The season has come around and it is time for us to vote again. A referendum to bring TV telecast into the Weiss cafeteria is unofficially underway. While more able democracies of the world hold referendums infrequently and keep voting at bay for every four years, here at Rockefeller ‘the passion of the TV’ has brought it back in two. The postdoc community is getting fat debating on both sides of this issue—should the TV find a place among dining scientists?

The plan?

This marvel of 20th century mass media is already perched on the wall of the cafeteria and is useful during university celebrations—like telecasting the President toasting the newly anointed Nobel laureate. But the university seeks more uses for it. It wants to turn the TV ‘on’ during lunchtime. With a particular objective—that it may serve as a warning system and provide news in times of metropolitan and/or national emergency.

Sounds right, like a good plan. But as one postdoc pointed out—“shouldn’t we be developing a more comprehensive campus alarm system?” A public announcement system that in times of emergency will inform everyone on campus immediately, and obviate the need for a desperate and dangerous community gathering in front of the TV. A gathering which in itself is susceptible to the dangers of an emergency. A local disaster, such as a collapsing ceiling, could in one fell swoop wipe away the great scientific minds that would have gathered in front of the TV. Great scientific minds don’t seem to find common ground in normal times, we shouldn’t force them into one under the pretext of danger.

What is the plan then? Because unless it is clearly outlined, postdocs will continue to conjure caricatures of their own. Some envision a designated employee, the ‘sentinel’, spending “every paid hour watching TV, waiting for an emergency to develop so they may run around campus raising the alarm.” This ‘sentinel strategy’ sounds medieval and “not relevant to a direct emergency plan.”

The debate

Jokes aside, this debate has veered from appraising the plan’s effectiveness towards a more personal and general critique of TV’s effect on scientists and society. And here passion flows on either side. Supporters extol the virtues of this plan “like a good idea”, while opponents swear by their food never to step into the cafeteria again if the TV is turned on—“I feel strongly against having TV during my meals.”
For opponents, “the TV society” perpetuates an all pervading reliance on TV, and its introduction into the cafeteria would detract from a scientist’s ability to “eat, relax, and socialize” during lunchtime. True, this is not good for scientists. Relaxing and socializing are strange concepts for most scientists, and it would be cruel to deprive them of these rare comforts. But deprivations are not the only complaints. TV news is perceived as ‘propaganda’, which has no place among conversing scientists. Scientists are full of big ideas and egos, and propaganda is naturally ‘big’—incompatible companions in a small cafeteria.

Fox News and CNN, the most often mentioned behemoths of propaganda, have a spotty following within the postdoctoral body. Some say “CNN would be great” and “Fox News and CNN would be good opposing choices,” while others discount them as “not serious journalism.” It’s not difficult to appreciate why the latter view is more common. Fox News and its fair and balanced motto does not really stand apart from CNN’s focus on affairs and balance (diet, lifestyle, mobile usage, sex, etc.). These brands of journalism have a “narrow” perspective of the world, whereas scientists are trying desperately to experience “more”. The incompatibility is fundamental. Civil unrest at RU would surely ensue if either one of these channels became the news of choice.

This leads us to a streak of opinions that have a few but committed proponents, and they have cast aspersions of another kind. “I swear there are some who desperately want to watch day time television, Jerry Springer perhaps.” A cable connection in a private office, a converter, and meetings only after lunch would “easily allow someone to watch sex, scandal, and ‘soap’ galore. Damn I envy them!” Spoken like a true scientist—deprived of comforts of yet another kind.

It is the people most indifferent to the TV’s introduction in the cafeteria, however, that have put forward the mighty ideas. “I don’t care if it’s playing in the cafeteria”, but it would be “great to be able to watch TV in the gym.” Good idea—there is no better place to multitask but at the gym. You can meet friends, work on your fitness, wring out the stress of failed experiments, and get educated with prime time television. And if one is diligent enough to work a good sweat, the news propaganda shouldn’t stick. Benefits all around.

This emotional outpouring from postdocs is only possible due to the university’s goodwill gesture of polling the community about this issue. So for those who worry that majority rule will bring TV into the cafeteria—please don’t. It seems like the status quo will remain (28 votes against and 14 for TV) for now and the TV won’t be switched on in the cafeteria. For the rest who entertain visions of lunchtime TV—do not lose hope, your chance will come soon. The next referendum will be upon us again in two years time.

Thanks to Valerie Horsley who compiled postdoc responses in a format convenient for analysis.