Telunacy and How to Combat It

Alberto Lindgate’s report to his superiors on the Planet Murlan contained a number of surprising observations-the brevity of his expedition to Planet Earth notwithstanding.  But none of these observations was more startling-or, for that matter, more controversial-than his discovery that the inhabitants of America, the country he happened to chance upon, depended on four hours of exposure per day to electronic screens, they called television, for their survival.  Presumably, the display of various amusements on the screens made this onerous regimen somewhat more endurable, but, regardless, the commitment had to weigh heavily on the population.

When asked if he had an explanation for this bizarre physiological acculturation, Alberto confessed that he was baffled by it.  No other foreign population he had investigated exhibited a similar trait.  The closest likeness he could think of was the behavior of Murlan’s own reptiles that had to bask in the sun for a number of hours before they could resume their daily activities.  But, he readily admitted, the comparison was a rough one-their reptiles’ sense of purpose being far superior to that of the Americans.

 Unable to account for any evolutionary circumstances that would have dictated such a behavioral pattern, many of Murlan’s scientists were skeptical of Alberto’s interpretation.  Even if the American screens did emit some form of life force, which in itself was questionable, why were the natives’ receptors so inefficient that a total of four hours was required to take effect?  Or, put another way, why would any species adopt a strategy that so drastically sapped its productivity making it vulnerable to competitive species not so encumbered?  All told, such “telunacy,” as they called it, amounted to a loss of nine full years in the life of an average person.  Nine years!  And even worse, perhaps, was the depreciation in the quality of the Americans’ remaining effective lifespan due to their continued indulgence in what could literally be labeled “substance abuse” with all the psychological damage that implied.

 More likely, a number of scientists decided, the evidence pointed to some sort of fanatical religious obligation.  If so, it would mirror the kind of self-destructive rites they had observed on other planets-rites that, all to often, heralded the devotees’ ultimate devolution.  Alternatively, it was hypothesized by other investigators that the observed phenomenon was mandated by a dictatorship intent on maintaining control by depriving its subjects of independent thought and willpower.

 Once these doubts were raised from professional quarters, a second exploratory probe to earth was launched with scarcely less sensational results.  What none on Murlan could possibly have imagined, Americans submitted to their stuporous television viewing habits voluntarily!  With no more fortitude than a flock of sheep, they willingly forfeited their minds to whatever thought processes their media controllers found profitable!

 Equally puzzling, Americans seemed hell-bent on exacerbating their dependency.  This time around, the Murlanders noted that, whereas televised movies were already accessible from innumerable sources-local broadcast stations, cable, satellite, retail outlets at practically every corner, and subscription mail services-these means were apparently insufficient to meet demand.  As if the country faced no more pressing problem than augmenting the delivery of movies to the home screen, a crash program was underway to overcome the technical difficulties standing in the way of an obsessed population downloading whatever movie it wanted at any time of day or night at modest cost.     

 As my more astute readers may have already guessed, the above account of Planet Murlan’s explorations of America was fictitious.  On the other hand, I would contend that the circumstances that supposedly aroused their curiosity were not.  Far from being the agent of enlightenment it was originally hyped, television has become a weapon of mental destruction aimed at the American people-an intellectual wasteland into which countless minds have wandered never to be seen again.  In short, there is no single societal defect that screams louder for change than our fixation with the “tube.”

Officials from the Federal Communication Commission will, no doubt, promptly respond that they have already taken action.  In 1999, after some four years of debate, it promulgated seven ratings and a V-chip integrated into TV sets by which means parents could filter the programs available to their children.  But true to form, the Federal Government expended substantial sums of time and money addressing the wrong issue.  The FCC system did nothing to correct the fundamental problem-i.e., the lack of any controls over television usage accumulated over time.  Moreover, it even failed to solve the parental-guidance problem it meant to address.  By March, 2007 a Zogby poll found that 88% of respondents were not using the V-chip.  Government had waded into the problem only to accomplish a result that was, no doubt, politically-popular, but, alas, functionally-ineffectual.

Aside from the government’s misdirected efforts, private companies offer a half-dozen or so effective gadgets designed to limit television viewing.  Primarily directed at correcting children’s over exposure, these devices permit parents to interrupt TV programming throughout the household by disabling its source, the coaxial input cable.  Daily and weekly viewing allowances can be allocated along with the denial of specified channels and games.  Unfortunately, the utilization of these gadgets requires about a fifty-dollar expenditure and an effort on the part of adults to purchase and program them.  In practice, not many parents go through the trouble and expense.

 It would help considerably were the government to promote the use of these units by officially endorsing them and defraying part-let’s say half-of their cost.  After all, if the country can afford the expense of handing out vouchers for digital converters, it should be able to afford a modest expenditure to prevent their overuse.  

 Along these lines, the government should also make it illegal for any new television set to be sold unless equipped with a built-in, easy-to-use, programmable device that would enable family members to input their individual viewing-time targets and compare them with their actual experience.  Default values would reflect the findings of a panel of psychiatrists, behavioral scientists, and researchers into brain activity.  These units would, of course, also have the capability of restricting children’s exposure.  The added cost to television makers would be a fraction of the fifty dollars charged by those selling free-standing devices thanks to savings provided by mass production and the reduction in the overhead associated with the distribution of a separate product.

 Finally, let’s penalize television networks in a manner similar to the ways we have seen fit to penalize tobacco companies.  Every network should be required to allot free time to non-profit organizations devoted to combating our addiction to the medium.  Just as anti-smoking campaigns have gradually met with success, so, it is hoped, would an anti-viewing campaign make similar progress.  

 Such provisions might not be exactly what President Obama had in mind when he so effectively argued for change in the last election, but they would, in fact, go a long way to further his overall goal-that of improving the quality of life for all Americans.