Time to dispell a couple of discouraging rumors.
First, there is good news for traditional media types: It’s not true that social networking is killing traditional news and entertainment forums. As the TV networks have come to admit, social media are more ally than enemy.
Second, contrary to a study released last week, watching TV won’t kill you.
Such a relief on both counts. Like most Americans, I’m watching more TV online these days. Digitally shy at first, I had to be dragged into the Twitterverse and blogosphere. I was skeptical of social media, sure that the cramming of thoughts into 140 characters or a casual blurb could only be bad for journalism, for human interaction, for eyesight, for etiquette and, also, for television.
Because our attention spans are already gnat-like, how could the instant, spontaneous and unpolished spouting of snippets via social media encourage reason? Or boost the production of deeply engrossing and demanding dramas, for instance?
Now I’ve gone over to the virtual side, joining the online watercooler in real time for certain of my favorite shows. It’s addictive. While I normally get advance copies of network series, for big live events like Emmy or Oscar telecasts, it’s more fun to join the mass audience and the snark.
I’m , and . I’m sharing thoughts with TV-critic colleagues and readers. Much of the chatter on the Tweetdeck is “inside baseball.” Or just silly. It’s here, and it’s gone; yet — dare I admit? — it is a kick. I’ve launched . (Forgive the blatant plugs and just join in.)
Far from making TV obsolete, social media annotate the conversation. TV becomes a true gathering place as a running commentary swirls around it. For newspaper writers and readers, this means more outlets for what we’re already doing. Tips coming in via social media can help in writing for the print edition.
The usefulness of social media as a reporting tool is by now beyond question. Even on this beat. A TV critic friend says he knew the night Paula Abdul tweeted the news that she was leaving “American Idol” that he’d have to join the Twitterverse. That was in 2009. The public square has moved online, and the virtual watercooler is just another source.
Certain complex dramas require watching with full attention, demanding we leave the laptop/tablet/smartphone aside for later debriefing. When I’m immersed in “Breaking Bad,” I don’t want to be diverted by group snark; when I’m watching the GOP Iowa straw poll, I appreciate the fellowship and collective commentary.
About this week’s couch potato study: Is it true that watching TV takes years off your life?
Researchers in Australia announced the alarming results of their research: People who watch an average of six hours of TV a day lived nearly five years fewer than people who watched no TV. (I’m still alive, and I endured “Alf”!)
Every hour you watch takes some 22 minutes off your life.
No word on what they’re watching down there.
But this is very loose science. People who sit on couches reading Camus for six hours a day presumably also live shorter lives than those who spend those hours on walks.
For every hour of chess or knitting, rather than marathon training, the result is probably similar.
“Lost” creator Damon Lindelof, a regular Twitter user (often about his show and sometimes just at random), tweeted: “Study reveals that watching an hour of TV reduces lifespan by 22 minutes. Or in my vernacular, every Wire costs you one Seinfeld.”
Funny. And that’s why we turn to Twitter.
It’s not always easy to offer a concise post. To paraphrase Mark Twain, if I’d had more time I would have written a shorter letter. Lindelof, master of the convoluted serialized drama, distilled our thoughts into a little pearl.
In-depth thought is still possible in a world consumed by social media. But it’s easy to get distracted, even from the Twitter distraction. As Steve Martin said on his Twitter feed recently, “Haven’t tweeted lately because I’m really absorbed by this Bounty paper towel.”
Joanne Ostrow: 303-954-1830 or jostrow@denverpost.com
