If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Star)   Actual headline: "TV watchers watch TV." Obvious tag gets up and leaves   (thestar.com) divider line 60
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8359 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2006 at 6:40 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-10 02:43:23 PM  
A new study has found that people who study the effects of television are predictable, alarmist, prone to generalizations, surprised by the obvious and, quite possibly, insane.


/ imagine crossy-through script of "people who study the effects of television"
// replace with "farkers"
 
2006-08-10 02:44:42 PM  
That article read a bit like a Fark Forum thread.
 
2006-08-10 03:29:04 PM  
The Onion once reported a study that concluded "TV Helps Build Valuable Looking Skills".
 
2006-08-10 03:42:54 PM  
This just in: Long distance callers make long distance calls

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress ...
 
2006-08-10 03:57:27 PM  
img147.imageshack.us
 
2006-08-10 06:42:55 PM  
This shocking devolpment in: People who have sexual organs, masturbate.
 
2006-08-10 06:43:03 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
More at 11...
 
2006-08-10 06:45:41 PM  
Paging Department of Redundacy Department. Paging Department of Redundancy Department. Please use the white-colored White Courtesy Phones. Please use the white-colored White Courtesy Phones.
 
2006-08-10 06:46:14 PM  
Subjects watched an average of 3.6 hours per day. And each hour translated into 144 fewer steps per day. Those who watched the most TV were less likely to achieve a healthy benchmark of 10,000 steps a day.

So, zero hours of TV translates into 5% more walking in a single day. Woop-de-farking-doo. Now, if you use those steps to go to the gym, that might make a difference.
 
2006-08-10 06:46:29 PM  
ROFL I needed a good laugh today.
 
2006-08-10 06:46:44 PM  
Christ, what an annoying article. I don't know about that O'Reilly crack at the end, but if I had to read 20 hours of that shiat a week I'd be 100% more likely to headbutt the idiot "journalist" that typed that piece of garbage up.
 
2006-08-10 06:48:14 PM  
img98.imageshack.us

/got nothin'
 
2006-08-10 06:48:33 PM  
Sometimes ya gotta wonder if these writers are deliberately trying to get fired.
 
2006-08-10 06:48:50 PM  
The reasoning behind the headline is very simple: It's Canadian.
 
2006-08-10 06:48:52 PM  

Then there are the strange contradictions that emerge from TV-related studies. Two years ago, Pediatrics published a study that found a relationship between TV watching and attention problems in 7-year-olds. In March, the same journal published a study that found no relationship.


Ye gods, someone introduce this person to the scientific process. It is, in fact, possible for studies to contradict each other and be published. It's not like the conclusions of a study are automatic dogma.
 
2006-08-10 06:50:28 PM  
Did anyone RTFA? The writer of the article is just as mystified as us farkers . . .
 
2006-08-10 06:51:09 PM  
I agree we Americans need to " evolve " and accept Darwinism.......which also includes allowing those who are too stupid, or too weak to fend for themselves to simply die away...

Survival of the fittest is as much Darwin as his " theory " of evolution...

so let's go with it shall we??

no more welfare, no more food stamps, no more talk about socialized medicine......after all, looking after the least of these is one of those stupid Religious concepts right?

if you are too weak and/or inept to look after yourself and survive, then you should die on the vine.......

if we are to accept *some* of Darwins ideas, then let's accept all of them
 
2006-08-10 06:51:23 PM  
LegacyDL: "The reasoning behind the headline is very simple: It's Canadian."

Oh, it's on now, buddy!

/drops gloves, pulls LegacyDL's sweater over his head
 
2006-08-10 06:51:42 PM  
donotswallow
That's basically what TFA is saying. Lots of researchers, probably taking a cue from Ric Romero, are doing absolutely useless research. From TFA:
The study, conducted by two bored cats inside the East York Bunker, will be published in the A&E pages of today's Star under the headline: "TV watchers watch TV."

Eesh.

Question 1: When will academics stop suckling at the teat of questionable scholarship? Question 2: When will television stop inspiring such hare-brained research?
 
2006-08-10 06:52:22 PM  
img149.imageshack.us
 
2006-08-10 06:53:16 PM  
www.tucsonweekly.com
Unavailable for comment
 
2006-08-10 06:53:27 PM  
People who listen to the radio like to fornicate with zebras while composing multi syllabic prose in pentamic couplets.
 
2006-08-10 06:56:22 PM  
The author of this article sounds a little pompous. Don't tell him what time it is, he knows, and he will remind you how an idiot you are for telling him something he already knew.
 
2006-08-10 06:57:12 PM  
TV - APPLY DIRECTLY TO EYEBALLS
TV - APPLY DIRECTLY TO EYEBALLS
TV - APPLY DIRECTLY TO EYEBALLS
 
eno
2006-08-10 06:58:40 PM  
intentionally inane. dIDN'T STOP SMITTY, THO.

/TIRED OF REALLY BAD GREENLIGHTS HERE.
 
2006-08-10 06:59:24 PM  
Author, paid by the word.
Author, paid by the word.
Author, paid by the word.
 
2006-08-10 07:00:34 PM  
Sometimes, the headlines don't even gel with the science.


WHOA, HOLD UP
 
2006-08-10 07:01:05 PM  
img135.imageshack.us
"Dim-witted reporters write useless stories. More at 11."
 
2006-08-10 07:01:06 PM  
Farking farkers fark on Fark.com.

/This is fun.
 
2006-08-10 07:02:14 PM  


www.tubeguy.org



/I'm surprised
 
2006-08-10 07:03:26 PM  
People who eat live longer than people who don't eat.
 
2006-08-10 07:06:27 PM  
Little Aki? Is that little Aki in Crown Of Negativity's post?

Eesh!
 
2006-08-10 07:08:03 PM  
www.jrj-socrates.com
who's leg do ya gotta hump to get a greenlight around here
 
2006-08-10 07:08:53 PM  
Wow, Mr. Author...bitter much?

/Hehe--he said suckling at the teat
 
2006-08-10 07:09:19 PM  
shenanigan
 
2006-08-10 07:11:08 PM  
libbynomore2: which also includes allowing those who are too stupid, or too weak to fend for themselves to simply die away...

Alright, you're a troll, but you're so shiny, I can't resist.

That's a spurious extension of scientific observation to moral conclusion, directly premised on the fallacy of nature: That a thing more "natural" is somehow morally superior to a thing less natural.

The counterargument is simply that generosity and selflessness are traits we have evolved, hence, they help our survival as a species and should be supported. But this is also an unscientific argument because science does not make moral judgements. It observes.

And, since you already appear to be leaning towards an anti scientific point of view, let me go ahead and troll you back: The inability of science to make moral judgement does not preclude its practitioners from being moral people who are also informed by science and consistent with it, and morality still does not require religion to exist, nor does it require science not to exist.
 
2006-08-10 07:13:03 PM  
www.fishbro.com
 
2006-08-10 07:14:45 PM  
us.ent1.yimg.com
 
2006-08-10 07:32:47 PM  
I think my favorite part was:

"Hi, neighbour, don't mind me. I'm just out for a brisk stroll before the gangbangers roll out of bed."

ha ha ha ha ha
 
2006-08-10 07:39:52 PM  
Actually....I think the headline is quite effective as it cleverly refers to the condition of habitual tv watchers as outlined in the first paragraph.

/but then again...I'm Canadian
 
2006-08-10 07:42:00 PM  
What if the TV was watching the TV watchers watch TV?
 
2006-08-10 07:44:22 PM  
basic html skills are important.
 
2006-08-10 07:44:50 PM  
i28.photobucket.com
 
2006-08-10 07:47:22 PM  
Hey Libbynomore . . . I see you live in Upland. We should totally throw an Inland Empire/909/Valley of the Dirt People Fark Party!
 
2006-08-10 08:17:17 PM  
Whoa, I live in Upland too.

/fear of rape meter rises
 
2006-08-10 08:36:44 PM  
Did no one get it? The headline is the title of the study of people who study TV-watchers. They are being sarcastic and thereby poking fun at their subject, the moron studiers of TV-watchers who never come up with any insights, it seems.
 
2006-08-10 08:39:34 PM  
I think the "obvious" tag needs to be replaced with a picture of Ric Romano.
 
2006-08-10 08:45:37 PM  
wouldn't the obvious tag be veging out on the couch?
 
2006-08-10 09:01:53 PM  
Well, who monitors the monitors monitoring the monitors who are monitoring the monitors?

or

Who watches the watchers watching the watchers of tv?
 
2006-08-10 09:08:20 PM  
Tautology trumps Obvious...nice job, submitter. :D
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report