The Tube

April 22, 2010 11:29 AM

American TV watching statistics.
posted by DZack (58 comments total)

Too much TV may mean earlier death -CNN

No mention on too much Metafilter, though.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:32 AM on April 22, 2010

Jesus, that's like a second job. Or do these people have jobs?
posted by grobstein at 11:32 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 3.5

I really, really doubt this.

Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000

At my house, this is very close to zero. Thanks, timeshifting devices!
posted by DU at 11:33 AM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

Instead of looking at these stats and patting myself on the back for not watching tv/wasting my life, I would be interested in a breakdown of these numbers by education/income/etc, like this previous post on unemployment. Young single people with jobs, higher income, and a fast internet connection probably don't watch TV.
posted by meowzilla at 11:38 AM on April 22, 2010

Finally I'm in the top 1% of something!

The piece is copyrighted 2007, but the only results they date are from 1993. Are all of these stats about '93? (I did have a TV then, and didn't have internet.)
posted by Some1 at 11:39 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
Percentage who can name at least three justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: 17

I'm not sure I see how my ability or inability to name 3 justices is connected to my tv watching, or lack thereof.
posted by JanetLand at 11:39 AM on April 22, 2010

Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99

Percentage of households that constantly tell everyone that they don't own a television: 1
posted by burnmp3s at 11:41 AM on April 22, 2010 [12 favorites]

Wow, those are some of the most leading "statistics" I've ever seen. I'm not a huge fan of TV, but come on. Even the juxtaposition between the stats is biased as hell. They may as well have asked people if their TV had stopped beating them yet.

Chance that these statistics have reliable sources, and weren't just cherry-picked from whatever "research" best fit this group's foregone conclusion: one in eleventy-billion
posted by vorfeed at 11:42 AM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

Finally I'm in the top 1% of something!

The piece is copyrighted 2007, but the only results they date are from 1993. Are all of these stats about '93? (I did have a TV then, and didn't have internet.)

Man, I feel like a boob for just buying into these numbers! WTF dudes?
posted by grobstein at 11:44 AM on April 22, 2010

vorfeed: "Wow, those are some of the most leading "statistics" I've ever seen."

I wonder why...

Compiled by TV-Free America

Oh.
posted by charred husk at 11:44 AM on April 22, 2010

Is this something that I'd need a TV to understand?
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:45 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I've always looked at these stats with suspicion -- they've gone around with the same stats since 1993 or thereabouts. Even if they were valid then (and I have doubts), I would imagine that, especially among younger people, TV watching has dropped significantly, and with it, the overall average watched per day has also dropped (and replaced, natch, with gaming/internet).
posted by seventyfour at 11:48 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

These stats seems a little stale and meaningless to me without more data on what people are watching and what the source is. TVs aren't TVs anymore, they're just media monitors.
posted by HumanComplex at 11:51 AM on April 22, 2010

How are they counting "watching" TV, anyway? My wife does this thing where she turns on the TV, and then leaves it on as background noise while doing other things like chores or reading MetaFilter. Does that count as "watching"?

Does playing the XBox or Wii count as "watching TV"?
posted by explosion at 11:54 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

I can't help thinking of a tween resident chez everichon, who doesn't watch a lot of television, but who does watch a lot--a lot, a lot--of laptop. Sample of 1, anecdata, but my zeitgeist senses are tingling. Do these studies even pretend to take into account the changing modes of viewership?

I don't know that it would change questions of how content affects viewers, for example, but it would lend credibility for them to acknowledge that viewing habits practices and modes have changed fundamentally since, say, my own after-school-tv-binge heyday in the 1980s.
posted by everichon at 12:03 PM on April 22, 2010

Three stooges?
What year are they watching t.v. in?

Perhaps stooge factor is causally related to the percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem/eye poking/shoulder spinning: 79, see?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:03 PM on April 22, 2010

Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59. Percentage who can name at least three justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: 17 .

The wording of this statistic seems to imply that knowledge of the Stooges is somehow in exact opposition to knowledge of "important" matters concerning national politics and government; that only boobs and the apathetic or uninformed would have an interest in the Stooges and memorize their stage or real names. That might have been a reasonable conclusion in the 1960s, when the Stooges were a familiar commodity on TV reruns, showing up in cartoons, and appearing in schlocky films. But today, in the 2010s? You'd think that a knowledge of the names of the Stooges would point to a refined appreciation of early American comic films and their predecessor, the vaudeville. I'd give a smidgen more in props to somebody under forty who knew their names than to a person who could (thanks to seeing John Stewart repeatedly) could chime off the names of three Supreme Court justices.
posted by Gordion Knott at 12:04 PM on April 22, 2010 [3 favorites]

Why is it okay for Roger Ebert to make a career of watching movies, or for someone to have a hobby of film studies or something, but it's wrong for me to watch reruns of Saved By The Bell? TV Free America can suck it.
posted by anniecat at 12:06 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Television isn't necessarily replacing our exercise time, he explains, but it is replacing everyday, "non-sweaty" movements as basic as standing and walking from room to room. The positive health effects of these seemingly negligible activities are underestimated, he says.

First of all, I live in a tiny apartment. Am I supposed to walk around aimlessly in my living space? Not living in a spacious house is bad for my health?
posted by anniecat at 12:09 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

anniecat!

Totally kidding
posted by everichon at 12:12 PM on April 22, 2010

everichon, i must have that book.
posted by anniecat at 12:18 PM on April 22, 2010

burnmp3s:

Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:22 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

I count myself pretty firmly in the anti-TV camp, but yeah, this list reads like a really shitty Harper's index.

My wife does this thing where she turns on the TV, and then leaves it on as background noise while doing other things like chores or reading MetaFilter.

If I may speak for the anti-TV camp, we hate this most of all. If you're going to sit down and watch something, fine. If you need background noise, listen to music. If your mental cadence requires the input of intellectually vapid, hamhanded and sensationalist dialog and advertising (for fuck's sake), you're probably the sort of person to whom I have trouble relating. And that's cool, but its getting progressively more difficult to find a public space that doesn't cater to people like you.

goes back to reading McLuhan and, er, watching Max Headroom
posted by 7segment at 12:34 PM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

I DO have a TV. Just keeping everyone updated on which appliances I own.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:44 PM on April 22, 2010 [3 favorites]

It's probably just my own personal bias (being someone who loves great TV arguably more than great movies), but I resent the fact that the TV stats here (and anywhere else I've ever seen them) don't break down watching habits further. When I watch TV, I almost never sit down with the broad goal of watching TV, but rather with the goal of watching this particular episode of this particular show (on DVD, DVR, or live). It is a very rare occasion that I watch just to be watching something/anything. Hence, it's something I make time for, not something that just fills my time.

Somehow, I think this is an important distinction when we're talking about adverse effects of television on individuals and society as a whole.
posted by joan cusack the second at 12:53 PM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

7segment: If I may speak for the anti-TV camp, we hate this most of all.

If I may speak for the pro-to-meh-TV camp, we hate this most of all. If you're going to hate TV, fine. If you need something to feel superior about, go ahead. If your ego requires an occasional hateful screed insulting others intelligence for having a rerun of Seinfeld on in the background while they make dinner (for fuck's sake), you're probably the sort of person I would not want to invite into my home.
posted by twoporedomain at 12:53 PM on April 22, 2010 [10 favorites]

I like TV. I like the interwebs. I spend hours and hours in front of screens.

So What?
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 12:58 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

High speed internet access did in tv for me.
posted by caddis at 1:02 PM on April 22, 2010

If you need background noise, listen to music.

Music doesn't sound like the hilarious family I don't have.
posted by anniecat at 1:04 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

So these people that are constantly telling you they don't own a TV; how many times have they said something like "I don't watch TV", while you told them of some great new show that they just had to tivo? I always say that three times before I talk about my household furnishings, and many don't seem to believe I live this primitive existence until they have seen every room of my house.
posted by Some1 at 1:16 PM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

If you need background noise, you'll listen to what I tell you to listen to.
posted by everichon at 1:19 PM on April 22, 2010 [4 favorites]

PS to above, I don't proselytize or think I'm better than anyone because I don't like TV. I do think I get to read a little more (I read very slowly and need the time.). But I don't think I'm a pariah because I have no idea what "Lost" is about.
posted by Some1 at 1:21 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Lost is a mockumentary about the travails of working at, and then owning, a chain of fried chicken restaurants.
posted by everichon at 1:29 PM on April 22, 2010 [4 favorites]

You don't have to not have seen Lost to not know what it's about.
posted by lucien at 1:34 PM on April 22, 2010 [5 favorites]

If you're going to sit down and watch something, fine. If you need background noise, listen to music. If your mental cadence requires the input of intellectually vapid, hamhanded and sensationalist dialog...

Is it ok if I listen to intellectually vapid, hamhanded, and sensationalist music?
posted by Fleebnork at 1:41 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

So these people that are constantly telling you they don't own a TV; how many times have they said something like "I don't watch TV", while you told them of some great new show that they just had to tivo?

If someone said, "Hey, have you read [some new fiction book]? It's really great," and you said "I don't read books," you would come across as at least a little dismissive. Most people would say "No, what's it about?" or maybe "No, I don't have much time to read," even if they have no interest in reading it.

When you mention anything about watching a given TV show, a lot of non-TV people act like you just told them how much you love smoking crack and kicking puppies, rather than just reacting the way they do when people bring up other normal things that they don't happen to be into.
posted by burnmp3s at 1:50 PM on April 22, 2010 [6 favorites]

If I may speak for the anti-TV camp, we hate this most of all. If you're going to sit down and watch something, fine. If you need background noise, listen to music. If your mental cadence requires the input of intellectually vapid, hamhanded and sensationalist dialog and advertising (for fuck's sake), you're probably the sort of person to whom I have trouble relating. And that's cool, but its getting progressively more difficult to find a public space that doesn't cater to people like you.

If I may speak for the anti-music camp, we hate this most of all. If you're going to sit down and listen to something, fine. If you need background noise, you're probably the weak-minded, sniveling sort of person to whom I have trouble relating. If your mental cadence requires the oh my god I can't even parody this comment anymore it's so ridiculous I don't even.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:53 PM on April 22, 2010 [8 favorites]

If I may speak for the anti-writing camp, we hate this most of all. If you're going to learn or remember or discuss something, fine. Commit it to memory through dialog and rote memorization. If your mental cadence requires the input of intellectually vapid, hamhanded and sensationalist GLYPHS on bits of compressed tree pulp LCD screens (for fuck's sake), you're probably the sort of person to whom I have trouble relating.
posted by everichon at 2:16 PM on April 22, 2010

I don't have a TV because I prefer to spend my time smoking crack.
posted by mike_bling at 2:26 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm SHOCKED!

Only 59% of Americans can name all Three Stooges?? What's this world coming to??
posted by jonmc at 2:46 PM on April 22, 2010

Only 59% of Americans can name all Three Stooges?? What's this world coming to??

It just means that 41% forgot about Emil Sitka.
posted by Spatch at 2:52 PM on April 22, 2010

The stats do seem a little outdated ... this compilation of research from ~2000 seems a little more recent, but still ... aren't there any better and recent stats?
posted by mrgrimm at 3:00 PM on April 22, 2010

Also, this is a very slim post. I'm not sure it should or will last ...
posted by mrgrimm at 3:02 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Only 59% of Americans can name all Three Stooges?? What's this world coming to??

But which three Stooges? Do we get extra points if we know all five Stooges?
posted by Evilspork at 3:13 PM on April 22, 2010

Soitanly.
posted by jonmc at 3:19 PM on April 22, 2010

TV doesn't make you stupid; it's the lack of intellectual engagement. If you watch most of your preferred television shows simply without thinking, just to sit on the couch and do nothing... well, yeah, you're losing a little something. If you do a little thinking, you'll get more out of TV, and you won't get stupider.

Anti-TV folks can suck my ass. Not watching TV doesn't grant you any moral advantage. It's just a medium of entertainment. There's as much mind-rotting garbage on film and in music as there is on TV.
posted by grubi at 3:21 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

But which three Stooges? Do we get extra points if we know all five Stooges?

SIX!
posted by HumanComplex at 3:50 PM on April 22, 2010

If you need background noise, listen to music. If your mental cadence requires the input of intellectually vapid, hamhanded and sensationalist dialog and advertising (for fuck's sake), you're probably the sort of person to whom I have trouble relating. And that's cool, but its getting progressively more difficult to find a public space that doesn't cater to people like you.

Oh thank God; I have this award for Laughably Unjustified Smugness and I had no idea who to give it to.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 4:00 PM on April 22, 2010 [3 favorites]

There's as much mind-rotting garbage on film and in music as there is on TV.

I'm not an expert and I don't feel that strongly about television, but I know there are experts who disagree and find fault in the medium itself.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:04 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

I have this award for Laughably Unjustified Smugness and I had no idea who to give it to.

He can put it on the mantle next to his award for Outstanding Achievement in Pompousness.
posted by jonmc at 4:10 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

These stats don't add up:

Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66

Using the most conservative assumptions, those 2/3 would have only 3 sets, and the other 1/3 would have only 1. So 2/3 x 3 + 1/3 x 1 = 7/3 = 2.33 > 2.24. Huh?
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:13 PM on April 22, 2010

Yeah, there's no way to make those numbers work.

Looking at TV stats from 1993 and trying to learn anything about today is ridiculous. Might as well extrapolate current internet usage based on stats from 1993. In which we learn that AOL is currently destroying Usenet, which is how most of us download files and enter into online discussions.
posted by Justinian at 4:51 PM on April 22, 2010

I'm not an expert and I don't feel that strongly about television, but I know there are experts who disagree and find fault in the medium itself.

Your evidence is a link to a poor summary of a book written in 1977 by a non-scientist whose 30+ year old points have been clearly overtaken by time and technology and rendered in many cases completely moot. Even if what Mander wrote was true in 1977 (and I have my doubts) he is clearly wrong about today. Oh, and the person writing the summary of his book couldn't even be bothered to spell his name correctly.

Forgive me if I'm not exactly impressed.
posted by Justinian at 5:00 PM on April 22, 2010

Does this count watching TV shows online as TV? A lot of people will tell me they "don't have a TV", but they watch standard TV shows on Hulu or whatever... that's the same thing. A monitor and a TV are both just digital display devices these days anyway, and a lot of people are getting TV and internet over the same pipe... I don't see the distinction. Although where it gets fuzzy, I guess, are TV-style shows only available on the Internet.

Basically video entertainment=TV, in my mind, trying to draw an artificial distinction over the delivery pipeline is becoming less and less meaningful as everything becomes IP anyways (like AT&T U-verse, where the video is also sent as IP packets over the exact same wire your other Internet packets are sent).
posted by wildcrdj at 5:04 PM on April 22, 2010

Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
Percentage who can name at least three justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: 17

Only 59% of Americans can name all Three Stooges?? What's this world coming to??


Count me among that 59%. When asked recently who The Three Stooges were, I responded, "Thomas, Scalia, and Alito."
posted by flarbuse at 5:06 PM on April 22, 2010 [7 favorites]

Using the most conservative assumptions, those 2/3 would have only 3 sets, and the other 1/3 would have only 1.

So no one has two sets?

I've lived at various times without a TV and with one, and there are downsides to both. I feel like I can waste time watching television, but when I live without one I can feel like I am a bit out of the cultural loop.
posted by mdn at 7:08 PM on April 22, 2010

So no one has two sets?

If they did, the average would be even higher, so, no, that doesn't explain it.
posted by Mental Wimp at 7:25 PM on April 22, 2010

Forgive me if I'm not exactly impressed.

I didn't search very long for a good link, sorry. The book is an interesting read, but I'll admit I haven't ever finished it. For more recent research/writing, I did actually finish Todd Gitlin's Watching Television (collection of essays), but that's pretty dated as well... 1986.

Are there are more recent critical studies of television? I like reading about it as much as I like watching it. I'm reading "Full of Secrets" (Twin Peaks criticism) right now.

I can feel like I am a bit out of the cultural loop.

I watch a fair amount of TV, but I don't have pay TV. I watch some TV online (comedy central, adult swim, netflix), but I don't really consider selecting specific content and watching that specific content "watching TV."

What I consider a negative "watching TV" experience is turning the TV on just to see what's on, and sitting there watching something you don't even like for 4-5 hours. Or cable news.

To use a stupid cliche, TV is what it is. It's just depressing to me to walk around my neighborhood at night and see the flickering screens in almost every single house, when (outside of Halloween) I never see kids playing outside in the evening (which is probably due to overscheduled kids as much as TV, I guess).

Anyway, get off my lawn.

Value-add to make up for nonsensical rambling: PBS survey of articles/research about TV and children under 3.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:02 AM on April 23, 2010