Quote:
Originally Posted by Sregener
Oh, dear. You need to read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman, or "The Read Aloud Handbook" by Jim Trelease. Both make the point that when it comes to quality of content, television lags far behind books. Saying that reading is about consumption and is thus no different from television watching is like saying that eating is about consumption and that fruits & vegetables are no different from candy bars.
|
Point taken on the quality of the information. Even a diet of quality documentaries will leave you lacking because the density of information is far lower than that found in books.
Yet I think people are still missing my point: reading is, at best, about self-improvement. That isn't much different from eating fruits and veggies instead of candy. You eat those foods because you want to be healthier, and not because it improves the world. You may use that healthier body to help other people, but it does not automatically happen. Reading is exactly the same, it does not do anything to improve the world by itself. You may use that healthier mind to help other people, but it doesn't automatically happen.
That said, books aren't hugely different from television. People can choose to read garbage books, just like they can choose to watch garbage TV. People can choose to read quality books, just like they can choose to watch quality TV. I find that there are more quality books out there, but that has more to do with demographics. I also find that information density is better in books, likely because reading speeds are higher than verbal communications, but there are things you can demonstrate on TV that you can't demonstrate effectively in books.
So yes, I stand by that comparison.