Television/Smarter Watching TV Makes You Smarter -- Really?

A number of television programs of today are praised for their grittiness and realism. It is true that dramas such as Law and Order draw from real-life events, particularly ones whose circumstances and outcomes are controversial. Compared to the idealized families of Father Knows Best and The Brady Bunch, shows such as Modern Family portray likeable but flawed human beings whose problems are not necessarily solved in the time frame of an episode or two. The argument that today's television is "better" is a complex one. It begs the question: "Better for whom?" Story lines may indeed be a more accurate reflection of life in the twenty-first century. Characters are more realistic in that they represent a wider demographic than characters of even a generation ago; African-Americans, Latinos and Asians are more prominently featured, women are seen in roles requiring them to be strong rather than purely decorative, and sexual orientation is openly discussed. For these reasons, television programming is richer than in past generations. To argue, however, that the richer programming is actually good for cognition is an argument made by those who benefit financially from the making of such programs, and by viewers who want to justify their television-watching habits.

Author Steven Johnson argues that watching today's television programs can make one smarter. In an essay included in his 2005 book Everything Bad is Good for You, Johnson claims that the multi-thread scripts of programs such as 24 challenge the viewer to follow complex plot lines and character development. The process of synthesizing and sense-making, Johnson maintains, provide an effective "brain...

Johnson believes that so-called "quality entertainment" such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Frasier, spoon-fed audiences by delivering carefully constructed material that challenged viewers to do little more than watch and laugh (Johnson 280). Johnson believes this sort of programming is no more mentally stimulating that Monday Night Football. Along with plotlines that are more complex, today's program, Johnson insists, includes more fast-paced dialogue requiring viewers to think. The dialogue is not reduced to provide what Johnson calls "flashing arrows," inserted to cue the viewer. The aim of today's scripts is to provide dialogue that is as realistic as possible; if it contains medical, legal or scientific jargon, it is incumbent on the viewer, for the most part, to make sense of it by placing it in the context of the story.
New York Times reportor Ginia Bellafonte, like Steve Johnson, also takes a critical look at the program 24, not for the complexity of the plot per se but how the characters' relationships, both professional and personal, drive the story. As Bellafonte points out, the characters are driven by their mission and personal relationships are sacrificed. The lead character, Jack Bauer, is unable to sustain meaningful relationships with his wife, his girlfriends, or even his own child. The defense of his nation comes first. Bauer's father threatened him, and killed Jack's brother in service of his cause. Another character allowed his son to be tortured to gain information about a terrorist. The family relationships in 24 are a far cry indeed from those portrayed in Leave It To Beaver and The Donna Reed Show, where fathers were the clear, albeit benevolent, rulers of kith and…