What if you spent 70 days a year in a vast wasteland?

Many years ago I attended a modern art exhibit that featured the same videotape played on a series of televisions, except each set was from a different era. The image on the 1950s black and white appeared blurry, especially along the screen's edges; the early 1960s black and white offered a crisper picture; the late 1960s color set returned to the blur standard, though not at the edges; the 1970s color eliminated all haziness; the 1980s color set was smaller.

And while seeing each incremental technological ad-vance intrigued me, as noticing the soap opera video playing I couldn't help but think that for the most part, there just isn't much on television worth watching.

•••

That the first color televisions rolled off the assembly line 50 years ago as spring began certainly is ironic. Stuck inside during winter's gray skies and harsh cold, television is almost a meaningful entertainment option. But during spring, when the world comes alive with green grass, flower blooms and even rainbows, there hardly seems a reason to sit inside.

And yet we do. The average American spends 70 entire days out of a year watching television. Seventy days!

Just what are we watching?

•••

What did people do before there was television?

I'm just "young" enough to never have lived in a time when there wasn't television. Sort of like today's infants, who will grow up in a world that always has had the Internet.

Among my parents' prize purchases during my preschool years was their first color television set. Like the rest of America, they were transitioning from black and white to living color. It cost them more than $300, which was a much greater percentage of one's income in 1967 dollars than 2004 dollars.

But the neighbors marveled. Until they got their own - one step above ours.

Not that there was much to watch back then. Just three networks and maybe an independent station, if you were lucky. Then public television hit the airwaves.

And what shows were on? CBS was the hick network in the 1960s with "Beverly Hillbillies" and "Green Acres." ABC was the edgy WB of its time, which meant there wasn't anything worth watching. There were a lot of westerns that followed the same plot every week on every program. Ditto for cop shows from the 1970s, then ABC got jiggly with "Charlie's Angels."

•••

Though television still remains a wasteland, I'd never advocate removing it from the home. Major news events - man stepping on the moon, the hostages returning home from Iran, the Challenger explosion, the World Trade Center towers collapsing - all carry more impact in pictures than words, especially if seen live.

And there is exceptional theater, such as PBS's "I, Claudius," or documentaries where the visual imagery better expresses a concept than words, such as Carl Sagan's "Cosmos."

Television even can be a bonding experience between the generations - say parent and child enjoying "A Charlie Brown Christmas Special" together.

•••

But could that 70 days a year in front of the television be more meaningfully spent with family and neighbors?

How many great books have gone unread because television provided an easy, lowest common denominator storyline?

How often have we forsaken a simple walk into the great outdoors, pulling in lungfuls of fresh air as the sun's warmth danced across our skin, and heard songbirds share their tunes as we caught a glimpse of a rabbit or white-tailed deer scurrying into the cornfield or underbrush?

(originally published March 28, 2004)