SYLLABUS
videos (sept.)
1) In her opening paragraph, Stevens summarizes Steven Johnson's argument from "Watching TV Makes You Smarter". How can you tell Stevens is not speaking for herself here, but rather, describing a view she disagrees with? What clues within the text can you find that signals her intent?
2) What sepcific criticisms does Stevens make of the Johnson essay? Which one is most persuasive to you and why?
3) While strongly disagreeing with Johnson's view that tv viewing can be intellectually enriching, Stevens insists that she also does not like the "wet blanket Puritanism of the anti-TV crowd. What exactly is Stevens' position?
4) How do you think Steven Johnson might answer Stevens' objections?
response to Johnson's piece
What's going on in first paragraph?
sarcasm
reduces his thesis to: tv shows have grown more complicated
great leap forward in human cognition: multi-threading
Her take-away: "watching TV teaches you to watch more TV"
FLAWS in HIS ARGUMENT
1) problem with the way he defines intelligence. If intelligence is in fact "Attention, patience, retention, parsing of narrative threads, then it is a solid argument.
But does that make us smarter?
2) fails to account for commercials (16 minutes worth)
3) dismisses Muslim terrorist and torture controversies
4) 24 challenges audience with intricate plot lines while discouraging them from thinking too much act ethics
"It's really good at teaching you to think act future episodes of 24"
wet blanket Puritanism of the anti-TV crowd
endumbening effect of TV-viewing
TV B gone: a tool of social control, content-based censorship
who decides what is offensive/controversial?
patronising: adults should be able to decide for themselves
should choose shows b/c we like them
videos (sept.)
1) In her opening paragraph, Stevens summarizes Steven Johnson's argument from "Watching TV Makes You Smarter". How can you tell Stevens is not speaking for herself here, but rather, describing a view she disagrees with? What clues within the text can you find that signals her intent?
2) What sepcific criticisms does Stevens make of the Johnson essay? Which one is most persuasive to you and why?
3) While strongly disagreeing with Johnson's view that tv viewing can be intellectually enriching, Stevens insists that she also does not like the "wet blanket Puritanism of the anti-TV crowd. What exactly is Stevens' position?
4) How do you think Steven Johnson might answer Stevens' objections?
response to Johnson's piece
What's going on in first paragraph?
sarcasm
reduces his thesis to: tv shows have grown more complicated
great leap forward in human cognition: multi-threading
Her take-away: "watching TV teaches you to watch more TV"
FLAWS in HIS ARGUMENT
1) problem with the way he defines intelligence. If intelligence is in fact "Attention, patience, retention, parsing of narrative threads, then it is a solid argument.
But does that make us smarter?
2) fails to account for commercials (16 minutes worth)
3) dismisses Muslim terrorist and torture controversies
4) 24 challenges audience with intricate plot lines while discouraging them from thinking too much act ethics
"It's really good at teaching you to think act future episodes of 24"
wet blanket Puritanism of the anti-TV crowd
endumbening effect of TV-viewing
TV B gone: a tool of social control, content-based censorship
who decides what is offensive/controversial?
patronising: adults should be able to decide for themselves
should choose shows b/c we like them
No comments:
Post a Comment