Gift Idea: "Everything Bad Is Good For You"

[EagerMind]

That's exactly my point. I don't consider the History Channel to be mainstream, but it's a perfect example of the type of useful content that's out there if you look for it.

I think the growth of niche programming has been a huge boon to the consumer. It's a trend that I think will grow as broadband internet continues to spread and podcasting and internet television become more popular and accessible. Highly-specialized, low-budget content will be able to succeed with an audience of just a few thousand people.

Heck, even these forums - giving a voice to a scattered, niche community and allowing them to share and discuss ideas - is an example of what's possible, and I think perhaps an example of where we'll see more popular media begin to go.

[evenwolf]

I'm pretty sure Johnson would have added a whole new chapter to his book if he had ever played or seen someone playing Monkey Island...

But yeah, he talks about the culture of video games and the countless dialogues and tutorials spawned from common interest found all over the internet.    Anyway, I'm glad people are debating.    And it seems the talk has gotten a bit more sophisticated since last time I checked.

[DGMacphee]

people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels.

I don't find anything surprising about this result. People tend to remember stuff better if the person trying to remember it is engaged in the information. Think of the bottom-of-the-class student who can't remember any of the lessons but can ramble off years of sports stats with ease. I'd expect the Daily Show, which engages its audience with laughter - a very positive, memory-building stimulus - to be much more interesting and memory-enhancing than the regular news.

This is my point. 50 years ago there wasn't a show like The Daily Show. It's an advanced form of news show. It's the kind of show that requires a certain level of intertextuality between it and other shows/media. You have to understand these links before you understand The Daily Show. Hence, why a show like The Daily Show is benefitial.

News satire had the same educational value as regular news, and ... people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better

Of course. Satire requires understanding of the subject being satirized.

people who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news.

I'll admit, this is surprising. I have no desire to watch the regular news after watching the Daily Show.

But you've just brought a conflict in your statements. You said news satire requires an understanding of the subject being satirised but it doesn't encourage study of the subject.  How else does one "get" the Daily Show? THere has to be some encouragement to follow regular news if you're going to follow The Daily Show.

if you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it.

See, this is where I disagree. People point to the explosion of shows with long story arcs (Lost, 24, Alias, etc.) as proof of "growing complexity." But I disagree for several reasons:

1. Shows like this (endless, constantly-evolving story arcs) have existed for quite a long time, in the form of afternoon soap operas, prime-time soaps (anyone remember Dallas?), and arguably even professional wrestling (which is usually more about the story arcs than the wrestling, and frequently referred to as "soap opera for men"). And if you look at other media - comic books spring to mind, but also old radio serials and saturday matinee sci-fi serials at the movie theaters - this form of story-telling has existed for decades, and traditionally been directed at kids!

These are  progressive evolutions of shows. You can't tell me that a soap opera or Dallas are as complex as something like 24. Also, look at a show like Arrested Development, which mocks such soap operas.

And also comic books have become more complex. Consider in the movie Big where the Tom Hanks character wants to create an interactive comic book.

And interactive comics are a little like... umm... what are those things called... they're like games that you can play on your computer... and they're like adventures... i forget the name but it's some kind of genre word... Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

2. I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence. As DVD sales of television series has taken off, I think it's more likely a commitment to boost profits. I don't normally watch Lost, but I caught an episode recently. I thought it was interesting, and I was able to piece together some of characters' motivations, but ultimately I really didn't know what was going on. I don't think it means I'm dumb or that the show was unusually complex, I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.

But that's my point: they have to engage you with such a show using certain methods. Not only that, you can't just limt your viewing of this theory to just one show, but a complex web of media. Shows these day are more connected than they were many decades ago. Watch Arrested Development and spot how it ties into other shows and movies.

3. I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline. Lost may have a complex storyline stretching back to the beginning of the show, but what happens in each episode? The one I saw was relatively simplistic - a rescue mission, with a couple flashbacks to explain motivation. But look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order. Minimal tie-ins between each episode, yet individually each one raises questions about and debates issues of public policy, law, and ethics. West Wing obviously puts a liberal/Democratic spin on it, Law & Order generally makes a convincing arguement for both sides and usually doesn't provide any answers (leaving the viewer to form their own conclusions, or learn more about the issue themselves).

But this is another good example. Not many TV dramas of the past were able to explore political issues. I can't think of another show that did the same as The West Wing. To understand the show, you do need some degree of understanding on how a) The American political system works, and b) current US political issues.

News programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.

Again, I disagree:

1. Let's not confuse advance in technology with increased complexity. In the 50's, you didn't have live satellite feeds. Now you do. And cutting to a poor reporter standing in the middle of a hurricane or riding on a tank in the middle of a battlefield is much more compelling television than someone in a studio talking about the devastation. It's all about visual stimulus.

But that's the issue. Forget the technology. The visual stimulus has become harder to follow. Even with a live feed from a reporter in mid-battle still has a scroll bar and headlines while the reporter talks. You'll notice they don't suddenly cut to a full screen view.

Also, now people can send e-mail to such shows or even start their own blog about the issues. They're becoming participants to the culture, thus demonstrating how we're engaging with it.

... just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.

I don't this is a good example. The army relies on a lot of conditioning techniques and repetition to improve performance on a single task. So, they use computer technology to filter external info for pilots to help them be better pilots. Great. But how does that help with other problm-solving tasks. How does that allow them to become creative thinkers and enhance their options at solving a problem?

It just seems to be: focus on this, become a better pilot, repeat. That doesn't represent intelligence. I believe intelligence relates to free thinking and opening your mind to possibilities.

It's like a guy who uses a hammer, and is so focused on using a hammer, that he becomes the best hammer-guy in the world. But what happens when he comes accross a screw. He's fucked!

I'm not saying that people should get their complete education from TV, but I do feel that
people are able to foster better connections between things if they add popular culture to our diet.

Fundamentally, we are still only able to process one subject at a time. When I'm reading the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I'm not focusing on what the announcer is saying, and vice-versa. There may be more information on the television screen, but I'm still only following one thread. Furthermore, our minds require a certain amount of dwell time to absorb a particular subject, comprehend it, and remember it. Jumping erratically from subject to subject doesn't improve our intelligence, but instead degrades it. In the end, maybe all that information on the screen isn't helping us!

I think you're limiting Johnson's argument to just TV. No. It applies to popular culture as a whole. The fact that we can understand how one thing links to another aids our ability to solve complex problems better.

Finally, let me just say that I think this is a really interesting discussion. I've come to learn that tone can be easily misinterpreted through the written word, so I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I don't want to see this discussion end in an unintentional flame war because of some falsely-perceived insult!

FUCK YOU PANSY






Do I really have to add a "just joking" to the end of that? 

[evenwolf]

Even if you do use the choppy editing as an example, and that viewers are growing more impatient...Ã,  wouldn't you also have to make the argument that viewers were actually patient while watching Three's Company?Ã,  Ã, Or Full House?

If viewers sat through entire episodes, even marathons, of those shows - wouldn't that prove that television audiences were at one point - retarded?Ã,  Ã, 

Now I will say that most shows have made trade-offs with their chop shop editing.Ã,  Ã, Dialogue.Ã,  Ã, Television writers don't have to worry about crafting the english langauge anymore.Ã,  Its just one statement after the other, a couple a questions. and then someone gets shot.Ã,  Ã,  Ã, But I would argue that television is doing quite well compared to Theatre in this regard.Ã,  Ã, I've given up on going to plays anymore after witnessing multiple shitty productions.   MFA theater students write the worst plays from what I've seen. with monologues that are the stupidest drivel  on the face of the earth.  And that's when theater companies aren't reciting Shakespeare!Ã,  Ã, That's as creative as theatre will ever get.Ã,  Ã, People recycling the same plays over an dover again.Ã,  "Oooh, we'll set Hamlet in an insurane brokers office!"

Now you can blame the fall of theater on the rise of television.   But how productive is that?   Next you'll want to petition a collective agreement to ban TV.    But the dialogue has lost focus in TV and films. 

Instead of crafty rhetoric and flowing prose, most shows drown the viewer in technical or legal jargon.Ã,  Ã, I would even include X- Files.Ã,  Ã, "Scully, the pyschosphere of his brain appears to be shattered.Ã,  Maybe if I apply this benzine circusometer the wound will heal itself in the fourth dimension."  Miami Vice tried this shit and failed!  Michael Mann, and I still hate the movie!

oh, and it was brilliant when South Park called out Family Guy on the "Man, this is worse than that one time..."Ã,  gag.Ã,  Ã, More shows need good humor and good dialogue.Ã,  Its a hard thing to accomplish.Ã,  Ã, But I believe many shows are upping the ante even though they could take the "drown the audience in jargon or inside jokes" method.

[DGMacphee]

Television writers don't have to worry about crafting the english langauge anymore.  Its just one statement after the other, a couple a questions. and then someone gets shot.

I disagree and would say they care more than ever. One of the big challenges facing TV writers, and in fact most writers, is that due to shrinking time and space constraints they have to say as much as possible, be as expressive as possible using the least amount of words possible.

I think they're now more than ever making things tighter and more impactful. Granted, there are no long-running ultra-expressive stream of consciousness sentences you might find in, say, a Virgina Woolf novel (and I'm biased here and find Woolf painful to read) but I do think it's a challenge for TV writers to "cut the fat" as much as possible.

Shows like Arrested Development or The Sopranos are very tightly written, every line of dialogue contributing, advancing the story, and all lines tightly wounds together.

Instead of crafty rhetoric and flowing prose, most shows drown the viewer in technical or legal jargon.   I would even include X- Files.   "Scully, the pyschosphere of his brain appears to be shattered.  Maybe if I apply this benzine circusometer the wound will heal itself in the fourth dimension."  Miami Vice tried this shit and failed!  Michael Mann, and I still hate the movie!

I do agree that "jargon" can sometimes hinder a TV show. Orwell in Politics and The English language says "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." What I do like is that in some shows they do explain the idea behind the jargon. Star Trek was good at this (A Futurama episode even said that on Star Trek they'd solve problems with a complex jargon-filled explanation and then re-explain it with a simple metaphor -- "Like putting too much air into a balloon!").

Perhaps the jargon is to give the show a sense of realism. I can see why a show like House would use a lot of complex medical jargon. But I do think with a lot of these shows there is a degfree of understanding because I can understand what's going on in a show like House.

oh, and it was brilliant when South Park called out Family Guy on the "Man, this is worse than that one time..."  gag.   More shows need good humor and good dialogue.  Its a hard thing to accomplish.   But I believe many shows are upping the ante even though they could take the "drown the audience in jargon or inside jokes" method.

I'm at odds here because while I think South Park is very cutting-edge satire and funny in its own right, I still think Family Guy's writers are damn good at constructing a joke and telling it extremely well. Despite how they integrate them into the story, they can still give a rapidfire succession of good punchlines. How anyone can't adore Chris showing an abstract painting and saying, "It's partly an expression of my teenage angst... but mostly it's a moo-cow!" is beyond me.

It also doesn't try to be self-important, like South Park can be sometimes. Like Kyle says in the same episode: "At least [Family Guy] doesn't get all preachy and up its own ass with messages, you know?" And keep in mind, before South Park became deep social commentary, it was about aliens communicating with a satellite dish sticking out of Cartman's rectum.

I think MacFarlane said it best in his speech at the Harvard class day 2006, when speaking as Stewie Griffin:
   
"You're wondering to yourselves: what can I expect from the outside world? Will I find my niche? What should I know about the vast territory that lies beyond the confines of my little subculture of textbooks, Ramen noodles, coin-operated laundry and TV shows that seem to think they can skate by with random jokes about giant chickens that have absolutely nothing to do with the overall narrative? The boys at South Park are absolutely correct: Those cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story! They're just there to be ... funny. And that is a shallow indulgence that South Park is quite above, and for that I salute them."

[big brother]

Yeah, I don't think we can hold up most modern TV shows as bastions of creativity or originality (http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/09/why-i-hate-family-guy.html).

Just because shows are graduating to cross-platform experiences doesn't somehow make more clever or better produced. To a large part, these shows are trying to integrate themselves with the internet and other interactive media to boost dying ratings. TV viewership (esp for the envied 18-25 year old male segment) has been dropping steadily over the years.

If you look at modern cartoons, you will see a huge lack of production quality. Cheaper processes (that look cheaper, too) and totally ignorant dev execs are mostly to blame here. If you're interested, this is a good article:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search&sval=RD01&article_no=2738

[Andail]

What bothers me the most is the plethora of tv-shows that american networks totally pour out over the world of television, all following the fools-proof moulds designed by huge teams of market analysts, promoters and professional material writers, which in the end makes every sit-com look like every other sit-com, every soap opera like every other soap opera and every reality show like every other god darn reality show.
Before anything is allowed to come even close to a viewer, it has to be groomed, polished and worked over by the endless rows of experts who know exactly what the broad audience crave, until the whole thing reaches a stage where the professionals dictate what the audience wants and the audience goes along and think they want it too.

I think when people discuss differences between cartoon sit-com X and Y, they don't realise how painfully similar these actually are, and that they both belong to a very narrow and crowded paradigm. Network pr, campaigns and commercialism only allow clones; the truly original stuff is too unsafe and may not appeal to the masses fast enough to yield profit.

Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones; copies of a prototype whose sole purpose is higher ratings quickly.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones

Unfortunately, I think this period of history has already come and gone.

[DGMacphee]

Yeah, I don't think we can hold up most modern TV shows as bastions of creativity or originality (http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/09/why-i-hate-family-guy.html).

1. What the article is talking about is "I think Family Guy content=bad", but not the what the actual techniques of the show do. It's an opinion, and nothing really scientific about it. And although some may not like the content of the show, that still doesn't disregard that one must understand certain external media before watching the show to understand it.

2. The criticism against cutaway jokes and references is pretty disingenuious. Critics hail Arrested Development as one of the best shows ever and it has a huge number of cutaway references to a lot of things. Consider, for example, the numerous Happy Days references. They're not relevant to the plot, but they're damn funny. Gotta love Barry Zuckercorn about to comb his hair in front of the mirror like The Fonz.

3. Finally, I was about to criticise the article you posted as "just being some guy with blog", no scientific explanation or discussion as to what the show is actually doing. However, I thought about it a little more and I think that blog entry itself is proof of what Johnson is talking about. People are able to watch a show and provide their own analysis of the content using blogs today. The relationship between TV and Internet allow help the viewer become more than a passive viewer; they become someone who interacts with the culture.

Just because shows are graduating to cross-platform experiences doesn't somehow make more clever or better produced. To a large part, these shows are trying to integrate themselves with the internet and other interactive media to boost dying ratings. TV viewership (esp for the envied 18-25 year old male segment) has been dropping steadily over the years.

Bullshit! Who says TV viewership has been declining?

In 2000, the total number of television households in the US was 102.2 million. Now, it's 111.4 million.

In 2000, the total number of viewers was 259.9 million. Now, it's 283.5 million

In the last year alone, there was a 1.1 per cent increase in US Television Households.

There have even been significant increases across all demographics. In the 18-24 category, there was a 2 per cent increase.

This is all according to reports from Nielsen Media Research.

Just to reiterate what I said: TV viewership has been dropping steadily over the years?

BULLSHIT!

And if you look the last highest-rated TV show of the year (American Idol, also according the Neilson Media Reaserch), you'll see it has significantly increased viewership over the last few years. American Idol has more than doubled from an average of 12.5 million in the first season to 30.16 in the latest season. This is only in 5 years!

Now I'm not a huge Idol watcher. Reality TV/karaoke contest isn't my thing. But Idol is an example of a participatory/interactive media show. People can watch the show but not as a passive viewer; they make decisions about who they want to continue to the next round and vote via phone or SMS. They are interfacing with the culture. And I can see how this is more sophisicated compared to highest-rating TV shows from several decades ago like  The $64,000 Question or The Beverly Hillbillies.

And what you've said about the internet doesn't prove that audiences aren't getting smarter. The internet allows a participatory medium, which is different from several years ago where TV viewers would remain as passive viewer to the culture. Now people are interacting with the culture.

The fact that TV networks are integrating online proves they're trying to cater to desires of an audience that wants intertextuality.

If you look at modern cartoons, you will see a huge lack of production quality. Cheaper processes (that look cheaper, too) and totally ignorant dev execs are mostly to blame here. If you're interested, this is a good article:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search&sval=RD01&article_no=2738

Great, a lack of production quality. Does that prove TV audiences aren't getting smarter? No, it only proves TV execs are thifty. But can you honestly say that the TV audience of The Simpsons era is dumber than the audience of the Flintstones era?

I fucking doubt it.

Before anything is allowed to come even close to a viewer, it has to be groomed, polished and worked over by the endless rows of experts who know exactly what the broad audience crave, until the whole thing reaches a stage where the professionals dictate what the audience wants and the audience goes along and think they want it too.

And how does this transition from catering to audience desire to forcing audience desire happen? Magic?

I still think the average audience member is smart enough to know what's not engaging. Otherwise the network demi-gods would use their sorcery to have us all watching Stacked with Pamela Anderson.

But let me give you an example where even experts can fail: Katie Couric.

Katie Couric's move from the US Today Show to the CBS News was a huge hype-up by network execs from CBS. People thought it was an excellent move.

However, in the short time she's been at CBS, her ratings initially peaked a short while and now have dropped below that of previous host Bob Schieffer. Not only that, today they're reporting more bad news for Couric: ratings for the Today Show have increaed since her departure.

It doesn't matter how much experts can polish. They can still lose an audience. They're not wizards. They can't cast "watch TV spells" on people. People can tune out and find something that engages them more.

I think when people discuss differences between cartoon sit-com X and Y, they don't realise how painfully similar these actually are, and that they both belong to a very narrow and crowded paradigm. Network pr, campaigns and commercialism only allow clones; the truly original stuff is too unsafe and may not appeal to the masses fast enough to yield profit.

What about 24? That's a very original concept and appeals to a mass audience.

The Simpsons when it first started was original and connected to a mass audience too.

The Daily Show?

Colbet Report?

And I'd still argue that a show like Dancing with the Stars has a higher level of sophistication than shows from 50 years ago.

Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones; copies of a prototype whose sole purpose is higher ratings quickly.

But people are allowed to experiment. 24 is experimentation. Arrested Development is too. Lost is pretty unique too. The Sopranos. Six Feet Under.

What about The Daily Show? Colbert Report? They're experiments in comedy combined with news.

Even Keith Olbermann's Countdown is an alternative type of news show. And his ratings are increasing.

Matt Groening was allowed to experiment with The Simpsons.

South Park anyone?

Even the highest-rated show in the US, Dancing with the Stars, is something of an experimentation. Who'da thought so many people would be into ballroom dancing?

Even Seinfeld, the highest-rated show for two years (1995 and 1998) was experimental.

I think we're living a fallacy that all TV shows are the same. Sure, King of Queens looks like According to Jim. Granted, there are heaps of CSIs and Law and Order shows. But I do think there's variety out there. Not every show is a sitcom about a chubby husband and his hot wife or a CSI: Law and Order Division.

[evenwolf]

There's a great story arc in Ricky Gervais's new show Extras where his character is forced to sell out by manufacturing a sitcom "When the Whistle Blows"  for the BBC.   "Is he having a laugh?! Is he having a laugh!?"

The satire involved in this storyline and the fact Gervais trusts the audience to get the joke of a "sell out show" within his own show demonstrates to me that TV culture has come a long way.

The fact that intellectuals flock to his version of the Office rather than the watered down American version.  The fact that people watch the Office to begin with because its a fresh angle at comedy in a dumbed down and dying culture of sitcoms.

Audiences have more choices than ever.   The fact that TV intellectuals even exist should tell you that.   If you had nothing to watch but Fear Factor, and nothing to do on the computer or otherwise - but to watch Fear Factor.   Most likely you would watch it not to be left out in the water cooler conversations the next day.   You can piss and moan all you want about this show... or that show.    But ultimately you are being served an alternative, a quite satisfying one whether the Daily Show or the Office or the Apprentice,  and that's one thing audiences never had on the scale that we do.

I watched Cheers and Night Court and I don't remember hearing anybody bitching about it.

[DGMacphee]

Aye, people have always bitched about TV rotting the brains. Even during periods where MASH or Seinfeld were popular shows.

Speaking of The Office, I think the American version has finally found its groove. When I first saw it, yeap, it looked like a misguided rehash of the UK version. Now, after a few seasons, I think it's become its own show and not an imitator anymore.

In debating which is better, the UK one will always win out. It was the genesis. However, I think they're now two completely different shows, as opposed to the French version which hasn't really diverted from the UK version.

[big brother]

I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best)  and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.). You can read up on any agency and this seems to be the trend: TV is going the route of radio. It's still a bit early to be certain, but the dollars are already shifting. As of last year, the internet advertising arena is past saturation and interactivity is the keyword.

You might be a little deceived by increases in certain statistics. Keep in mind the the population in America is growing at a very rapid rate (legal and otherwise).

You are correct, the Family Guy blog post is an opinion (like most of the internet). My main point was the show isn't original (read the part about Stewie and the referential "punchlines"). Daily Show also has its moments, but I'd hesitate to call it original (think back to SNL). Satire has a history past Swift's "Modest Proposal" and it's just seen on a different medium here (as they say in the industry, a "cold" medium, even).

I enjoyed AD as much as the next critic, but to be honest, it was very poorly received by the general public (or at least the Neilson representative public) and was axed. When it comes to shows, TV Networks behave like businesses regardless of the "intelligence" or "intertextuality" of the show. Keep in mind that Family Guy was also axed back in the day.

I believe the American version of "The Office" makes the sucessful multi-vehicle leap because of its content. It's easy for advertisers, since it has a distinctive style of humor, a certain setting, and a fairly specific audience. The mobisode and downloadable content (podcasts, etc.) relate perfectly to the technology adoption interval of its audience.

Don't forget that Steven Johnson is primarily trying to make a living, just like the rest of us. No need to deify his means.

[DGMacphee]

I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best)  and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.). You can read up on any agency and this seems to be the trend: TV is going the route of radio. It's still a bit early to be certain, but the dollars are already shifting. As of last year, the internet advertising arena is past saturation and interactivity is the keyword.

You might be a little deceived by increases in certain statistics. Keep in mind the the population in America is growing at a very rapid rate (legal and otherwise).

Wow, the total population is growing. Big fucking deal.

The fact is that the number of heads watching TVs are increasing, despite what happens to the total population. I mean, just because the population increases doesn't change that there are more people watching TV. Which was your original point.

Remember the part where you said TV viewership is dropping?

So the total population is increasing: so what? Big deal. You're still wrong in saying TV viewership is decreasing. And you said NOTHING about ad spending previously. In fact, ad spending has no impact on whether TV viewership is increasing or decreasing. It only determines the commercial viability of the medium. I mean, bringing that up seems to imply that the audience will increase if you pump more ad dollars into buying airtime to hawk shitty products. And audience numbers are dropping because advertisers are spending less on the medium.

Even if less money is spent on TV, the number of viewers has still increased. And lets say for example the average amount of advertising time is still the same but the costs are cheaper because they have to compete with the internet. There's an explanation that kicks your ad-spending rationale in the balls. Even though, like I said, it's totally irrelevant.

But my point is still correct and backed-up, TV viewership is increasing, not decreasing as you suggest.

In other words, you're wrong. Stop trying to make lame-ass validations, admit it, deal with it and move on.

As for the shift to interactivity, guess what: that's exactly what Johnson is talking about. People are no longer the passive viewers they once were. Our culture is making us more enlightened.

You are correct, the Family Guy blog post is an opinion (like most of the internet). My main point was the show isn't original (read the part about Stewie and the referential "punchlines").

I did read the part about Stewie and the referential punchlines. So what? If all you got is some yahoo's blog post about how Family Guy isn't original thus = not funny, then you really need to try harder.

I once read some yahoo's blog post about how Pulp Fiction wasn't original. He had a point but it's still a brilliant movie.

Daily Show also has its moments, but I'd hesitate to call it original (think back to SNL).

Cause SNL's Weekend Update was a half-hour show that explored politics with humour and included special political guests and improvised interviews and later lead to a spin-off that mocked Bill O'Riley. Yeah, those two are exactly the same thing.

I don't deny that Weekend Update was first on the scene. But The Daily Show is something completely different from it now.

Satire has a history past Swift's "Modest Proposal" and it's just seen on a different medium here (as they say in the industry, a "cold" medium, even).

I'm not saying satire is an original invention by The Daily Show. I mean, if you're going to jump to that conclusion, you might as well say Camus' The Outsider wasn't an original novel because his existentialist work was influenced by Nietzsche. And all books written in English are unoriginal because English language was an invention created many centuries ago.

I enjoyed AD as much as the next critic, but to be honest, it was very poorly received by the general public (or at least the Neilson representative public) and was axed. When it comes to shows, TV Networks behave like businesses regardless of the "intelligence" or "intertextuality" of the show.

Buuuuut, that doesn't change the fact it was original. Or does it? Why don't you tell me because that's why I brought it up. You know, cause Andail said there's no room for experimentation and I listed that out of a number of examples.

Like 24, which you ignored.

Even though it was a commercial success.

And an original attempt at experimentation.

Keep in mind that Family Guy was also axed back in the day.

And brought back to life because people bought a shitload of Family Guy DVDs. Likewise, Futurama is coming back. Your point was?

I believe the American version of "The Office" makes the sucessful multi-vehicle leap because of its content. It's easy for advertisers, since it has a distinctive style of humor, a certain setting, and a fairly specific audience. The mobisode and downloadable content (podcasts, etc.) relate perfectly to the technology adoption interval of its audience.

Which is Johnson's point.

Don't forget that Steven Johnson is primarily trying to make a living, just like the rest of us. No need to deify his means.

Haha, this coming from someone who calls himself "big brother".

Let me put it this way: Johnson wrote a book with good research to back it up, has written several other science books, has a background in science writing (particularly neuroscience) and works as a writer for the Univeristy of New York.

You, on the other hand, have some guy who doesn't like Family Guy writing in his blog, and an argument that seems to say our culture is shifting to an interactive and intertextual medium (the internet) but it's not the interactivity and intertextuality that's engaging people, which is a pretty conflicting point-of-view.

No offense to you, but who do you think I'm going to listen to?

If you really want to change my mind on this, okay, then convince me. Give me some tangible proof that our popular culture (including TV, music, video games, the internet) is rotting our brains.

[Nacho]

About something you mentioned before Daniel... "King of Queens" and "According to Jim" are being aired here, Jim just before Doug... Funny coincidence. 

[evenwolf]

I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best) and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.).

"the industry that fuels TV"

I don't know about anybody else but I resent advertising.Ã,  I took two college courses in advertisiing and the best excuse my professors had for why we need advertising people was "who else is going to do it?"

Who else is going to saturate my life with repetitive, annoying ads?Ã,  Ã, I think advertising sucks balls, and if less ads are being sold on TV - thank the lord!

We've gotten to a point where TV and the internet are soon going to merge.Ã,  Ã,  Companies like HP and Sony are all working on home entertainment systems that combine TV with the internet and I'm hoping the future of TV lies in subscriptions like HBO and services you renew online.

I can't stand commercials, and likewise think if anything lasts of advertising - that we get to a point of seemless product placement.Ã,  Ã,  Ã, Advertisers are the devil.

[big brother]

DG, I really don't understand your venom. If you disagree with something I wrote, why the ad hominem attacks? If you want to hold a discussion like civilized humans and explore different viewpoints, we can. If you want to fight, the forums aren't the place, that's what parking lots are for.

Just because I'm not supporting my statements doesn't give you the grounds to shriek BULLSHIT whenever I type a sentence. You're way out of line here.

You, on the other hand, have some guy who doesn't like Family Guy writing in his blog, and an argument that seems to say our culture is shifting to an interactive and intertextual medium (the internet) but it's not the interactivity and intertextuality that's engaging people, which is a pretty conflicting point-of-view.

Where did I say that interactivity doesn't engage people?

If you really want to change my mind on this, okay, then convince me. Give me some tangible proof that our popular culture (including TV, music, video games, the internet) is rotting our brains.

When did I say that we're getting dumber? But since you asked,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000070.htm
might be worth checking out.

Evenwolf, I agree that a majority of modern advertising is intrusive and unwanted. But keep in mind that internationally, it's a ~$45 billion dollar industry worldwide (roughly triple that of video games, which in turn are bigger than Hollywood, etc.). These ad dollars allow you to watch a TV show for free, and help keep the costs of public transportation, newspapers, and magazines down. Without advertising, many of your favorite sites and search engines (Yahoo, Google, Youtube, etc.) would not exist. Yes, it can be annoying, but at least for me, that's a price I'm willing to pay for the services I enjoy. Furthermore, if marketers decide that TV is no longer a worthwhile investment (high media space and production costs per GRP), they will put their budget into other media. With less money available, TV has to host MORE ads per segment to maintain show budgets, etc. It's the same slippery slope that transformed radio in past years.

Here are some quotes from Adage articles that reinforce some of my statements about the evolution TV is facing. I pulled most of these from cover articles, since it would be fairly time-consuming to review a year's worth of these trade journals. Note that all these articles are more recent than Steven's book (and the data within).

March 13, 2006 (Digital Buyers Step Into the Upfront Rumble)
"It looks like, for the most part, these video-media explorations are being taken out of the TV pot, rather than separate digital budgets. 'There's been a slow migration of broadcast dollars into video alternatives that will continue,' said Mr. Donchin (Director National Broadcast Buyer at Carat)."

March 27, 2006 (Over 75% of Advertisers Feel TV is Less Effective)
"Advertisers are suffering a crisis of confidence, according to a survey released by the Association of National Advertisers and Forrester Research as part of the ANA's TV Ad Forum. The survey revealed that 78% of the 133 national advertisers polled felt their traditional television spots had become less effective over the past two years. On top of that, 60% said that once DVR penetration hit 30 million, they'd cut spending on TV advertising. DVR penetration hovers around 10 million and is projected to reach 30 million within three years."

August 7, 2006 (TV Selling Power Slammed)
Stats from McKinsey & Co.'s report on media proliferation to Fortune 100 clients:
40% increase on ad spending on broadcast TV over the past 10 years as viewers have dropped by almost 50%
65% of consumers feel they're bombarded with too much advertising
54% avoid buying products that overwhelm them with too much advertising
600% amount more time spent online by teens compared to typical adults
44% of purchasing decisions at one telecom company were influenced by costumer interaction rather than advertising

[Ghost]

Sigh. I've read this topic with interest, even thought about buying that book... now I come home, and here it is again.

Big Brother has made a statement based on facts. One can think different, some may think these facts are far-fetched, some may agree, some may shrug and say, yeah sure. But why must someone *bang* jump in with swearwords and personal agression? I've seen it sometimes now, and heavens, it always spoils the mood. What are the forum rules good for?

Sorry, just had to say this.

[DGMacphee]

DG, I really don't understand your venom. If you disagree with something I wrote, why the ad hominem attacks? If you want to hold a discussion like civilized humans and explore different viewpoints, we can. If you want to fight, the forums aren't the place, that's what parking lots are for.

Just because I'm not supporting my statements doesn't give you the grounds to shriek BULLSHIT whenever I type a sentence. You're way out of line here.

Christ, are you really that sensitive?

What "ad hominem" attacks? I never once attacked your character. Probably the worst thing I said was, "Haha, this coming from someone who calls himself 'big brother'." If you're so offended by that, get a sense of humour, mate.

I mean, do you really think I'm saying this stuff because I hate you or something? Because I'm not. I don't hate you or anyone here. But it does disappoint me when people make baseless claims. And not just baseless claims, but claims that turn out to be false. And then trying to validate them when there's no basis for validation. That's just sheer insanity.

Yeah, I call bullshit on what you said because it IS bullshit. You tried to tell me that TV viewership was going down when the reverse was happening. I'm all for intelligent and civilised debate, but get your facts straight first. Otherwise, I'm just going to think, "Jesus, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about."

Where did I say that interactivity doesn't engage people?

You tried to say that "intertextuality" doesn't matter to an audience when later you said it does. Intertextuality functions as a form of interactive engagement. Not only that, you're trying to say there's a shift away from TV even though TV is becoming more interactive.

Something doesn't smell right in what you're saying. Maybe you can offer a further explanation?

When did I say that we're getting dumber? But since you asked,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000070.htm
might be worth checking out.

That doesn't prove our cognitive ability is declining. That just proves online video games can be an unhealthy addiction. Using that article to prove we're getting dumber is like trying to say chocolate isn't delicious because it's fattening.

Big Brother has made a statement based on facts.

No, he didn't. He assumed. And he based his assumption on something that had no relevance.

[EagerMind]

50 years ago there wasn't a show like The Daily Show. It's an advanced form of news show ....

... But you've just brought a conflict in your statements. You said news satire requires an understanding of the subject being satirised but it doesn't encourage study of the subject.  How else does one "get" the Daily Show? THere has to be some encouragement to follow regular news if you're going to follow The Daily Show.

I don't disagree that the Daily Show is entertaining television, and not without value. But ....

- I'd suggest that the Daily Show is not mainstream television. First, it's carried on the Comedy Channel, a niche channel high up in the dial of cable channels. I suspect that if it had been left up to major networks, we would have never seen a show like the Daily Show. Second, I'd be interested in seeing it's viewer numbers and demographics compared to a normal news program. I don't doubt that it's popular, especially by the standards of a niche cable channel, but I bet that many, many more people watch only your typical network news, or that the audience tuning into the Daily Show is markedly different from that watching your average news show. Third, the format of the Daily Show remains unique among the countless number of network news shows and the half-dozen or so cable channels dedicated solely to news. Hardly evidence that this style of show has been adopted by the mainstream. In short: of those people tuning in to their evening news, the vast majority are still watching the same drivel that the networks have always pumped out. Those tuning into the Daily Show are probably more advanced viewers to begin with. I'd probably place this show into the category of what's available out there if you get past prime-time, network television.

- As for my conflicting statements, I see the Daily Show as satirizing other news programs, not the news itself. Sure it pokes fun at newsworthy items, but Wikipedia mentions some studies that suggest that the Daily Show actually contains as much factual information as normal news programs. The fact that one can stay just as informed from watching a comedy show as they can from watching mainstream news programs is hardly an endorsement of the intelligence of mainstream television. And I'll attest to it: the vast majority of the content in the evening news shows and on the cable news networks is simply drivel. That why I stay informed through alternate mediums (print and the internet).

These are  progressive evolutions of shows. You can't tell me that a soap opera or Dallas are as complex as something like 24.

Honestly, I don't know. How does one quantitatively compare television from 10, 20, 50 years ago to today? The world has changed dramatically in the past 50 years - heck, in the past 10 years - and the growth of technology has brought it all into our living rooms and exposed us to it like never before. The Vietnam War was the first "televised" war, and we've since progressed to  "embedded" news crews with nightvision cameras broadcasting live feeds from tanks as they roll through the battlefield. The internet has largely eliminated national boundaries, giving people exposure and access to information, viewpoints, and culture from all over the world. Cultural views and acceptance of women, minorities, and people of alternative sexual preference have changed dramatically. We can send email from our mobile phones while standing in line for coffee, or watch DVD movies in our car, or check our stocks and trade them during our lunch hour. None of this was fathomable, what, even 15 or 20 years ago?

If you can somehow factor out this baseline progression of society, would we actually find today's television more intelligent? The original Star Trek series was quite innovative for it's time, and (ironically) not very successful. But now that ideas like warp drives, teleporation ("beaming"), mobile flip-top communications devices, and mixed-gender multi-racial casts are accepted as normal, it seems rather silly now. But really, if you stop and look, pretty much every popular sci-fi show on TV today is basically a derivative of this 40-year old program.

How about Charlie's Angels, which at the time was a big step for woman's lib in casting capable, competent woman as lead characters? Today it seems rather silly and sexist (though still better than those ridiculous movies ). Maybe the closest comparison today is a show like Will & Grace, which was innovative in having a main character that was gay,  and has subsequtnly led to an explosion of television shows with prominent gay characters. Personally, what little of the show I watched seemed rather silly to me (cue canned laugh track), and I find that the mainstream's portrayal of gay men in general only entrenches the sterotype of them as being feminine and "swishy." I guess it's better than nothing, but let's not kid ourselves and say that the audience is being challenged with the idea of homosexuality.

I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence ... I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.

But that's my point: they have to engage you with such a show using certain methods. Not only that, you can't just limt your viewing of this theory to just one show, but a complex web of media. Shows these day are more connected than they were many decades ago.

I really don't get this argument. To me, it's like saying the new Star Wars movies are more complex because of the glut of promotional marketing and spin-off material surrounding it. Sure, I could go out and read the books, watch the cartoons, play the video games, buy the action figures, and build the Lego sets that explain who all the new, random, previously-unintroduced characters in Episode III are. But why? Even if I do know who General Greivous is, where he came from, which Jedi he killed, and his past relationship with Anakin and Obi-Wan, it's all completely inconsequential and meaningless with respect to the plot. The film is 45 minutes of movie and 2 hours of promotional tie-ins. It's a completely substanceless attempt to make me go by all the spin-offs and put more of my money into Lucas's pocket.

Lost isn't quite as bad, but in a similar vein. Take the episode I saw: a resue mission. How is it more complex if I have to see the previous episode to know who they're trying to rescue (and the episode before that to know who kidnapped him and why, etc. etc.)? And really, does it matter, or is just a ridiculously complex MacGuffin? What are the issues in the episode itself? The guy leading the rescue feels compelled to atone for his past sins. OK, got it. Pretty typical stuff. But it sure is tempting to go buy all the previous episodes on DVD and find out what the back story is, especially given that it is entertaining television. I'll admit, it's damn good marketing.

An example of someone getting it right? The Blair Witch Project. The website and the TV special, which detailed the "recovery" of the video tapes and developed the mythology of the Blair Witch, contributed context and understanding to the movie, and in portraying these events as real, also heightened the atmosphere and scariness of it. But while they may have enhanced the movie-watching experience, at the same time they were completely periphery to it and weren't required to appreciate or understand it, nor did they require me to spend a bunch of money on a slew of promotional junk. But then again, Blair Witch wasn't a mainstream movie production, and it's sequel - which was - was a bust.

I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline ... look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order.

But this is another good example. Not many TV dramas of the past were able to explore political issues. I can't think of another show that did the same as The West Wing.

But you just said it yourself: no other show has done what West Wing did. These two shows clearly stand out as quality prime-time programming and as such are in a select minority. Law & Order is one of the longest-running shows on TV, and all the shows derived from it - Cold Case, CSI, Without A Trace, it's own spin-offs (Criminal Intent, Special Victims Unit), and I'm sure others that I can't think of - are quite clearly inferior, often without any real substance, and incredibly popular. And I'm sure if we looked at shows no longer on TV, we'd come up with a much bigger list of derivative, formulaic TV shows that haven't survived.

But that's the issue. Forget the technology. The visual stimulus has become harder to follow. Even with a live feed from a reporter in mid-battle still has a scroll bar and headlines while the reporter talks. You'll notice they don't suddenly cut to a full screen view.

You're right, the visual stimulus is harder - there's more crap on the screen blinking, scrolling, flashing at me - but it doesn't mean I'm processing any more of it. Actually, I'm suggesting that it might even be worse than this. Instead of being able to focus on and process the one or two things of interest to me, once some point of "overload" is reached, I may not be processing any of the information as well as if there was just one or two things on the screen.

It's like looking at a Christmas tree. Yes, you can see the glittery, sparkly, flashing prettiness of it in its entirety, but you're certainly not processing every little light and decoration. Try counting and identifying the individual decorations and lights, or even making out the physical shape of the tree itself! Not so easy (or even possible) until I reduce the flow of information and show you the tree and each light and decoration individually. More isn't necessarily better - and in fact, it can be worse!

The army relies on a lot of conditioning techniques and repetition to improve performance on a single task. So, they use computer technology to filter external info for pilots to help them be better pilots. Great. But how does that help with other problm-solving tasks. How does that allow them to become creative thinkers and enhance their options at solving a problem?

It just seems to be: focus on this, become a better pilot, repeat. That doesn't represent intelligence. I believe intelligence relates to free thinking and opening your mind to possibilities.

It's like a guy who uses a hammer, and is so focused on using a hammer, that he becomes the best hammer-guy in the world. But what happens when he comes accross a screw. He's fucked!

Actually, I can't believe you're comparing flying a jet plane to hammering in a nail! They're not at all comparable! Forget that I mentioned the military - I only mentioned them because, as far as I know, they're the first to take a serious look at this (I don't have the article available to reference). But I'm certainly not talking about some sort of brain-washing or conditioning exercise. Really, what I'm talking about is applicable to any task requiring one to process an large amount of information.

Operating a modern jet requires processing a huge amount of information, drawing conclusions based on it, and responding accordingly. Have you seen the cockpit of an airplane? Just a mass of instruments and controls. Yes, I'm sure the pilot can tell you what every one of them does and what their importance is, but are you honestly going to tell me that he's capable of monitoring all of those at the same time while flying the plane? Now let's throw in some sort of complexity, like landing the plane, or (going back to a military example) dodging a missile. All that information isn't necessarily useful, and in fact I'm sure a large portion of it is extraneous and nothing more than a distraction given the specific task at hand.

What I'm talking about is an "intelligent" system that temporarily filters out the extraneous, non-useful information until you've resolved the situation. Maybe nothing more than a dynamic display that puts only the instrumentation of concern on screen, or places the instrumentation of concern front and center while moving the rest to a secondary, periphery position. The studies that have been done suggest that if you can remove the extraneous stuff, even just temporarily, and allow the person to focus on and process only information relevant to a specific task, performance improves.

Let's go to a much simpler example: the growth in complexity of your average, ordinary VCR/TV/DVD remote. Yes, those mass of buttons allows you to program a countless number of cool, new features ... but how many people actually figure out how to use them? Moreover, how many people can't even figure out how set the clock on their machines anymore? Or how many times have you seen somebody hunt for the volume button or the channel changer button? Yes, with these new-fangled remotes that give us a wealth of information and unprecedented control over our machines, it actually takes us longer to figure out which button to press to change the channel!

Again I say, all that additional information and visual complexity on the screen isn't evidence of our ability to process information any better - in fact it may be hurting us!

But people are allowed to experiment.

I'd be a little careful here. We're influenced by survivorship bias. Of course the shows that survive are popular, and generally stand out as better-quality, more innovative programming (though not always). But let's not forget that something like 70%-80% of all shows never even last half the season. I think what we're seeing is something more along the lines of throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.

24 is experimentation ... Lost is pretty unique too.

I'll accept that 24 is novel, but I'd suggest that Lost is cashing in on the 24 formula, with it's a continuing storyline spanning the entire season (and longer).

The Sopranos. Six Feet Under.

I'd be careful about lumping HBO series and their ilk into the same category as network television. Channels like this already have a paying audience (something the networks don't have) happily tuning in to watch movies, and shows like Soprano and Six Feet Under are pretty much sauce for the goose. They have the ability to experiment more than the networks, since not everything is riding on having a successful primetime hit. Furthermore, they don't have to answer to advertisers and the FCC, allowing them to tackle subject matter (and include violence and language) that the networks can't touch.

What about The Daily Show? Colbert Report? They're experiments in comedy combined with news.

I already discussed the Daily Show as being outside the mainstream. The Colbert Report is a spin-off of the already-successful Daily Show, not an experiment in my book. Stick with the lady that brought you, as they say.

Matt Groening was allowed to experiment with The Simpsons.

Generally against the desires of the studio, or with their deep reservations, if the commentaries on the DVDs are to be believed. I find that shows like this tend to succeed despite the mascinations of the networks. Many critically-acclaimed shows end up dying because the networks, convinced they won't succeed, mess with their scheduling to ensure they won't (anyone remember Freaks and Geeks, or Firefly?).

Also, let's not forget that the Simpsons was spun off from the Emmy-award winning Tracy Ullman show, hardly a risk from that perspective. And while the Simpons itself may have been an experiment, it has since created the "primetime adult cartoon" formula and led to the subsequent growth of primetime cartoon shows, like for example ...

South Park anyone?

Which, like the Daily Show, has succeeded on a niche cable channel. This show wasn't a complete shot in the dark either, as it was inspired by the underground popularity of the Spirit of Christmas (which also apparently won an LA Film Critics award).

Even the highest-rated show in the US, Dancing with the Stars, is something of an experimentation.

You mean, yet another reality TV show?

Take a look at all the cable channels that focus on popular television (which excludes specialty/educational channels like Animal Planet, History Channel, National Geographic, etc). I'd say that 95% or more of their content is either reruns of popular network shows or frequently-run, ratings-friendly movies. The TNT network basically shows Law & Order reruns every night from 5-10pm. Bravo is one reality show after another. Where's the experimentation? Battlestar Galactica (itself a remake, though somewhat innovative in its production), the Daily Show, South Park ... just a handful of "challenging" non-network shows from dozens and dozens of channels!

With few exceptions, our programming continues to be fed to us by the networks (or the hollywood studios, or the big-name game companies, etc.) using their marketing numbers to push their formulaic shows or looking at their "surprise success" stories (reality TV, primetime cartoons, etc.) to develop new formulas and push an endless number of derivatives.

Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones

Unfortunately, I think this period of history has already come and gone.

I'm surprised you feel this way. I think that as the idea of using the internet to disseminate content at low cost catches on, we're actually entering an age where anybody can create and distribute stuff regardless of what kind of audience they expect to have. Look how podcasts and video blogs (vblogs?) have taken off. Some of them are as good as any radio show or public television show, content-wise they might be better, and some of them cover topics that networks wouldn't touch in a million years. Go and explore, I'm sure you'll be surprised at what you find.

[DGMacphee]

Instead of replying to your massive TL;DR piece of text, I'm just going to reply to one part that negates a lot of what you said and proves that you are a product of a culture where TV can make you a more intelligent person.

Generally against the desires of the studio, or with their deep reservations, if the commentaries on the DVDs are to be believed.

Bingo.

DVD commentaries. Perfect example of how multiple threads are being tracked. Firstly, The Simpsons itself is show that requires a lot of intertextuality to understand it. But secondly, you're following that plus the DVD commentary tracks. Now follow what the writers, directors, producers and actors are saying (how they describe each scene, each reference, etc, etc) and think about how you piece all this information together.

I haven't listened to the commentaries for The Simpsons, but I've listened to commentaries for Futurama. If that's anything to go by, there's a lot of infomation being presented when you're watching both show and commentary track. If I were to draw a chart showing how all this information is pieced together, if would be very fucking complex. But somehow I'm able to follow it all.

Now, you might be thinking, "So I know a lot about The Simpsons. Big deal!" And it's similar to what you said here:

To me, it's like saying the new Star Wars movies are more complex because of the glut of promotional marketing and spin-off material surrounding it. Sure, I could go out and read the books, watch the cartoons, play the video games, buy the action figures, and build the Lego sets that explain who all the new, random, previously-unintroduced characters in Episode III are. But why? Even if I do know who General Greivous is, where he came from, which Jedi he killed, and his past relationship with Anakin and Obi-Wan, it's all completely inconsequential and meaningless with respect to the plot. The film is 45 minutes of movie and 2 hours of promotional tie-ins. It's a completely substanceless attempt to make me go by all the spin-offs and put more of my money into Lucas's pocket.

But this is where you miss the point. And I've said this many times, but I'll repeat it once more.

It's not the content that's making us intelligent.

It's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent.

The fact that you can understand how the complex world of Springfield works demonstrates your strong ability to piece information together. Likewise, my understanding of how everything fits together in Futurama. Likewise, the Star Wars geek who knows what General Grevious had for breakfast the day he killed such-and-such jedi.

The additional content seems inconsequential to the plot but that's besides the point. It's not additional content or the plot that's aiding our intelligence. It's what the additional content and plot does: they help us relate things together and they train us to form these links faster.