Shirky does not own a television. Americans watch, collectively, two hundred billion hours of television a year, and if online social media diverts even just a fraction of that time, he argues, that has to be a good thing. “As I say in the book, even the stupidest possible creative act is still a creative act. And I’d still take the most inane collaborative website over someone watching yet another half hour of TV.”
via guardian.co.uk
I was tempted to quip to the entire article since there were several moments where I had issues with both Shirky and the Guardian journalist—but the above excerpt narrowly edges out the rest as bugging me the most.
To the above, I say the following:
1) seriously? No TV at all? You *never* watch movies or TV shows at home? See, to me, saying “I don’t own a TV” doesn’t mean anything if you do watch TV shows or movies at home. Hell, you could have a giant iMac with a TV tuner attached and have DVR software record every episode of “Wife Swapping” and you could still sound all cool and hip by saying “I don’t own a TV.”
2) And Clay, you’d seriously take ICanHazCheezburger over 30 minutes of Mythbusters? I wouldn’t and this speaks to the point the Guardian journal lets you make toward the end of the article:
“…The whole, ‘Is the internet a good thing or a bad thing’? We’re done with that. It’s just a thing. How to maximise its civic value, its public good – that’s the really big challenge.”
So, the same can’t be said about TV? Come on, man—TV, like the Internet, is what we make of it. There’s a lot of rock-stupid content available for both delivery systems. Saying one is inherently better than another is simply inaccurate. I’ve learned plenty from TV—from either watching the Discovery channel, PBS or even regular fictional TV shows. But apparently, that learning time would be better spent watching “Will It Blend?”
You shouldn’t go after TV with the same black & white attitude that people go after the Internet with. It harms your argument and wastes your audience’s time (whether they know it or not).
For the record, I own a TV, but I don’t pay for Cable TV. I choose to watch very little TV that originates “on TV”. When I do, it’s either online or on DVD.
Oh and that whole “no medium has ever survived the indifference of 25-year-olds” thing—you really think the Television, the radio, or the newspaper, or the Telegraph would not have survived if 25-year-olds didn’t take part?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’d all have done OK. I also don’t think the 25-year-olds of America are going to be responsible for the WSJ’s paywall falling. I think it’s the WSJ’s greed. I think everyone would be selling more if they weren’t trying to make so damn much money.
Just my ¥2, of course.
Just to clarify, I generally agree with Clay Shirky and his theories. I also find him fascinating to read/listen to. However, as with anyone focused on primarily just one thing, I think Shirky’s got a bit of myopia going when it comes to his “one thing.” I’m not saying he’s wrong, I’m just saying he might benefit from taking a step or two back from the computer display more often.
