# When you are watching TV, are you watching TV?



## pedro0001

I mean, what it means to watch TV? 

When I'm watching a Concert on TV, I'm not watching TV! I'm watching a concert! The TV is only the way of diffusion. The same happens if I'm watching the History Channel, I'm not watching TV, I'm watching a documentary. 

And who says that reading a book is always better than "watching TV"? That depends greatly on what book and what you are watching actually. 

Don't you think?


----------



## Outsider

pedro0001 said:


> And who says that reading a book is always better than "watching TV"?


I'm not sure that many people would say that, these days. Watching TV is certainly less demanding than reading, which is not a bad thing in itself. When you come home tired, sometimes you need light entertainment.


----------



## Mei

Outsider said:


> I'm not sure that many people would say that, these days. Watching TV is certainly less demanding than reading, which is not a bad thing in itself. When you come home tired, sometimes you need light entertainment.



Yes, I agree and sometimes you're in front of the tv thinking about what you will eat dinner or something else... 

I always try to watch a movie or something I think is interesting but when I'm tired and I don't want to think I watch tv trash (is this correct? I mean "telebasura").

The most important thing for me is that I can choose.

Cheers

Mei


----------



## Outsider

Though sometimes there isn't much to choose from, even with 30 odd channels available.


----------



## pedro0001

Daddyo said:


> It's just the way it's said in English (and Spanish, and French, and... I don't know any more): watching TV.
> But you're not really watching the concert. The concert happened a zillion miles away, maybe even in a different century! You are watching the little images (HD or not, still little, compared to the real thing) and listening to the tinny speakers (or to the gazillion speaker set-up of your choice). You are, in fact, watching the boob tube. The idiot box. No way around it: you are watching TV.
> As for the book being better, does it have pictures in it?
> There you go.



Thanks for your opinion. Although I don't agree with it. 



> But you're not really watching the concert. The concert happened a zillion miles away, maybe even in a different century!



So what? It doesn't have anything to do. I'm still watching the concert. When you read a book of history, all what you read already  happened, and so what? You're just reading history (that already happened per definition), and I'm watching a concert (and even maybe live!) 



> You are watching the little images (HD or not, still little, compared to the real thing) and listening to the tinny speakers (or to the gazillion speaker set-up of your choice).



Once again, what does this have to do with anything? I'm still watching a concert. Maybe what you want to say is that the feeling is not the same and I agree. But TV has also some advantages. In TV I can see in detail many things that maybe being there is not possible (for example, multiple angles, the faces of the musicians, etc....).



> You are, in fact, watching the boob tube.



nop. 

Tell me, when you're watching the news on TV, are you just watching TV?


----------



## ireney

I am not sure what you mean. If when you watch a concert you are not watching TV, and the same goes for news, documentaries etc _what_ is your definition of "watching TV"?

Now I am not against TV in general. Far from it. Nor do I say that all books are superior in intellectual quality from the TV. However if you cannot see the difference between a book and the TV I think I cannot help you understand it 



pedro0001 said:


> Once again, what does this have to do with anything? I'm still watching a concert. Maybe what you want to say is that the feeling is not the same and I agree. But TV has also some advantages. In TV I can see in detail many things that maybe being there is not possible (for example, multiple angles, the faces of the musicians, etc....).



I am sure the musicians would be really sorry to hear that the music they produced didn't manage to captivate you enough so that you would give it your undivided attention (unless of course we are talking about a  pop-concert for example in which the show is also of importance)


----------



## 1234plet

I like "watching TV" more than reading a book, though they say that it's always more "important" to read a book. 

But anyway, it still depends.


----------



## pedro0001

> I am sure the musicians would be really sorry to hear that the music they produced didn't manage to captivate you enough so that you would give it your undivided attention (unless of course we are talking about a pop-concert for example in which the show is also of importance)


I was thinking about it when I wrote that.



> owever if you cannot see the difference between a book and the TV I think I cannot help you understand it


I didn't say that I cannot see the difference between book and the TV!



> I am not sure what you mean. If when you watch a concert you are not watching TV, and the same goes for news, documentaries etc _what_ is your definition of "watching TV"?


Hey! You hit the nail on the head! Watching TV, in my opinion, is a term which is used only when you don't pay active attention to what you are watching. Just Watching TV is a passive activity. For me, watching TV is the image one tipically has of a person sitting or laying down in his coach (or whatever) and zapping without major interest and only to pass the time. 

But if I'm watching a Piece of Theatre on TV and someone ask me, What are you doing? I wont answer, "watching tv". That's a degrading activity. I will answer "watching a piece of theater ON TV"!


----------



## Mei

1234plet said:


> I like "watching TV" more than reading a book, though they say that it's always more "important" to read a book.
> 
> But anyway, it still depends.



 I think it depends on what you want to watch or read, right? 

Mei


----------



## Etcetera

Outsider said:


> I'm not sure that many people would say that, these days. Watching TV is certainly less demanding than reading, which is not a bad thing in itself. When you come home tired, sometimes you need light entertainment.


I totally agree with Outsider. 
But I belong to that sort of people who would still prefer reading. There's a lot of light, entertaining literature. Ian Fleming's books, for example, are pretty relaxing. 
And as for watching TV... I don't like it, frankly. There's a number of films I like, but still I would prefer to buy or borrow a DVD - to have the opportunity to enjoy the film not being interrupted by silly advertising or something else like that. Advertising is a huge disadvantage of TV, don't you agree?


----------



## pedro0001

For watching movies (and advertising), I prefer the cinema actually .


----------



## maxiogee

pedro0001 said:


> When I'm watching a Concert on TV, I'm not watching TV! I'm watching a concert!



I disagree.
When you go to a "concert" you choose what you will look at. You choose to look at the violinist, or the conductor, or the percussion section - or whatever. You also hear the overall effect as intended by the performers, or you may be able to focus your hearing on one part of the performance.
When you watch a "concert on TV" you have a different experience - totally. Someone else decides what you will see, and what you will hear. They adjust the lighting, and they tweak the sound. You are not in control of the experience.

So, while you may not be "watching TV", you are equally not "watching a concert" - you are "watching a televised concert".


----------



## Mei

Etcetera said:


> Advertising is a huge disadvantage of TV, don't you agree?



I do agree, that's why sometimes I decide to watch a movie instead of the TV.

Mei


----------



## pedro0001

> When you go to a "concert" you choose what you will look at. You choose to look at the violinist, or the conductor, or the percussion section - or whatever. You also hear the overall effect as intended by the performers, or you may be able to focus your hearing on one part of the performance.
> When you watch a "concert on TV" you have a different experience - totally. Someone else decides what you will see, and what you will hear. They adjust the lighting, and they tweak the sound. You are not in control of the experience.
> 
> So, while you may not be "watching TV", you are equally not "watching a concert" - you are "watching a televised concert".


You're right. I totally agree that watching a concert live, being there, and on tv are different experiences. You can see in post 8 that I wrote:



> But if I'm watching a Piece of Theatre on TV and someone ask me, What are you doing? I won't answer, "watching tv". That's a degrading activity. I will answer "watching a piece of theater ON TV"!


The important thing is that you're not just "watching tv". The cultural, educational and spiritual experience of "watching tv" depends on what you're actually watching. And my real purpose is to protest against those which say that "watching tv" is degrading activity, without considering that the TV offers something more than than just "talk shows" and such trash programs.


----------



## maxiogee

pedro0001 said:


> And my real purpose is


Aaah!

If you have a "real purpose" why not introduce it in the opening post? 
Aaaaarrrrggghhh.  



pedro0001 said:


> And my real purpose is to protest against those which say that "watching tv" is degrading activity, without considering that the TV offers something more than than just "talk shows" and such trash programs.


But there are people who sit and "watch tv" — not actively engaged in the activity, not discriminating in what they watch, not even changing channels. Have you never come across them? They are the people who, when asked what they're watching, respond "I don't know, it was on when I came in."





pedro0001 said:


> And my real purpose is to protest against those which say that "watching tv" is degrading activity,


Why then did you write the following…



pedro0001 said:


> But if I'm watching a Piece of Theatre on TV and someone ask me, What are you doing? I wont answer, "watching tv". That's a degrading activity. I will answer "watching a piece of theater ON TV"!


----------



## pedro0001

> Aaah!
> 
> If you have a "real purpose" why not introduce it in the opening post?
> Aaaaarrrrggghhh.


Because I wanted first to know what other people think before saying what I think.



> But there are people who sit and "watch tv" — not actively engaged in the activity, not discriminating in what they watch, not even changing channels. Have you never come across them? They are the people who, when asked what they're watching, respond "I don't know, it was on when I came in."


It's very difficult to discuss something when you don't really read the post (or maybe my english is wrong and people don't understand what I want to say). Could you please reread Post Nr. 8? . I write there



> Hey! You hit the nail on the head! Watching TV, in my opinion, is a term which is used only when you don't pay active attention to what you are watching. Just Watching TV is a passive activity. For me, watching TV is the image one tipically has of a person sitting or laying down in his coach (or whatever) and zapping without major interest and only to pass the time.


and finally,



> Why then did you write the following…
> 
> Originally Posted by *pedro0001* http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=1469847#post1469847http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
> But if I'm watching a Piece of Theatre on TV and someone ask me, What are you doing? I wont answer, "watching tv". That's a degrading activity. I will answer "watching a piece of theater ON TV"!


Of course, that is what I think. I won't answer "watching tv", because that's a degrading activity.


----------



## maxiogee

pedro0001 said:


> It's very difficult to discuss something when you don't really read the post (or maybe my english is wrong and people don't understand what I want to say). Could you please reread Post Nr. 8? . I write there



You wrote of someone "zapping without major interest" — I wrote of someone who wasn't actually zapping, who wasn't actively involved at all! You miss my nuance of difference.

You seem to contradict yourself with regard to this 'degrading activity' concept. You said 



> Of course, that is what I think. I won't answer "watching tv", because that's a degrading activity.


…and yet you want to…


> protest against those which say that "watching tv" is degrading activity



If you think "watching TV" is degrading, why do you wish to protest against those who say this?


----------



## pedro0001

You may notice that I write "watching tv" in quotes. And that's the problem. There is a generalization of the term "watching tv" that I don't like (and from there also the title I chose). I would like to discriminate between "watching tv" and "watching something not degrading on tv". It is maybe my fault that I seem to contradict myself but I didn't mean it so. The problem is that I pretend the reader to understand too much when I write something in quotes. I apologize for that.

The thing is that I like to sit in front of the tv and watch documentals, the news, a good movie, and sometimes and entertainment program. But if the activity of watching something really good on tv, let say, the news is called just watching tv (i.e. watching the news = watching tv) and  the people say that watching tv is a degrading activity (watching tv = degrading activity), what I'm doing? By transition law: watching the news = degrading activity. 

It just offends me when someone insinuate that I'm just watching tv. I don't use the tv to see trash.

Maxiogee, if I'm not wrong, we think the same about this topic actually.


----------



## maxiogee

pedro0001 said:


> I don't use the tv to see trash.



Do you think anyone readily admits to watching trash?

I generally actively engage with any programme I'm watching, but there are times when the TV gets less than my full attention - say I've seen the early evening news and have just now caught the headlines of the main evening news and have noted that there is little or no change. I leave the TV on, do other stuff, such as visit these fora, and would say, if asked what I was doing, "watching TV and webbing".


----------



## pedro0001

Exactly, you were watching TV.


----------



## maxiogee

pedro0001 said:


> Exactly, you were watching TV.



I fail to understand whether you are using the phrase in the 'demeaning' sense you speak of, or normally, as I mean it. I see nothing demeaning in the phrase itself. Any ill-demeanour involved is in the person watching, and not in the phrase.


----------



## Mei

maxiogee said:


> Do you think anyone readily admits to watching trash?



I did it a few posts above because I do it sometimes. As many people that as you said, they won't admit it 

It is not the best think I can watch on tv, I'm so sure of it but when I'm tired I watch this kind of programs... you don't need to think.

Cheers

Mei


----------



## Sallyb36

Mei said:


> I did it a few posts above because I do it sometimes. As many people that as you said, they won't admit it
> 
> It is not the best think I can watch on tv, I'm so sure of it but when I'm tired I watch this kind of programs... you don't need to think.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mei


I do too sometimes, as you said mei, when you don't want to have to think about anything.


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> Do you think anyone readily admits to watching trash?


Oh yes, I know quite a few! 
I know many people who have no shame to say that they watch some reality show, all the while admitting it's rubbish. I find myself excluded from many a conversation because of that.   

I think pedro's question is a matter of terminology. I never watch TV either. Sometimes I put the TV on, and I sit (or stand) in front of it, while I'm doing something else - ie. getting my papers organized, ironing, or sometimes even when I'm on WR. It will be the news, some series, or anything that's on the channel I've first put on (and I know it's getting really late when the wildlife documentaries are on ).
And sometimes I choose to watch a movie or something else to which I will give my full attention.

The bad thing about books is that you can't iron in front of one


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> The bad thing about books is that you can't iron in front of one


You need to get a table positioned parallel to your ironing board, position your book as close to the edge as you can get it, place a 12" ruler across both pages, place a small-but-heavy item on the ruler at the gutter between the pages, and read. Move the ruler up or down as appropriate. Iron clothes.

Alternatively, buy an iPod and download talking books.


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> You need to get a table positioned parallel to your ironing board, position your book as close to the edge as you can get it, place a 12" ruler across both pages, place a small-but-heavy item on the ruler at the gutter between the pages, and read. Move the ruler up or down as appropriate. Iron clothes.
> 
> Alternatively, buy an iPod and download talking books.


Thanks for the tip! But it's not as if I ironed regularly really. 

No, reading is better done while commuting. Because you see, I need to always do two or more things at the same time: tidy up and watch TV, do the laundry and vacuum, alternate nonsensical posts and vaguely helpful ones. Yep! This is what society expects from me. 

Oops! I wrote "watch TV".


----------

