Firstly, I apologise for not posting in more than a week. I appreciate that I push you towards this 'little and often' approach and then fail to stick to it but, in my defence, I have (as Marwood calls it, in 'Withnail and I') entered 'the arena of the unwell' and as such been forced to drink lemon and honey and steadfastly avoid watching Jeremy Kyle.
Having not been out much, I've a less varied palette of experiences to reflect on this week but have found myself watching more television than I normally would. I'm not a great watcher of TV. I like documentaries, I usually watch the news and I watch some comedy when it's on. However, contrary to the beliefs of the BBC, I am yet to find Thursday's funny.
I do not have any satellite or digital channels and only 4 out of my 5 channels work. Now I know I sound like some Luddite reactionary refusing to embrace popular culture and listening to the Archers on my wireless and to an extent that's true (apart from the Archers bit - I'm not that odd yet). I studied Sociology in the dim and distant past and one of my tutors began to explore the concept of satellite tv (then in its infancy here). The two sides of the argument, as he saw it, were that it either provided extended choice or "Wall to wall Dallas". At the time, I didn't really understand although, even then, I knew that watching excessive amounts of Dallas wasn't healthy for anyone but now... I only have to spend an hour flicking through the endless Sky channels at my Mum's to realise that he was right. We do have wall to wall Dallas - loud adverts, endless repeats, garish colours etc. etc. TV stands in place of the traditional coal fires of the Victorian Parlour. It is largely ignored, it screams for attention with its flickering and spitting but despite the power behind it, it merely provides a focal point for the room and perhaps some warmth.
I started by mentioning Jeremy Kyle and this, to me, is the worst sort of TV - cheap in every sense of the word. I watched a debate programme (these are often Jeremy Kyle without the charming / charmless host) about obesity in Britain. I quickly found it rattled my cage more than I had anticipated and that I wasn't quite well enough to engage with it. The usuall comments on childhood obesity were raised:
1. It is the fault of the food comapnies and the super markets
2. It's all down to junk food and junk food advertising
3. It's computers and gaming
4. It's parents refusing to let their children play out
5. Parents haven't the time to cook - it's our work culture that's to blame
6. It's lack of education
etc. etc. Of course, it cannot ever just be one of these factors and an 'all of the above' explanation would seem to make more sense. This isn't what annoyed me though. I believe that there is one significant factor that nobody ever raises in these debates and that's poverty. Children are becoming increasingly obese because poverty is very real and there remains a sizeable (sorry)percentage of the population who have nothing. I taught in inner-city Leeds for many years - children ate the most inappropriate food at the worst possible times of the day. They'd be on the ceiling in the morning and asleep and grouchy by the afternoon. Even with increased choice and a school decision to stop selling chips in the canteern, so many desperately poor children lived on a diet of chips for lunch and chips for tea - even risking personal injury to climb over the fences at lunch time and get out to the chip shop - because they'd be good and full for around £1 a day. Their parents ate the same way. It's desperately sad really - especially that we seem to have so many debates about it but don't actually do anything.
As I've spent the weekend on my high horse about poverty and the class system, I've decided to stay true to my working class roots this weekend and go to Blackpool to see the lights. I haven't been for years - we stopped going as a family (in my Grandad's Lada) because my sister kept falling asleep and then crying and making us go through the lights again. I will of course be eating chips though (at slightly more than £1 I would expect) because I'm an adult and can make informed decisions and eat lots of green stuff for the rest of the weekend if I wish :) I'm also off to buy the Big Issue shortly because the guy I buy it from is featured in an article this week - he's very proud of himself and even offered to sign it for me - I certainly think that that qualifies him to be a celebrity above the likes of Big Brother contestants :)
Thank you to all of the FD bloggers who've given me your blog addresses. I've been amazed at the amount of engagement and commitment you've shown - long may it continue. I have to thank in particular Rob, Stu and Martin for comments they raised in their blogs that have really got me thinking. Martin wrote a wonderfully poetic entry about nostalgia, Stu wrote about wanting to be remembered for being a good person and Rob wrote about a family trip to Wales. I appreciate the thought and time you put into these reflections - the beauty of thoughtful reflection is that it makes the reader reflect on their experiences too.
Enjoy the rest of your reading week - see you soon
Kerry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for your comments as ever and public acknowledgement. If my written word could blush it would be bright red.
I enjoyed your post and likewise it made me think. Unlike you I am a techno-geek and enjoy all the latest gadgets, at the annoyance of my partner who still is having difficulty using the TV remote and has given up on the DVD player. However the barrage of digital TV has only limited exposure in my life as I try to remember two phrases, that unfortunately Google has failed me in being able to find the sources of, being:
“Too much TV makes you lose IQ points” & “Watch less TV and be more productive”
Both of these are very true, I do not watch a great amount of TV and manage to get through a phenomenal amount of work (as a parent, partner, handyman – currently doing the bathroom, student and worker).This does not mean I am completely devoid of box gazing as when I need the escapism TV offers, I can easily sit down and watch a film or two not noticing the passage of time, but thoroughly enjoying the mindless engagement/relaxation that I am drawn into as entertainment. I guess in my backwards way of getting to the point I believe a little variety can be healthy but too much like food can be a bad thing.
This flows nicely into your comments about obesity. I can draw on personal experience with my two boys, which could not be more different, the eldest is a real Mr Bean character who seems to land himself into all sorts of trouble, is not overly interested in sports but enjoys reading, drawing and playing on the computer. My youngest son enjoys sports, unstructured play and loathes instructions or structure. Both are given the same options on diet and opportunities for exercise or activities yet both are so different. My eldest probably borders on obese if you believe half of health web sites toting body mass index calculators or national statistic, while my youngest is well below average. The doctors have no problems with either of them and they always come out as a clean bill of health.
So my input to the obesity debate is not to forget that the child can make choices and genetics also have a part to play.
Hmm - genetics. Now that's certainly a vital part of the argument that's wholly ignored. I also like your, "if you believe half of health web sites toting body mass index calculators" comments - this is another huge topic for debate. After all, most rugby players are morbidly obese according to BMI!
Thanks for your comments, Martin - it certainly makes writing worthwhile:)
Post a Comment