Xref: utzoo sci.lang:4462 comp.cog-eng:1084 sci.psychology:1789
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!itcatl!jonathan
From: jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.cog-eng,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Effects of poor writing? (Long)
Message-ID: <366@itcatl.UUCP>
Date: 5 May 89 23:11:47 GMT
References: <39131@bbn.COM> <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com> <2947@tank.uchicago.edu> <4352@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Lines: 51

In article <4352@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes:
> In article <2000@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes:
> }In article <357@itcatl.UUCP> jonathan@itcatl.UUCP (Jonathan Peterson) writes:
> }>	I think traditional "literacy" is falling more and more by the wayside 
[...]
> }>information revolution just beginning may well make literacy
> }>unneeded again.
> 
> Sure.  And we're all working in paperless offices, right?

More and more people ARE working in paperless manufacturing plants.

> 
> If anything, the information revolution has put a premium on literacy.
> HDTV will finally allow decent presentation of high density text on video
> screens.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that about the same number of
people will use a $2500 HDTV for reading as currently use their radio to
listening to TV.  Admittedly text only channels exist, but who watches them?
They scroll to damn slow, and they give me NO information that I can't get
in the morning paper.  (with the exception of airline flight schedules at
Hartzfield international).

> If you think the crap and pap that even the best of TV programming
> presents can replace books, you must be pretty illiterate yourself.

a. I NEVER said TV was BETTER than books, but you have to admit that the
AVERAGE American spends 5-10 times with the TV than with books.
b. I'll ignore the illiteracy comment, as it assumes I was talking about
TV QUALITY not PREVALENCY.

> Film isn't significantly better 

I'll argue with this one...  Film has a MUCH more immediate and visceral
impact than any literature.  (I make a distinction between FILM and movies). 
FILM has more impact on the group watching it as a whole, though literature
may well have more impact on a given individual.  I'll match Lawrence of
Arabia against ANY work of literature that can be read in the same period 
of time.  MOST (not all) will be more affected by Lawrence.

I would hope that someday TV will rise above the crap it currently feeds us.
With 60 channels on cable I am rarely offered more than 1-3 things worth
watching, often nothing.

Time to move this discussion elsewhere, if more is needed.

jonathan@itcatl.gatech.edu|  He is the MELBA-BEING ...  The ANGEL CAKE ...
       DISC Access        |    XEROX him ...
   Products Group, Inc.   |      XEROX him  --  Zippy
       Atlanta, GA        |