Crosswords0 min ago
Daytime Television
20 Answers
Perhaps not an automatically logical category for 'daytime TV', but bear with me!
Daytime TV has long been the butt of jokes for its relentlessly poor quality, and I’m wondering if broadcasters are missing a trick, certainly in terms of what might be possible in conjunction with government legislation.
The majority of people who are unemployed would like to work, and they’re not likely to be sitting in front of the TV. But it would be naïve to ignore the fact that some don’t feel motivated to work and will quite happily veg out in front of the box all day. The current glut of mindless chewing gum for the eyes seems well suited; the likes of Jeremy Kyle, endless reality shows and soap operas…
Just supposing a measure was introduced which meant that ALL programmes (from, say, 1-3pm) had to have a significant educational value? I’m not talking about the drab old days of ‘For Schools’ – but there are programmes such as Coast and, on BBCs 3 and 4, a huge range of documentary programmes covering history, geography, the environment, wildlife, science; what I mean is programmes that teach us something about the world, and this measure would apply to all main and Freeview channels.
So the couch potatoes would have a choice. Go out and do something – engage with the world – or, if you still want to watch the box, learn something.
Any takers?
Daytime TV has long been the butt of jokes for its relentlessly poor quality, and I’m wondering if broadcasters are missing a trick, certainly in terms of what might be possible in conjunction with government legislation.
The majority of people who are unemployed would like to work, and they’re not likely to be sitting in front of the TV. But it would be naïve to ignore the fact that some don’t feel motivated to work and will quite happily veg out in front of the box all day. The current glut of mindless chewing gum for the eyes seems well suited; the likes of Jeremy Kyle, endless reality shows and soap operas…
Just supposing a measure was introduced which meant that ALL programmes (from, say, 1-3pm) had to have a significant educational value? I’m not talking about the drab old days of ‘For Schools’ – but there are programmes such as Coast and, on BBCs 3 and 4, a huge range of documentary programmes covering history, geography, the environment, wildlife, science; what I mean is programmes that teach us something about the world, and this measure would apply to all main and Freeview channels.
So the couch potatoes would have a choice. Go out and do something – engage with the world – or, if you still want to watch the box, learn something.
Any takers?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anaxcrosswords. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you're concerned about the coach potatoes, your money and efforts might be better spent on creating jobs.
Not everyone who watches daytime TV is an unemployed lay about. My intellegent friend works night shifts and sometimes watches TV in the day. Another friend is retired and another is very poorly. Actually they would all probably enjoy your geography and history programmes, but not enjoy being pigeon holed.
Not everyone who watches daytime TV is an unemployed lay about. My intellegent friend works night shifts and sometimes watches TV in the day. Another friend is retired and another is very poorly. Actually they would all probably enjoy your geography and history programmes, but not enjoy being pigeon holed.
I don't know on what you base your judgement, but on the whole the programmes for schools, especially those of the BBC were excellent. They provided a learning experience in a format that children enjoyed. I would especially commend those programmes that dwelt with phones, the mechanics of learning to read which was provided in programmes such as 'Look and Read' and 'Words and Pictures' in the seventies. There were also programmes that covered music which were a godsend to non specialist teachers.
Hi Anaxc. I get your point, but agree with others that not everyone who watches daytime TV is unemployed. Personally I would like to see the unemployed being given at least 25 hours a week employment, perhaps at charity shops or hospitals/schools etc, so they do not get the same amount of time to veg out in front of the TV. I am of the opinion that a social benefit money needs to be earned in the same way as the rest of us do, by working for it!
By the way the Daily Mash is brilliant and always makes me laugh, they are spot on with their take on the headlines!!
Sue
By the way the Daily Mash is brilliant and always makes me laugh, they are spot on with their take on the headlines!!
Sue
I work nights, 8pm - 7:30am ish, five nights a week. I sleep between 10am and midday, then from 3pm-5pm. On my nights off, I make up on my sleep.
Measures in place between 1 and 3 would interrupt my viewing, although if I watch TV, it is usually spent on catch up from the night before. Therefore, your proposition is silly and unworkable. Put it in place between 10am and midday, instead ;)
Measures in place between 1 and 3 would interrupt my viewing, although if I watch TV, it is usually spent on catch up from the night before. Therefore, your proposition is silly and unworkable. Put it in place between 10am and midday, instead ;)
-- answer removed --
1 to 20 of 20
