Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
ffi"a
We are constantly subjected to the drip, drip, drip of arguments and
concerns in the media about specific aspects of television. Perhaps you
read last week about a new connection between television viewing and
obesity; today, you may hear of another controversy about television
violence; tomorrow, a study looking at the effects of television on our
social skills will be published. But debate has focused on the narrower
and in many ways safer issue of the messages relayed by television as
opposed to the wider issue of the medium itself. Yes, we are watching
too much, but there is far more to this issue that we are not aware of
There is also the gritty reality of academic funding and image. There is
little money, funding and public gratitude in looking for the negative
effects of the television screen. lt is far easier and safer to eiplore 75
avenues ihat seem to acquit television or, better yet, seek out its virtues.
Centres for media studies, which produce most of the research about
television, seem curiously prone to sitting on the fence, so it is hardly
surprising that the incriminating research concerning television comes
from outside their jurisdiction. lt is often studies that focus upon health BO
rather than television that happen upon worrying links between the two.
Finally, there are other reasons why we have not had ihe biq debate Vet.
Televrsion is a cultural force equalled in history only by reliqion, so
should we be surprised that the media and government have stood jn
the way of a forensic examination? After all both need us - the 85
bewildered herd - to continue to take our cue from the screen
'1 Television turns out to be a brilliant medium for assessing other people's
emotional intelligence - a property that is too often ignored when critics
evaluate the medium's carrylng capacity for thoughtful comment. Part of
this neglect stems from lhe age-old opposition beh/veen intelligence and
emotion: intelligence is following a chess match or imparting a
sophisticated rhetorical argument on a matter of public policy; emotions
are the province of soap operas. But countless studies have
demonslrated ihe pivotal role that emotional intelligence , plays in
seemingly high-minded arenas: business, law and politics. Any
profession that involves regular interaction with other people will place a 10
high premium on mind-reading and emotional lQ. Of all the media
available to us today, television is uniquely suited for conveying the flne
gradients of these social skills. A book will give you a better vista of an
individual's life story, and a newspaper op-ed is a better format for a
riggrous argument, but if you are trying to evaluate a given person's 15
emotional lQ and you do not have the option of sitting down with them in
person, the tight focus of television is your best bet. Reality
programming has simply recognised that intrinsic strength and built a
whole genre around it.
3 But the visibility of the medium extends beyond hairstyles and skin tone. 30
When we see our politicians in the global living room of televised
intimacy, we are not able to detect more profound qualities in them: not
just their grooming, but their emotional antennae - their ability to
connect, outfox, condemn or console. We see them as emotional
mindreaders, and there are few qualities in an individual more predictive
of their ability to govern a country, because mindreading is so central to
the art of persuasion. Presidents make formal appearances and sit for
portraits and host galas, but their day-to-day job is moiivating and
persuading other people to follow their lead. To motivate and persuade,
you have to have an innate radar for other people's mental states. For 40
an ordinary voter, it is almost impossible to get a sense for a given
candidate's emotional radar without seeing them in person, in an
unscripted setting. You cannot get a sense of a candidate's mindreading
skills by watching them give a memorised stump speech, or seeing their
thirty-second ads, or God knows reading their caripaign blog posis. But 45
what does give you ihat kind of information is the one-on one television
intei-view format - Meet the ,Dress and Chalie Rose, of course, but
probably more effeclively, Oprah, because the format is more social and
free-flowing.
Note: When a question asks for an answer iN YOUR OWN WORDS AS FAR AS
POSSIBLE and you select the appropriate material from the passage for your
answer, you must still use your own words to express it. Litfle credit can be given to
answers which onli copy words and phrases from the passage.
From Passage A
Paragraph 1
1 What does 'drip, drip, drip' suggest about the arguments and concerns in
the media about specific aspects oftelevision? pl
Paragraph 2
2 Why are 'lifestyle' and 'choice' enclosed within inverted commas? t1l
Paraqraph 4
3 Why is it 'inconvenient' to reconsicler the role of television in our jives?
Use your own words as far as possible.
I2l
Paragraph 5
4 Why, according to the author, is it difficult ,to have an honedt look at the
effects of television'? Use your own words as far as possible .
l2l
Paragraph 6
5 What is the author's purpose in referring to the ry, sugar and tobacco
induslriest pj
6 From paragraphs 7 and 8, summarise the factors that the author believes
impede or hinder proper consideration of the negative effects of television.
Write your summary in not more than 120 words, not counting the
opening:
"One of the facto.s that impede or hinder such proper consideration is ...', Igl
7 Explain the meaning of the following words as they are used in the
passages. Write your answer in one word or a short phrase.
B Paragraph 1
What does the author mean by 'the tight focus of television'? 121
Paragraph 2 .
I Why does Johnson say ihat'the guy with the best make-up always wins'? [2]
Parcgraph 4
10 What does 'much-maligned' say about the author's attitude towards
popular TV talk shows on politics? t1l
Which author's view do you sympathise with more, based on your own
knowledqe and experience? You may use examples from your own
country to substantiate your ideas. IBl
!!
End of Paper