Defining trash television has been hard. And maybe, like pornography, it's impossible to define precisely because it involves judgment. Defining pornography in order to legislate has been notoriously difficult. The Supreme Court Justice, Potter Steward, said in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) that "hard-core pornography " was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." Since we all seem to agree that Springer is trash and most of concur that Oprah is not, this seems apt to our discussion.
Nonetheless. Let's TRY to define trash tv. Or at least some of the principles.
We seem to (mostly) agree that trash tv:
does not educate
seems to be interested in shocking subject matter only for the sake of shock value
that its purpose is solely entertainment
Is there more that we agree on?
Does trash television have content that is outrageous as well as badly-behaved and inarticulate guests? (And would this be something like literature's form v. content?)
(Raising the question that if Springer has a particularly articulate and well-behaved woman who slept with her father's best friend, does the episode qualify as "trashy?")
Also, some of us may believe that many shows meet all of these "qualifications." So what defines tv as "not trash"? And what is the difference between trash tv and mere bad tv?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
My definition of trash TV still stands as a TV show that is solely for entertainment and shock value. It is not produced for any educational, inspirational, or moral value purpose end it does not challenge the viewer mentally. I also agree that there is a big difference between bad TV and trash TV. I think 7th heaven is the perfect example to use. It may be a corny TV show with bad acting but it is no way trash TV. In my opinion the show was put on the air to educate young kids and try to motivate them to lead respectable lives with strong family values.
My definition of trash tv is extremly jumbled.
I do agree that trashy television is on tv for the sole purpose of entertainment, but that's why all shows are on tv. TV shows have to entertain the viewer, or else they wouldnt survive. I strongly agree that trashy tv has that shock value that the entire program works to-- such as the paternity test results on Maury, to the final makeover in I Want A Famous Face. If these shows lacked the final shock, they'd be boring, purposeless and no one would watch. But on the same note, shows such as Survivor and Kid Nation and even the news provide a shock value, but in class- we agreed that they're not trash.
I think to clarify the definition of trash tv: trash television is anything that is based on an abnormal subject, yet doesn't provide the viewer with any educational information.
As Megan said, my definition of trash TV is Tv programs that exist only for the entertainment and shock value.The trash tv shows do not even pretend to show the moral values of the society;It is full of useless informations. On the other hand, bad tv programs at least pretend to reveal some meaningful message or skills. For example, even though the show "sopranos" possesses violent actions and talks, it also gives some messages.
In addition, movies and sports channel are promoted for the entertainment, but they are not called as trash because there are skillful actions and motions that make the audience feel pleasure.
Therefore, I would say trash tv is raising the awareness of useless things that we throw out as waste.
Trash tv shows just emphasize the bizarre, meaningless issues.
My definition of trash is close my original definition but with a little tweak. "Trash T.V. is a genre which in the mind of the viewer, entertains, shocks, and attempts to change morals, and sets new boundaries.
Even though my definition does not cover all the aspects of trash t.v. I think the “mind of the viewers is a important phrase to have in any definition of trash t.v.. If anyone has any ideas to add to my definition let me know.
Megan is so right about 7th heaven. Can anyone take that corney show serious? It really is the brady bunch of our time. I have not seen the show in a few years but is the dog still alive?
I think that bad TV is very different from trash TV but they can overlap. Bad TV does not entertain or inform. Basically if a show has bad ratings it usually means that it is bad TV because no one wants to watch a show that does not entertain them or inform them.
Trash TV can be bad TV as well. The class has pretty much agreed that the main purpose of trash TV is to entertain. If trash TV fails to entertain then it isn’t really doing its job. We have also agreed that it doesn’t educate so if it does neither of the things good TV does then it can be trash TV and bad TV. However, if trash TV does entertain then it can’t really be considered bad TV.
My orginal defintion of "trash tv" changed over the course of last class. I think the shock value was a very good aspect that I did not take into consideration. I think combining shock value with a false perception of reality play hand in hand, as things that produce shock value in talk shows usually have some fake or false quality. Additionally, I think talk shows lack educational value, but I think this can be argued because there is ways to pull out some type of morals if you try hard enough. What I find so baffling is the effort we put into trying to define somethign that we apparently think is so trashy and mindless. Is there really a meaningful defintion to something that we think is so meaningless in value.
I agree that “it is impossible to define precisely because it involves judgment.” The genre of trash television is very opinion based yet there are some universal agreements that qualify for the definition, such as that Trash TV is “solely for entertainment and has to have shock value”. My definition that I said in class was, “Television that has no intellectual value, and if it does for satirical purposes (such as using characters on the Simpson’s to reenact a current event using it for comedy.) It is television that you can watch to turn off your mind for a half hour, because usually it does not make you think or see the larger picture. Even if there is sometimes a hidden message that goes over your head, it is sometimes meant both ways. (Rarely some jokes on the Simpson’s or South Park, you need to have some education to get them or else it can go over your head or be funny in a way where you don’t have to get the joke.) As we agreed, some of these definitions apply to not just Trash TV but to other shows as well so when do we draw the live between bad television and trash television? The answer is in everyone own opinion.
I agree with the 7th Heaven and Brady Bunch statement, both are similar and try way too hard to promote good morals and throw it at us in an obvious manner. Shows like that fit into the “bad television” category. It just misses the trash definition because of the fact it has morals and they are not going around swearing or creating violence.
My definition of trash tv has not changed very much. I consider trash tv a show that fails to educte an audience or affect them in some positive way, and displays inappropriate themes. I agree with the majority of the class that one of the main attractions to trash tv is the shock value. When a show has a commercial revealing something that is about to happen, it keeps the viewer engaged and interested in watching. I do not think that trash tv changes one's morals; I think that if anything, it reinforces them. When one watches trashy people on Jerry Springer talking about how they want to pose nude, the viewer thinks about how he or she never wants to be like that. It makes the viewer realize how important their moral values are.
I find myself having a really hard time defining trash tv. Of course I have plenty of ideas such as trash tv provides no educational value, it is solely for entertainment purposes, it gives the viewers a false perception of reality, etc. But at Courtney said, aren't all tv shows there to entertain the viewer. I agree with this, so I find myself going back and forth on my definition. I think it really depends on personal opinion, but not everyone will agree. This makes me wonder if we will ever find a definition for trash tv.
I do agree with Megan's definition of trash tv being there for the shock value, but then when I think of other shows that aren't considered trash they too have a shock value. The only idea that I find myself really sticking to is that trash tv can be considered a show which has no educational value or purpose.
My definition of trash TV stands at it is TV that requires a very low mental capacity to comprehend and dose not offer you anything more than shear entertainment. Trash is something you can watch and come away with absolutely nothing to show for it (99.9% of what is on TV).
In my opinion, I believe trash TV is a program or show that doesn't educate its viewers. Its a type of show that does not have any basic point to it.
Mainly, I watch it when there's nothing else to watch and I never finish the entire show. Like Jerry Springer, the Real World, South Park, etc...
I also believe that there is a difference between bad TV and trash TV. Bad TV is a certain show that may interest and entertain the viewer, yet it is not "only for the sake of shock value" like trash TV. Like 7th Heaven and Gilmore Girls. These are shows that serve for pure entertain! It's something one watches in their free time.
Trash TV will usually try to get a reaction out of the viewer, which relates to the "shock value". For me, is a show that doesn't quite grab my attention or when I can't watch the entire episode.
Answering your question, if Springer has a well-behaved womanin his show I will still qualify the episode as trashy because it's the fact that she went on that show. I mean, everyone knows the reputation of that show. Basically, if you dont want to be classified as trashy", DONT appear as a guess there. Everyone knows that!!!
Maria Altamirano
I completely agree with megan in that there's a difference between bad TV and trash TV. Not all bad TV is trash!!
I mean if it's a show you CANT stand, then it may be trash. But, if its a show that can entertain you and you are capable of watching the entire episode, it may NOT be trash, just bad.
Maria Altamirano
I would first like to apolagize for being late,i have been a bit overwhelmed. But my initial thoughts after reading the prompt is that all television is trash, you end up sitting on the couch and drown out the real world. Yes television can be nice to watch every now and then when your tired or just want to relax. But you dont acomplish anything by watching tv for the most part. So to me trash tv is best described as tv that is designed primarily for entertainment and shock value as apposed to television for substance and intelectual value.
Post a Comment