I've a piece in today's Age, 'Too much screen time means our lives lack dimension'. I'm asking: how well do we combine television and intimacy?
It's not an all-out attack on the idiot box, but a reminder of restraint. A sample:
This isn't a simple moral issue: to be good, one must turn off the television. Rather, it's a question of value. If time with our friends is worthy and rewarding, then we might need to be clearer about how to best encourage this; we could be more decisive in our own daily rhythms, more sensitive to what labours closeness requires.(Photo: Jeroen Kransen)
Unlike the idiot box, we can't do intimacy by remote.
5 comments:
G'day Day,
That's all very well and good, but have you seen some of the great new obstacles featured in UK Wipeout? Or some of the zingy one-liners in quality sitcoms such as Two and a half men? I mean, I'm only flesh and blood, man.
You're right. I'm convinced.
As Joey from Friends would say: "Well, that's never happened before."
Ho, ho. Oh, the laughs we used to have with those crazy characters.
Ho ho.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that?"
I followed the link and read the whole article and I loved the line:
"In short, we need to talk: it's how we keep knotting and tangling the ties that bind us."
I also loved the comments it excited beneath the article! e.g. "Jesus loves you". What does that have to do with television? But otherwise, a fantastic counter argument!
PF: Great episode.
TAF-M: Glad you enjoyed it. Yes, I've no idea what 'Jesus loves you' meant in that case. But it read like the perfect reply to me.
Post a Comment