Steven Johnson, journalist and critic, takes a look at the development of television narratives over the past few decades. He argues the shows that our population watch and deem non educational, are actually relatively healthy for our brains to watch. Shows such as 24 and bones he says are acceptable for youth to watch and learn from. Television has become a force of habit and a learning curve for youth and adults. These violent shows are rewarding to the brain and are important to the growth of young children. He continues to describe his method called the “Sleeper Curve”, which he states that the shows we think are harmful for us are actually gratifying.
Johnson argues that shows like 24 allow the mind to think on a higher level than a regular show that has a single plot line. “To keep up with entertainment like 24, you have to pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships” (214-215). In other words, it takes a lot of thinking to keep up with modern day children because of their complexity Shows such as 24 and bones are essential for youth to watch and learn from today. They are shows with multiple store plots and each story plot has to be understood in order for you to see the overall …show more content…
Parents are worrying about if the show the child is watching is violent. Instead they should be worrying if the show challenges the child to pay attention and is a brain motivator. Does the show force the child to analyze the actions, thoughts and personalities of the actor or does the show give understanding to its viewers without the viewer having to do much thinking. If it forces the child to analyze the characters in the program it should be considered beneficial despite the fact that the show may contain violence. As Johnson puts it, “it is assumed that shows that promote smoking or violence are bad for us” (215). The importance is not in what they are watching, but how they are watching