It's rare that we get tempted to check out a TV show. In the past twelve years, Eric Scheske has watched two shows: Seinfeld and The Sopranos. Eric shares Marshall McLuhan's distrust of TV and Neil Postman's disgust with it.
Eric especially dislikes documentaries. When Eric wants information, he wants it . . . by the shovel, not in the bites that get parcelled out between commercials, musical overtures, and other features that reduce a one-hour documentary to seven minutes worth of reading. He also dislikes the false impression of viewers who think they are engaged in something productive when they watch documentaries. Sure, a documentary imparts more knowledge than, say, American Idol, but watching a documentary to learn something is like taking a locomotive two blocks to buy a gallon of milk: there are easier, more efficient, and better ways of getting the information.
With the above in mind, we found the following posting at National Review Online about a show called Mythbusters intriguing. It might send Eric to the Discovery Channel:
Basically, two movie industry special effects guys, Jamie and Adam, try to prove or disprove urban legends, myths, and popular misconceptions. It's good, reasonably family friendly fare. (There is the occasional bleeped expletive.) Many tests involve guns and explosions, so the Bells (young and old) are held in thrall. But there is also a fair amount of legitimate science in every test, and what's really cool is watching the guys actually build their experiments from scratch in their shop. My guys are inspired to start mythbusting themselves, and I think that is pretty high praise for the educational value of any show.
Link.
