One of the things I've noticed when I'm raising a glass in company when I go back to Australia is that the standard of conversation has improved.

I don't generally mix in well educated circles, my friends and acquaintances are mainly tradesman, transport workers etc. A few finished high school but most left at an early age in a time when apprenticeships and unskilled jobs for good wages were readily available.

Years back the conversation in a pub would have consisted of football, racing, women and work with an occasional discussion on current affairs.

Now they talk about anything... global warming, organic farming, genetic engineering, sub prime loans; they know it all.

Without exception their source of information is the telly. It's the only form of recreation they have at home, very few read anything other than the sports section in a news paper so it gives the lie to the theory that the great unwashed only use the TV for watching sport and soapies.

So how do you learn about new stuff?

TV makes me interested in something and then I research it on the Internet and then, if I am still interested, I buy some books.

When I moved into this house a little over two months ago, I put the TV on its stand, but I am yet to get around to plugging it in..... the other ex-pats I know are all avid TV watchers, yet the topics of conversation are limited to, Thai driving standards, the saffron robed thieves, raising chickens, fishing and the Muslim invasion of the UK.

Thankfully, I only go to the bar to destroy a few brain cells and not in an effort to stimulate the ones I have left, I seldom leave disappointed.

I would say that TV has had an impact, however, the problem with that medium is that it is completely one way, you have to watch what you are given, amongst this circle of friends, there may be talk about current affairs, but are there any real discussions? If one person comes out with a statement and everyone else just nods in agreement, I would hazard a guess that 'the box' is their only source of info....... and that isn't a plus point.

(and when I say discussion, I am not including the people that will just argue black is white, just for the sake of arguing..... we have a couple of those here, and I have frequently left the bar early because I had forgotten to take my bullshit repellent)

TV makes me interested in something and then I research it on the Internet and then, if I am still interested, I buy some books.

ditto.

I have to say, though, that when I lived in more pleasant surroundings (eg: Thailand, Guatemala) I didn't own a tv, and only rarely missed it.

Since I've been back in the UK, I've found myself conforming with the Norm increasingly, which consists of loads of work, followed by spare time usually consisiting of TV watching and little else.

Life is quite boring.

Stop working and get a bigger telly on the welfare..............everyone else is !!!

TV makes me interested in something and then I research it on the Internet and then, if I am still interested, I buy some books.

yep, me too. Except that sometimes the net is my source rather than the TV, or the net is my research after the TV. But yes, i often buy books on a subject that has caught my interest. I like to read/research different sides of the same topic.

Interesting question.

I am from an era that television didn't even exist; your parents, family, magazines and newspapers were the only news sources, next to radio and all that just in the language I was born into.

Later when television came there wasn't very much world info yet and only later English/American/ German/French movies came, with sub titles which is SUPER because one learns a language much faster rather than with voice synchronization. It's really absurd to see Frank Sinatra or Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie talk in bluddy French, German or even Thai; absurd !

BUT, the REAL news-improvement -for me- came with Internet which I'm now connected to since 5 1/2 years (yes, I was late).

I never buy books anymore since I don't have the time to read a book; my reading information comes from Internet, magazines and newspapers; Television, even from different countries, supplies limited -and often painted- news information although I'm a fan of well filmed documentaries and sports.

However, the enormous amount of info Internet is able to supply is so shocking unbelievable that it's stunning.

With one click one is able to study about almost everything and anything in the world....and Thailand as well, especially politics

The funny things is that my old fashioned (passed away) parents were so right when they said "YOU are never too old to learn"....when I was twenty I thought I knew EVERYTHING....

How wrong I was and I'm proud to say and confess that I am still learning new things, new words, new expressions, and so much more, every single day.

Unlike some posters here on TV because they claim to be CORRECT every single time they write their opinion.

I have more respect for someone who is able to say: I am sorry - Mea Culpa.

Have a nice day and keep smiling

LaoPo

Well you have that right.

No one's sorrier than me when someone else gets it wrong.

The funny things is that my old fashioned (passed away) parents were so right when they said "YOU are never too old to learn"....when I was twenty I thought I knew EVERYTHING....

You are so right about that LP, every day is a school day.

That box that sits in the corner of the room is not a source of information, it's a form of entertainment is all, the information that it does deliver is tainted with the views of the company producing the programme.

As an IT support person, I spent my working life learning, sometimes I was only ten minutes in front of my customers. As a trainer for Apple I had to constantly update myself with the advances in software in production at the time...... as a sponge, I want to know stuff, and I want to know it now..... in my days as a trainer, I had the patience of a saint with my students, I had zero patience with my sources of info, the internet changed all that..... I have a question, bang, I have an answer, several answers, millions of answers sometimes, it's then up to me to decide which answer most closely resembles the answer I had in mind.

Mainstream TV has never educated anyone, it may have given them more things to talk about, but that's about it ...... the group of people that Scea first mentioned.... imagine that they were all Fox News subscribers, raise a subject, and then contradict Bill .... watch what happens

Mainstream TV has never educated anyone, it may have given them more things to talk about, but that's about it ...... the group of people that Scea first mentioned.... imagine that they were all Fox News subscribers, raise a subject, and then contradict Bill .... watch what happens

I disagree with the statement. I believe that much of television is interesting, entertaining, and informative. The issue is simply what people CHOOSE to watch. I have been watching the Empires of Civilisation series on Australia network and learned many things that I didn't know. Television was a significant source of inspiration to visit the Southern African continent, Asia and much of North America. I had watched television shows of these places and found out many things from them that I would have been unlikely to discover. The good programs have a team of highly skilled researchers at their disposal. The researchers may spend a year before production starts and have access to top experts in their fields.

Television can be the opiate of the 20th century, the bane of the educated, and the indoctrinator of the masses but as Logi Baird would have us believe we can look, learn and discern by ourselves using this form.

In my experience the Internet is a poor source of information, Much of it is unreliable with poor research skills. One of my pet peeves is that ANYONE can put it on the net and it suddenly becomes "fact". No primary research, no attributation of source of the data just opinion without comeback.

CB

I think yes and no to answer this question. Yes, because there are so many channels now devoted to educational material. No, because for every one of those channels there are five the air complete crap. If a person wants to watch something uplifting it's there, yet most turn on the TV to be entertained and therefore watch the crap channels.

CB .... that's why I said 'Mainstream Television' ..... you pick and choose to educate yourself, there was a fantastic series a while back on the BBC about the origins of the universe which was both informative and entertaining (well, for me it was) I can practically guarantee that the rest of the UK was watching Coronation Street.

People that want to learn will learn, and they have a variety of sources, TV is not the best one.

I concede that the internet is chock-full-o-crap and I would never rely on yahoo.answers or wiki as being the definitive truth, but it's a good place to start (actually, yahoo isn't)

yet most turn on the TV to be entertained and therefore watch the crap channels.

Bingo.

In my experience the Internet is a poor source of information, Much of it is unreliable with poor research skills. One of my pet peeves is that ANYONE can put it on the net and it suddenly becomes "fact". No primary research, no attributation of source of the data just opinion without comeback.

CB

If you find Internet a poor source of information, what's the alternative ? I read several daily papers (looking for specific news) on internet in several languages; where else can I go ? The library ?

What was YOUR reliable source BEFORE Internet ? Where did you get your info from 10 years ago (when Internet info was just a fraction of what it is now) ?

But there is a lot of truth in what you say Crow Boy, but it's exactly the same with television.

Every world citizen base his/her opinion on what they SEE....

And, WHAT do they see ?.....the images from a cameraman, an audio man, a reporter and (possibly) director.

A good example were the Olympics. There were hundreds of TV reporting teams, ordered to go there by their various networks with the INSTRUCTIONS: find sensational news.....find the poor...find the people who were beaten up or arrested; I could go one. And...they found it and reported how bad China was....

Give me the same team and send me to ANY country in the world and I will make the most dramatic documentary you've ever seen. There are thousands of places on earth the particular country should be ashamed of.

Meaning to say:

It's all in the eye of the beholder, images, presented by your Host...network XXX and..........people will believe what they see: the images from the camera, NOT what's next to the camera's...

LaoPo

In my experience the Internet is a poor source of information, Much of it is unreliable with poor research skills. One of my pet peeves is that ANYONE can put it on the net and it suddenly becomes "fact". No primary research, no attributation of source of the data just opinion without comeback.

CB

This can be true, but there are a wide range of channels on the internet that can be informative and factual and of course you have the ability of judgement on your side, what you see or read or hear, is always informative, but whether you choose to accept it, as the real deal is up to you.

The much maligned Wiki has individual rights to post, but has a bevy of people checking and corroborating and verifying the content, they request citations for information, no citation then it is up to you, but I think it is a wealth of information, just be a little circumspect with the content and it is always a jump point.

I saw a wonderful programme the other day on TV, the virgin Rain Forest of Guyana, absolutely brilliant apart from the spiders the size of two hands, but it also has a political view point, to try and safe guard the forest, they have offered incentives to Britain to invest in the country to stop them from logging, what have they heard from first Blair and now Brown, pretty much nothing.

I am re-reading JFC's, 'The last of the Mohicans', and it is nothing like the film, two media two contrasting skills, both have their merits but from one spawned the fallacy of Native Americans riding rings around wagon trains, oh yeah, be careful what you read, hear or see, but which is the best media, I don't know they all have their merits, just as long as I don't have to watch to much TV.

Good Luck

Moss

We all walked before the wheel...................Times change and the media is with us in it's present form whether we like it or not. No point going into a fit, the debate should be how we make it suit our needs rather than should it exist.

I don't generally mix in well educated circles,.....

Present company excepted?

Years back the conversation in a pub would have consisted of football, racing, women and work with an occasional discussion on current affairs. Now they talk about anything... global warming, organic farming, genetic engineering, sub prime loans.....

Is that the point? With news gathering being now being compiled by global news agencies the news editor of a paper or TV station can lift the cream from a world of stories that in the past would not be reported at all. Here in Thailand it's only because of global links that we are aware of a storm that whizzed through Cuba that might impact oil refining and so have an impact on US, therefore, world markets. Otherwise it's PAD and the guy that runs his car on water that is news.

It's the only form of recreation they have at home, very few read anything other than the sports section in a news paper so it gives the lie to the theory that the great unwashed only use the TV for watching sport and soapies.

But the great unwash prols do just watch soaps and the likes of Big Brother, I would suggest that your circle of friends are not in the group that have had their brains replaced with gelo - but would the same be true of some of their kids?

So how do you learn about new stuff?

It used to be books, now the internet first then a book if there is a good one. Some TV might educate - however it is a tool that can be used manipulate the viewer and the lack of honesty has caught out many people/organizations that assumed the viewer didn't have the IQ to check the facts or that 'their secret' was safe. What I am stumbling to say is that I for one do not trust what I see on TV. Hollywood as shown that a man can fly, and uncovered news stories have shown that what is repoted as fact is not always the case.

Maybe that is the general case - TV has been able to make news items into visual fast food. You are aware that a hamburger has meat in it - but which type of animal, where it came from and how much is real meat remains a mystery.

We all walked before the wheel....................

Speak for yourself mate.

I'm a young man.

It's the only form of recreation they have at home, very few read anything other than the sports section in a news paper so it gives the lie to the theory that the great unwashed only use the TV for watching sport and soapies.

But the great unwash prols do just watch soaps and the likes of Big Brother, I would suggest that your circle of friends are not in the group that have had their brains replaced with gelo - but would the same be true of some of their kids?

I agree with the OP. TV mostly educates the masses and although there are some terrible shows, there are many excellent ones as well. Even game shows are often educational. Many consumers might watch both types, but very few only watch trash.

I love to read in my free time, but nowadays, I also turn on the TV and watch CNN or the BBC whenever I don't have time for a book and catch up on the latest news or some excellent documentaries.

I don't think that the masses in the West - in general - are stupid these days. As Scea says, they have all kinds of interests that they have never cared about before and they are exposed to much of it on TV.

They are not all rocket scientists or top Oxford debaters, but how many of us are?

There's nothing annoys someone with a little formal education more than the suggestion that another person may have picked up a little knowledge without having to sit in a classroom for it.

I'll admit that TV and the internet will go down in history as the great wasted opportunities to be educational tools, but many people left school early for reasons other than stupidity.

My father never attended high school, something that still embarrasses him.

He retired in a senior management position, served his community as a local government councilman and magistrate and continues his war service to his country to this present day by working for veteran's widows and children.

He's 87 and I love him dearly, he shows me what a life lived to the full is like.

There's nothing annoys someone with a little formal education more than the suggestion that another person may have picked up a little knowledge without having to sit in a classroom for it.

I accept your point but have been surrounded most of my life by people who have graduated from the school of hard knocks and along the way picked up a lot of knowledge. As an engineer I worked mainly with techs who had years of experience. I learned the practicalities of my (then) profession in conjunction with the knowledge I gained at university.

I'll admit that TV and the internet will go down in history as the great wasted opportunities to be educational tools, but many people left school early for reasons other than stupidity.

I look at the shelves of books at most bookshops and see row after row of pot boiler crap dressed up as great literature. The Jackie Collins, Robert Ludlam formula books are light reads for people on trains not for people who wish to learn something new. In the same bookshop look for the reference section, the grat novels, the research material - it will be tucked at the back where no one visits unless looking for something specific or lost.

I left home before I was 15 and hitch hiked up to Katherine in the Northern Territory. I worked droving camps, mustered cattle, rode boundary fences, did a stint on the dog proof fence and did crap jobs for little pay. On a whim I joined the Army and stayed for 15 years. I did my High School certificate and then they decided to make me an officer. Some time later the Army decided to send me to University to learn engineering. After I left the service I did my MBA and now I am living in Thailand - go figure. I am not sure if all that learning made me any smarter but it gave me opportunities that would have been impossible if I hadn't.

I used to meet people like your grandfather and have the utmost respect for them, it saddens me that now it would be nigh on impossible for some one to do the same.

CB

In my experience the Internet is a poor source of information, Much of it is unreliable with poor research skills. One of my pet peeves is that ANYONE can put it on the net and it suddenly becomes "fact". No primary research, no attributation of source of the data just opinion without comeback.

CB

If you find Internet a poor source of information, what's the alternative ? I read several daily papers (looking for specific news) on internet in several languages; where else can I go ? The library ?

What was YOUR reliable source BEFORE Internet ? Where did you get your info from 10 years ago (when Internet info was just a fraction of what it is now) ?

my personal preference has always been and remains first level research and interpretation. Secondary research is mainly interpretation and while it may offer a different view does not add much new information. After this level most books become purely interpretive and go from research into the realms of information. They drop the rules of quoting and acknowledgement of sources, bibliographies if existing are stuck at the end and are more for credibility than actual data sources. It is also where primary and secondary sources become blurred and create new interpretations.

Internet sources frequently ignore these same rules. Anyone can pretty much write anything and get a large audience, this is especially true if they are controversial.

The other day I posted an article re Sarah Palin in this subforum. I posted it on purpose without comment and included a sub lnk to the Boston Herald newspaper where the claim was purportedly validated. In reality the only validation made was that Anne Kilkenny (the author) did come from the smae town as Palin, and knew her. What was not verified if ANY of the information she wrote was true and verifiable. It was accepted on face value and has now become 'fact" - tell one person it is gossip, tell 10 it is rumour but tell enough and it becomes "the truth"

A single woman who is a registered democrat and opponent of Palen has with a simple blog brought the Republican campaign to the point where they must be contemplating dumping her from the ticket. This point has already been reported in main stream news.

But there is a lot of truth in what you say Crow Boy, but it's exactly the same with television.

Every world citizen base his/her opinion on what they SEE....

Everyone has the ability to use the information they receive from whatever source and then interpret it based on what they already know and their own common sense. what people choose to do is much less logical.

CB

We all walked before the wheel....................

Speak for yourself mate.

I'm a young man.

So you were still swimming then?

(er sorry Kayo, seem to have been picking on you lately, its not personal. Really )

They are not all rocket scientists or top Oxford debaters, but how many of us are?

Cambridge Debaters, Please.... (not that I care, I'm just their bartender)

There's nothing annoys someone with a little formal education more than the suggestion that another person may have picked up a little knowledge without having to sit in a classroom for it.

I accept your point but have been surrounded most of my life by people who have graduated from the school of hard knocks and along the way picked up a lot of knowledge. As an engineer I worked mainly with techs who had years of experience. I learned the practicalities of my (then) profession in conjunction with the knowledge I gained at university.

I'll admit that TV and the internet will go down in history as the great wasted opportunities to be educational tools, but many people left school early for reasons other than stupidity.

I look at the shelves of books at most bookshops and see row after row of pot boiler crap dressed up as great literature. The Jackie Collins, Robert Ludlam formula books are light reads for people on trains not for people who wish to learn something new. In the same bookshop look for the reference section, the grat novels, the research material - it will be tucked at the back where no one visits unless looking for something specific or lost.

I left home before I was 15 and hitch hiked up to Katherine in the Northern Territory. I worked droving camps, mustered cattle, rode boundary fences, did a stint on the dog proof fence and did crap jobs for little pay. On a whim I joined the Army and stayed for 15 years. I did my High School certificate and then they decided to make me an officer. Some time later the Army decided to send me to University to learn engineering. After I left the service I did my MBA and now I am living in Thailand - go figure. I am not sure if all that learning made me any smarter but it gave me opportunities that would have been impossible if I hadn't.

I used to meet people like your grandfather and have the utmost respect for them, it saddens me that now it would be nigh on impossible for some one to do the same.

CB

As the years have drifted idly by, I find myself ever increasingly interested in learning. I dropped out of high school when I was fifteen or sixteen, and am now edging towards 30. I still get paid about the same as I did back in the day (adjusted a fair ways under inflation), cos, frankly, my "official" qualifications are the same and I've changed jobs and countries too often for there to be any hint of a stable CV. I once got paid ridiculously well, when I per-chance got a gig in an ad agency. I could have stuck with it, and gone onto a career there. But it wasn't my thang. I preferred the bars.

As CB suggests, though, the hard-knock life taught me more than I would ever have imagined about life than "learning". Not TV, not the Net, but being out there. Having to build your own roof. Surviving a lethal Hurricane. Building the bar that is going to earn you a living. Adjusting to new civilisations, cultures, etc...

What is it people are taught at Uni? OK, in certain technical, and many scientific areas, I grant you, probably quite a lot.

But what does the average Joe qualify with? An international business degree... an economics degree... A language degree... A media-photography degree... whatever? Ultimately, many businesses look for a degree, yes; however, they care little for which degree one has.

University teaches people certain ways to "be", in a civilised society apparently.

I dunno. I just helped (did most) of my French GF's British BA theses and assignments last year. None of the content is going to affect her future work diddly.

What it did do, is teach her how to write formal reports, how to do research into (lame) subject matter.

Oh, and how to get her boyfriend to put it all into comprehensible English.

Sorry, drifting... I was saying I get increasingly more interested in learning about things I knew little or nothing about. I find a lot of info on the Net, sure. I think it's a great resource. Of course, due to the sheer quantity of information, one has to be somewhat careful, and often selective.

However, I don't see how this is particularly different to going to a library and perusing the dozens (or more) books on any subject. Ultimately one picks and chooses. I dare say this is the same with TV.

Years ago, the BBC was renowned, the world over, for fair, generally impartial reporting of current affairs (perhaps not sports, understandably). Documentaries came under that renown also.

These days, I don't really know. I don't watch a lot terrestial tv, and the BBC has over the years massively expanded their commercial activities also, which inevitably will have some effect on their programming.

Everything is written by somebody. Be it a script, a book, or a webpage. It's ultimately, imho, baout picking and choosing.

Who was it, who said: History is only remembered in the manner of those who wrote of it?

After reading this thread, I don't dare look up a source...

Eek, I'm used to women doing extreme things to grab my attention. However, I must stress that I intend to remain faithful to my partner.

(a half bottle of tequila should do the trick though honey. )

Who was it, who said: History is only remembered in the manner of those who wrote of it?

Tacitus although it is commonly attributed to his sponsor Ceasar

The quote is normally written as "history is written by the victor"

CB

I look at the shelves of books at most bookshops and see row after row of pot boiler crap dressed up as great literature. The Jackie Collins, Robert Ludlam formula books are light reads for people on trains not for people who wish to learn something new. In the same bookshop look for the reference section, the grat novels, the research material - it will be tucked at the back where no one visits unless looking for something specific or lost.

All I can say is that in my stores the modern classics - what I would call great literature - are much more popular than the pulp fiction like Clancy and Grisham or Patricia Cornwell, but a lot of people like to go back and forth between popular science, popular history, great novels and beach reading, so they don't get bored of stuff that is too serious or stuck on fun reading that is too shallow.

Personally, I like to read almost anything that is well written and screw the snob value.

I'll agree that Ulysses has his bookshop laid out so that books of all genres are readily accessible.

Wilbur Smith certainly gains no advantage over Hemingway or Steinbeck.

Wilbur Smith is actually a fine writer and his books are in great demand. Unlike Grisham, Clancy and that lot, I can not find enough Wilbur Smith novels to keep the shelves full all of the time.

You don't have to be boring to be "good".

I look at the shelves of books at most bookshops and see row after row of pot boiler crap dressed up as great literature. The Jackie Collins, Robert Ludlam formula books are light reads for people on trains not for people who wish to learn something new. In the same bookshop look for the reference section, the grat novels, the research material - it will be tucked at the back where no one visits unless looking for something specific or lost.

All I can say is that in my stores the modern classics - what I would call great literature - are much more popular than the pulp fiction like Clancy and Grisham or Patricia Cornwell, but a lot of people like to go back and forth between popular science, popular history, great novels and beach reading, so they don't get bored of stuff that is too serious or stuck on fun reading that is too shallow.

Personally, I like to read almost anything that is well written and screw the snob value.

I did say MOST not al and did not in any way include your fine establishment in that list

Let me know when you open a branch down here in Pattaya - there is a library in Soi 6 so perhaps you could open up a branch there as well

CB

Are you living at Pattaya CB?

I really have to try to keep up with events around here.