking room",
the "throne room" and a whole bunch of eupehmisms).
Robyn Coburn
<<<<60 years ago (that would be the 1940s, just barely post-Depression
and heading into the war years), your choices if you wanted
entertainment and/or information were do it yourself or read. Unless
you had scraped up some cash and could go to a movie - and once you
saw whatever was playing that week, that was it for a bit until the
next movie arrived, no multiplexes back then.>>>>
Radio or what may have been called "the Wireless".
There is a public radio station that is receivable sometimes that plays old
radio mysteries and other serials. Sometimes they would produce radio
versions of popular films - with the films' stars reading.
<<<30 years ago, you could do it yourself, read, watch a limited number
of TV channels (we got maybe 7 channels back then),>>>>
In Australia we got 4.
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.852 / Virus Database: 580 - Release Date: 1/31/2005
and heading into the war years), your choices if you wanted
entertainment and/or information were do it yourself or read. Unless
you had scraped up some cash and could go to a movie - and once you
saw whatever was playing that week, that was it for a bit until the
next movie arrived, no multiplexes back then.>>>>
Radio or what may have been called "the Wireless".
There is a public radio station that is receivable sometimes that plays old
radio mysteries and other serials. Sometimes they would produce radio
versions of popular films - with the films' stars reading.
<<<30 years ago, you could do it yourself, read, watch a limited number
of TV channels (we got maybe 7 channels back then),>>>>
In Australia we got 4.
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.852 / Virus Database: 580 - Release Date: 1/31/2005
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/3/2005 7:22:31 PM Central Standard Time,
dezigna@... writes:
<<<30 years ago, you could do it yourself, read, watch a limited number
of TV channels (we got maybe 7 channels back then),>>>>
In Australia we got 4.
~~~
In Arkansas we got 4, as well. :) If you lived within 50 miles of Little
Rock.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
dezigna@... writes:
<<<30 years ago, you could do it yourself, read, watch a limited number
of TV channels (we got maybe 7 channels back then),>>>>
In Australia we got 4.
~~~
In Arkansas we got 4, as well. :) If you lived within 50 miles of Little
Rock.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]