alexitalics: A letter I sent to Adbusters.org

Alex Italics (

alexitalics) wrote,
@ 2007-06-10 19:11:00

A letter I sent to Adbusters.org
Hello,

My name is Alex and I have a very important request for you. Before I get into that, I would like to be sure that I am correct in my understanding of your organization's mission statement and beliefs.

I have recently become aware of your "TV Turnoff Week" campaign. During this time period, you encourage everyone to abandon "passive entertainment" of any variety such as television sets, video game consoles, DVD players and video iPods. According to you, the information communicated by the television industry is created by a very small group of people and thrust upon the masses in the name of profit and complacency. You describe television commercials as possessing "unhealthy" and "unwelcome" messages, and you hope that eliminating television influence will have a broadening effect upon the public.

Television, like all other communication achievements of mankind, brings good and bad results. For example, with the printed word we get things like newspapers, medical textbooks, and the complete works of William Shakespeare. However, in order to appreciate these things we must also get less desirable outcomes like Mein Kampf, junk mail and Ziggy comic strips. In the medium of television, we make similar trades all the time. Sure, we get to see the human race landing on the moon for the first time, but in exchange we have to put up with reruns of "7th Heaven." Fortunately, we have the built-in power of discretion. If I only want to read Shakespeare and not Hitler, I simply don't read Mein Kampf. If "7th Heaven" comes on right after the moon landing, I get up and turn off the television before it starts. It's just that simple, and it doesn't have to involve throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One of the products you offer on your website is a "TV-B-Gone" television zapper which is basically a glorified portable universal remote that can be used to turn off television sets in public places. This product epitomizes the hypocrisy that your organization preaches by allowing one single critic of television to determine what the population at large may choose to watch. It is this very concept that you attack within the television industry; Marketing executives make the same decisions everyday for large groups of people.

To push your agenda, you have decided to use what is clearly the most effective and persuasive force that is available to us today. Something that has self-evident veracity and is obviously free of tampering or misrepresentation. That's right, the internet petition! Since you started your "Media Carta" online petition, you have accumulated over 25,000 electronic signatures. If these figures were correct, it would be difficult to argue that your views don't represent a large faction of the public. However, I checked out your petition and noticed some particularly interesting folks that have "signed" your Media Carta. Here's a recap of some of my favorites just within the most recent of your signatures: "Haaaaa Haaaaa," "sfw ergag," and my personal favorite "etjgwvao; sghhgg." Either there are some parents out there with interesting senses of humor or quite a few of the electronic signatures are complete nonsense.

Perhaps your most ambitious effort has been your "Uncommercial" campaign where you attempted to purchase advertising time from major media networks to air your short advertisements for your website and your TV Turnoff Week. From what I understand, CNN agreed to air the segments three times, whereas all the other networks wouldn't really give you the time of day. I definitely understand how frustrating that can be!

Which brings me to that very important question for you that I mentioned earlier. I would like you to run the following banner advertisement on your website which displays my personal views of what you organization does:

This banner campaign will kick off "Adbusters Turnoff Week" and hopefully give momentum to the "Kill your 'Kill your Television' Fanatic" movement. I trust that you will have no problem giving me this forum to thrust my own personal beliefs onto your otherwise happy audience.

Thank you in advance. I look forward to your reply.

Yours truly,
-Alex Italics

(Post a new comment)

	--* myfingersfinger 2007-06-11 02:35 am UTC (link)
	fabulous. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2007-06-11 04:51 am UTC (link)
	this is a good one. biting. humorous. scathing. bitingly humorous and scathing and wonderful. fabulous, yes, that's the word. (Reply to this)

	defiesthestars 2007-06-11 05:48 am UTC (link)
	this is your best letter yet. bravo. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	alexitalics 2007-06-11 01:18 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you, Eliza. That really means a lot. I conceptualized and wrote this while in the middle of writing a different letter, so a lot of it was very hastily written. I am very pleased with how it turned out, though. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Magazines Are Passive (Anonymous) 2007-06-11 11:26 pm UTC (link)
	Adbusters, over to you... What ? You can't post on an interactive web board ? You are lame and passive. Lame. (Reply to this)

nubule
2007-06-12 03:34 am UTC (link)

Hey. Came from here.

Part of the appeal of the TV-Be-Gone is that it's not always a choice one makes to watch television in public, but often a requirement. Our brains are near-incapable of ignoring a moving light picture, so televisions take up much mental space. The unilateral-ness of the TV-Be-Gone can be hard to rationalise, but having television foisted upon one is unfortunate. Unless one is expected to never go anywhere that televisions are installed?

But I recognise that the Adbusters way of often going about things would be hilariously misguided if it weren't so insulting.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

alexitalics
2007-06-12 08:50 am UTC (link)

Hello. Thanks for checking out my letters!

Unfortunately, I must disagree with you. Short of the infamous scene in "A Clockwork Orange," NO ONE is ever "required" to watch television under any circumstances. I'll give you an example: A couple of months ago, I was called to jury duty and had to spend about 3 hours in a waiting room until the selection began. Other than a few scattered copies of "Entertainment Weekly," the only distraction provided were several television sets bolted to the wall playing typically awful daytime network television. I had interest in neither, so I excused myself, went to my car, and returned with a book. Maybe I don't represent the whole, but when I was reading my book I had no trouble at all ignoring the television set. Despite my personal choice, many people in the jury pool not fortunate enough to have anything else to do were watching the television. Hell, maybe some of them were even enjoying it!

If someone desires to do something besides watch television in a public place, there are ALWAYS alternatives. However, there's more here than just that. Anyone wielding a "TV-B-Gone" is operating on the false idea that they are "liberating" everyone around them from the "prison" of television. It's suddenly not good enough to make a personal decision to not subject yourself to television in a public place. Instead, you must zap the television with your "TV-B-Gone" and make that decision for EVERYONE. This logic is the breeding ground for self-righteousness, and I will restate that it is not far off from the sins of the advertising industry that Adbusters is not shy to complain about.

Here's the bottom-line, bumper-stickerized version of my message: "Don't like television? Don't watch it."

Thanks again, and I hope you get a chance to check back and read more of my letters.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

methinks you miss the point
(Anonymous)
2007-06-12 04:42 pm UTC (link)

you don't need to have your eyes held open with metal brackets to be forced to watch television. when there is a light blinking 60 times a second in your periphery vision, you absolutely do not have a choice whether or not to pay attention to the tv. something about the way our visual systems work simply won't allow us to ignore that.

if you've never had to sit in a restaurant with tvs scattered around making it completely impossible to carry on a conversation or enjoy what you are eating, i envy you.

also, you've never experienced true hilarity until it is 1993 and one of your friends has one of those new-fangled watches that has a tv remote built into it which he proceeds to use to absolutely torture your spanish teacher.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: methinks you miss the point (Anonymous) 2007-06-13 02:18 am UTC (link)
	Solution: Don't dine in restaurants with TVs. Simple. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: methinks you miss the point

alexitalics
2007-06-13 07:48 am UTC (link)

As far as whether or not you "do not have a choice" to ignore a television set, I would love to see the empirical scientific evidence to that conclusion. I would imagine that it is not NEARLY as distracting as you claim, but in reality I can not find any peer-reviewed experiments that point to either of our conclusions. However, I'm sure that such scientific studies have been done specifically in the field of how avoidable a television in a public place can be. If you find any, let me know. Otherwise, we can go back and forth forever citing (essentially) meaningless anecdotal evidence to support our views.

Something to keep in mind here is that MOST Americans enjoy watching television. Not only that, but many, many Americans enjoy watching television while they eat or spend time in a waiting room. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a "Kill Your Television" fanatic (who represents the EXTREME minority) to infringe on the rights of others by disabling a television set that others are happily watching. That's my beef with the "TV-B-Gone." It's a personal decision that turns into one person inflicting his belief in the evils of television onto an entire group of people.

As far as the "evils of television" argument goes, I suggest that anyone who is interested in this argument should pick up a copy of "Why Viewers Watch: A Reappraisal of Television's Effects" by Jib Fowles (of Reason Magazine). Also, take a look at the article that I link to in the comment below this one. It's amazing how misdirecting the anti-television science can be!

In closing, I have not had the opportunity to watch a kid drive a Spanish teacher crazy with a remote. I HAVE experienced someone with a portable universal remote torturing the instructor of the state-run defensive driving course by tampering with the television's functions. So much of that class is based on videos that they ended up letting everyone go hours early. Okay, so MAYBE the "TV-B-Gone" has SOME merit...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Oh yes you're really missing the point
(Anonymous)
2007-06-13 03:32 pm UTC (link)

There's this bar close to where I live with 3 pool tables in a back room.

There are some lights that shine down onto the pool tables, apart from the light on the pool tables, the only other light is emitted from 3 plasmas displaying music videos from a video juke box or some other random video - fashion tv or some sport.

On a monday night, when almost nobody else is around, this is quite distracting.

I don't want to watch the tv.

Nobody else is watching tv. We want to play pool. But the flickering images are distracting and do debase the environment.

I wish I could turn them off.

I found the idea of the adbusters device quite appealing.

You would just say "don't watch the tv" or "don't go the bar" but that is wrong. The tv's have been placed there by someone who doesn't frequent the bar. They are not appreciated by the users of the space, they're just a bad design decision.

It's obvious you're trying to be controversial by taking an anti-adbusters stance, but it's actually quite boring.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh yes you're really missing the point

alexitalics
2007-06-14 12:37 am UTC (link)

*sigh* Or, I suppose we CAN endlessly debate meaningless anecdotal evidence, if you would prefer...

You do not own the bar, nor do you own the televisions. To turn them off without permission from whoever does own them is selfish and rude, bottom line. I understand that you don't want to watch the televisions and you find them distracting. No matter how frequently the person visits the bar in question, it was THEIR decision to put the television sets there and it is YOUR decision to patronize said business. I guarantee you that no one is interested in building a device to turn on and off the television sets inside your home at their leisure.

Therefore, what recourse do you have? I agree with you that there should be more to it than "don't go to the bar." As can be generally assumed due to the nature of this blog, I'm a big fan of letter writing. Perhaps you could write a letter to the owner of the establishment and explain how you feel. I would also encourage everyone who felt similarly about the television sets in the establishment to do the same. Sure, it's not as "cool" as taking matters into your own hands, but it's also not as cowardly and selfish. If the owner received enough feedback, perhaps he would make the decision to remove the televisions. If he does NOT receive enough group support, perhaps that's sort of telling, isn't it?

I find it amusing that I am "obviously trying to be controversial" by defending television in a country where the TV-set-to-person ratio is almost two to one.

If you find this whole thing boring, perhaps you would be interested in purchasing a device I plan to make available soon. It's called "Alex-B-Gone."

(Reply to this)(Parent)

I don't get it.

sashakovich
2007-06-28 09:27 pm UTC (link)

I worked in bars for much longer than I cared to, but the money was good. Every now and then, someone would approach me and say, "Hey, the TV is distracting us. Would you mind if we turned it off?" And so long as no one in the area was watching, I would say, "Sure, let me get that for you," and usually, "Is there anything else I can do for you?" Hell, if there was someone who was watching, so long as the restaurant wasn't busy, there were plenty of places we could move customers that didn't have TVs over them. Not only did my tips shoot up, but the customers were happy.

If you're a regular, if you're polite to the staff, and if you're not inconveniencing anyone watching lousy fashion TV, asking someone if you can turn the TV off or the volume down will save you the trouble of finding another bar or just saving up to buy your own pool table. It's not a big deal. Demanding things be turned off will just make you unpopular, even if you tip really, really well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Better Put?

innameonly
2007-07-30 07:55 pm UTC (link)

To this point, I find that bar tenders, restauranteurs, & such are often exceptionally accomodating when you ask them to turn off a distracting TV. Lowering the music on the PA system is another issue (and quite beside the point here). There is, indeed, recourse available to those who don't wish to go the adbusters route.

Yes, televisions in bars, restaurants, and other public places are distracting (and, yes, if you brought a book or some other form of entertainment, it's just as easy to ignore them), but I'm sure waitstaff and owners/managers are just as distracted and bored by the TV.

I've been enjoying your letters by the way, after having been shown this site by a mutual friend.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Better Put? (Anonymous) 2007-06-12 09:00 pm UTC (link)
	You should all be reading this right now: http://wartimesmile.blogspot.com/2006/04/grinder-looking-for-meat.html -hubs (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Better Put? alexitalics 2007-06-13 07:26 am UTC (link)
	Actually, if you want to read an even BETTER put rebuttal to the anti-television argument, it's here: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm. Careful, though, it's pretty science-y. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	DUDE!! (Anonymous) 2007-06-13 04:56 am UTC (link)
	ALEX THIS IS FUCKING TIGHT, DUDE! FUCKING BRILLIANT SHIT MAN! ONE OF THE BEST, FOR FUCKING SHO DUDE by the way its dave, the hotel computer wont let me log into livejournal. (Reply to this)

	mollymoxie 2007-06-14 05:02 pm UTC (link)
	I love when people on LiveJournal argue with your opinion, only to add a little "oh and you're boring, too" at the end. It's obvious that he got frustrated with the fact that you don't easily get offended or upset with people disagreeing with you, so he decided to add a little personal attack to try to incite you. People like that are why I don't do LiveJournal anymore. (Reply to this)

	mollymoxie 2007-06-14 05:04 pm UTC (link)
	By the way, you're about the least boring person I've ever met. And if your letter was so "boring", people wouldn't get so worked up over it. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…