Throughout magazines, the internet, and newspapers there are countless articles telling us to watch less television. The vegetating trance of the 'Boob Tube,' is accused of letting our minds enter a state of cruise control where minimal mental activity is necessary. From witty quotes to extended commentary, critics, educators, and scholars have bashed TV for years. The hypercritical analysis of its content and presentation has created a sophomoric truism, allowing it to be written off as a mere guilty pleasure to some, and a menace to others.

This unanalyzed platitude had led to a depravity analogous with the destructiveness of drug addictions emerged from once sacred plants. In discussing 'Electronic Drugs,' author Terence McKenna, likens "the addictive power of television and the transformation of values that is wrought," to heroin (218). Often cited are the social consequences, as television severs interpersonal communications, detaching users into a static bliss of clouds and commercials. Substituting for parent, teacher, and friend, "manufactured data streams can be sanitized to 'protect' or impose cultural values (McKenna 219)" I assert that the problem is not inherit to television, but rather is an issue to which all media is vulnerable. By subscribing to an anti-TV position, not only are we losing the chance to derive any worth from the shafts of broadcast, but also leave all other emerging infotainment based telecommunications open to the same situation.

A definitive "No," to television is falling to the same unanalyzed, obsessive behavior which it is criticized for. In an age where technology is ubiquitous, it is time we look at these issues carefully and intelligently. Accepting TV as the "idiot box," has led to a learned helplessness stunting any evolution, creating a self-fulfilling critique. Communications theorists, Marshall McLuhan, asserted that the medium conveys more message than the actual content. From this position, the television's ability to draw people around in a campfire fashion, and be mutually informed nationwide bespeaks a valuable avenue. Despite this, McLuhan controversial postulation that specific content has no effect on society is undermined by careful examination of TV programming. Television's current state of intellectual and social depravity is a direct result of low user input and control.

Minimally engaging, television contrasts from the internet as it is dictated by consumerism and government agenda: "Control of content, uniformity of content, repeatability of content make it inevitably a tool of coercion, brainwashing, and manipulation (McKenna 220)." The web on the other hand, although sharing an ancestry with television, has been given a chance to unfold into its current model, aiming to facilitate "creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users." But yet, this is not how the internet has always been, twined to a tapestry lush for memes and rational discourse. Only with the development of the Web 2.0 trend has the expert been replaced by the amateur, and has the end-user been able to truly dictate the direction of content. And if we're not careful, this be not may not always be the case.

Television has radiated moral depravity, idiocy and violence, with resulting distraction and obsession. Still, it would be unfair to condemn the platform in its entirety. Displays of cinema and film as captivating and culturally significant as any novel or other piece of art have permeated the air waves for years. The Star Trek series can be held as inspiration for many modern day technologies, even prompting some individuals to pursue a life of science. College classes today are held explicating The Sopranos. Further, an array of science, discovery, and technology channels are gaining increasing popularity, with fascinating programming that could spark a thirst for knowledge in anyone. (And plus, who doesn't love Comedy Central?).

Although flipping through channels does not have the same research and discovery feel as crawling the net does, the quality and convenience of set programs certainly sets a different stage. The biggest problem with television appears to be the centralized control of data and data availability. This directly relates to the issue of net neutrality, which concerns who controls the content of the internet. If network service providers are able to control and influence the availability of content to its user, then eventually an elite centralization will occur. The problems with television are not at all inherit to television, and if net neutrality fails we will see the internet equally bedeviled.

According to Ofcom’s regional communications market report, rural households are now more likely to have broadband connections than those who live in urban areas. Indeed, the report’s surprising results indicated that 59% of rural households had broadband services, compared to 57% in urban homes.

The Ofcom report, which surveyed television, radio, internet and telecoms habits, shows that the country has overtaken the town in having broadband access for the first time. This is notable because just four years ago, people who lived in urban areas were twice as likely to have a broadband connection as those who lived in the country.

Ed Richards, who is Ofcom’s chief executive, said that the findings signify a closing of the digital divide in the UK. He said: “Our report highlights a closing of the geographical digital divide in the UK. Rural households are today as well connected to broadband as their urban neighbors.” Ofcom's strategy and market developments partner, Peter Phillips, said that he was surprised by the report’s findings. He said: “I don't think anyone would have predicted two or three years ago that we would have seen the picture that we can see today. If you look back two or three years, rural areas were well behind where urban areas were in terms of broadband take-up and that was driven by a number of factors.”

As well as these surprising findings, the report also indicated that there were large differences in the take-up of modern communications in different areas of the UK. It showed that Sunderland was the most well connected city in the UK, boasting 66% of households with broadband and a huge 96% with digital television. At the other end of the scale, Glasgow had the lowest rate of broadband connections in the UK at just 32%.

Local government initiatives and poor weather is thought to be the cause of Sunderland’s high uptake of broadband and digital TV. Meanwhile Glasgow's poor rate of connectivity is blamed on the amount of households owning a PC, which is significantly lower than in other areas of the UK.

Despite Glasgow’s poor rate of connectivity, broadband was much more popular in other areas of Scotland, including Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee, which all boast broadband rates that are higher than the UK average. Even the remote Scottish Highlands and Islands have broadband in an impressive 62% of homes. The high rate of broadband access in these areas can be attributed to a major government drive to bring broadband to every corner of Scotland. This drive was necessary to sustain the economies of the isolated communities in these remote areas, as the internet allows many residents in these areas to work, shop and bank from the comfort of their own home. Internet access also allows residents in these areas watch films and television online, which is particularly important in the absence of other means of entertainment such as live music, theater and cinema.

A lot has happened since my last, and should I say, weak post. I should briefly I digress to say that my first blog entry was to test the waters of blogger-dom, and see how people generally react toward blogs, and I was impressed by recent events and responses, not all strains of this dialogue, which I hope it most certainly is.

Soap Box Talk: I believe in verbal communication as the only true form of effective communication. Now, of course, these implements in which we try to communicate are in some achieve their purposes, I do not feel that they attain all that verbal communication can, and so if what we desire, here contemplating momentarily the human condition, is to communicate and relate and be in companionship to other human beings, and almost all of the recent inventions that have flourished and taken over the world, i.e. the internet, cell phones, instant messaging, blogging, and websites designed to express oneself in the hopes that someone sees it (myspace, livejournal), then shouldn't we then strive to communicate some idea effectively, or if not effectively for some effect we hope that that idea is transmitted well.

Whatever the case may be, the event of communicating something may inherently operate under the condition of being understood. **I am in the business of making enormous statements about life, the universe, and everything in it, so reader beware.** To expound upon that point further, if the author/speaker tries in some way to remain ambiguous an idea is still being cultivated, the speaker chose to stay misunderstood for some effect, but whatever reason, we are trying to transmit some idea, and we hope that through our medium, or may be it is all about our medium, that the person on the other is receives it, and receives it in such a way as to get what we are trying to do.

(I will tip my hand at this point, and say that this writing is purposefully sporadic so as to prove my point more fully, about the understanding of communication, and further to transmit to you my passion for this topic and my fervor at transmitting my own idea about the matter) But what does this anyway, how coy a statement, because of course through the tone and text presented to you, I have established great concern for the efforts put forward to communicate.

This is could be considered a flimsy transition to my true point. Why communicate?

There are six question words in the English language. I wish I could give you data on the worlds languages, and the question words that exist in each. This data could help or hurt my argument, so I preface this next statement by saying, to my best understanding, given the knowledge I have acquired through my current scope of understanding the world, that these six question words are markedly important to our world views and our outworking inside our own constructs.
Six Question Words: Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why...

These question words focus our attention to events, things that happened, trivial, tragic, terrifying, and terrific as they may be; we define all of this happenings through these six words, and their answers, kind of, because they need not always be answered nor do the answers need always to be fully revealed nor understood, but the questions always need to be asked.

I shall use a recent event that has happened that many of my readers will easily be able to relate to, if not then this next part may not mean as much to you, hang in there something else might.

On February 14, 2008 a lone gun man walked into Cole Hall, while a Biology class was in session, just about to get out, and fired numerous shots into a panic-striken crowd, killing 5 students, then turned the gun on himself, committing suicide, leaving 6 dead on the scene. Students fled in horror, shock, and amazement that this terrifying event just took place in their classroom. What followed is common knowledge and the repercussions of this action are still being felt on Northern Illinois University Campus.

- I was still in my apartment, having skipped my math class to work on some other homework due that evening, when my wife called me from work, and insisted that I do not go to campus as I had planned, and to stay inside, lock the doors because so little information was known at the time. I then of course turned on the television, to find news reporters in the same frenzy I was in for more information. I watched for a long time.

A thought struck me throughout this ordeal about the nature of asking questions. I realized that reporting the news was simply asking then seeking the answers for your questions.

In this event, questions started to be asked immediately, to help us, those who were not there, try to understand what happened.

The first question to be asked is what. The event occurred. Immediate one asks, what happened?
The answer I was given was that a gunman was on campus.

Where? Evidence points to Cole Hall.

When did this happen? About 3 p.m.

Who is the gunman? A graduate student named Steven, we later learned.

How did he do what he did? He bought 4 guns, mostly online, stayed in a hotel for a couple of days, we are not sure what he hours before the shooting, but we know that he entered through the front of the auditorium, and opened fire on a classroom full of students, with a shotgun and three pistols.

Why? We have no idea.

This question begs to be asked under every circumstance imaginable. We see the lack of satisfaction evident in the first five questions, and try to find solace in a lack of understanding, but we are left with urning for closure, the only closure that can be found in asking why. Why did he shoot at students he didn't know? Why would anyone choose to do such a thing?

Why communicate? What do you have to say that I need to learn from? Why should I listen to you at all? Why are you important? I know why I am important, I am me, myself, and I, but you are you, someone else, a faceless name, or a nameless face. You are important, and you always will be.

What am I communicating? A blog about communication breakdowns.

Where? On Blogspot, Facebook, and Myspace

When? It is a windy Sunday evening.

To Whom am I communicating? I am not sure, you obviously.

How? I am typing it on a Macbook, with wireless internet.

Why? Isn't that the question?

I am communicating because I must. I have to, not to be so baselessly confused with obligated.
I won't get into that just yet.

For another post, tomorrow if I feel up to it.

Let me make clear, that we all should communicate everything, because whether we realize it or not, everything we do and say is being recorded, is being watched, lovingly because that is how we worship our God. He listens, pays attention, and wants us to notice that he is anyway. He loves us, doesn't like some of the things we do, but regardless of that He still loves us. So communicate to him, through Jesus Christ, our medium and mediator, because our communication matters, pray...