Channel Zero

Television? Not on Their Watch

At Nell Triplett's apartment, TV has been voted off the island. (By Len Spoden for The Washington Post)

Nell Triplett's Woodley Park living room is filled with the usual suspects: couch, coffee table, bookshelf and cozy fireplace. But there's one notable absence. "I've never had a television," she says.

No TV? Anywhere in the apartment? Doesn't she know the latest about Kate and Sawyer's "Lost" romance, or Meredith and McDreamy on "Grey's Anatomy"? Nope. She doesn't watch either one. The latest straining hopeful to be booted off "American Idol"? No clue.

Instead, she takes yoga, salsa dancing and French classes in the evenings. She plays the violin, reads a lot and trains for a marathon. Triplett, 25, says people give her a funny look when they learn of her TV-free life: "They always ask me how I live without it. . . . [But] I've never even considered owning one."

For many of us, television plays a big role in the way we live. At home, living rooms gave way to family rooms that gave way to media rooms. Reading chairs begat easy chairs that begat recliners, now with remote control and beer cooler built in. And then there's the endless programming, from ESPN to HBO to MTV, presented on flat screens, projector screens, HDTV with surround sound. Why would -- how could -- anyone do without?

Not many people do. According to a Census Bureau study, 98.2 percent of U.S. households in 2004 had televisions, averaging 2.8 sets per home. But there is a minuscule group of Americans who just say no to television.

Their reasons vary: Some, like Triplett, never had a TV growing up. Some think the shows are not worth their time. Others simply find television too distracting. Whatever the rationale, life without TV is a rarity.

"To aggressively not have a TV is to take yourself out of the loop of American cultural conversation," says Robert J. Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. He says people are often shocked, then reverential upon learning of someone's TV-free lifestyle.

Triplett grew up in California's Santa Cruz mountains, where no-TV families were fairly common. "I have a lot of respect for the way my parents raised us," she says. "Without TV, we had time for creative devices and spent time outdoors." The self-proclaimed "news junkie" says she's probably better informed than many other people, getting news from the Web, newspapers and radio.

Triplett is content to come home to silence after a long day of work or an evening out with friends. "It's nice to not rely on a TV for company," says the government employee. "I look at a screen all day. I don't want to look at one at home."

Jeffrey Boulier ditched the tube 12 years ago when he realized his viewing habits were distracting him from his schoolwork at George Washington University. "I just found it too easy to get sucked into watching it," says Boulier, 33. "I would suddenly find myself at 2 a.m. watching 'Judge Judy.' It just wasn't worth it."

When he's not working as a database administrator in the District, he reads at home in Fairfax, e-mails friends and surfs the Internet, plays pool and volunteers as an emergency medical technician in Nokesville. He says he's much happier without TV: "It takes up all your time, and I've got a lot of other things to do."

Despite his experience, Boulier says he isn't one to climb on a soapbox and preach about the benefits of a TV-free life. He says he has "some vague objections" to television because the tube has "replaced a lot of alternatives that are more socially beneficial or more intellectually stimulating for some people." But Boulier stresses that his unfavorable view of TV is "not a huge thing" for him.