Television has a malign influence on society

Well, thank you very much digitalphantom, I am humbled by your great intellect. I will give it my best to write as articulate and as well read as you.----------------------------------------------------------------------- With regards to your comments about freedom of choice, The [sic] freedom of choice is one of the most fundamental rights which has been given to society by law and religion. Freedom of choice, is not granted by law, nor by religion. Freedom of choice, as in free will, is innate to mankind. Free will is a direct result of having a rational mind, and the faculties of reason, a quality that is unique only to man. Law does not empower the mind to have the potential of free will, thus it does not originate in law (assuming that you are referring to the laws of men) or mysticism. But I digress. The reality of is that the preference of an individual on subject matter in the media is completely ignored in your argument. As I had argued before, the consumer has a choice of what he or she wants to watch. If they want to indulge in 1 hour of subjective reality (drama), why shouldn’t they? If you want to argue specifically of any Sophist programming, such as any mainstream news network, then your argument could be relevant. When the consumer is tuning in specifically to watch objective reality (news) and instead get subjective (propaganda), then yes, the quality of the programming becomes questionable. But that is not what we are arguing. We are arguing why television in general is NOT malign to the interest of mankind. The debate that you are trying to have, seems to be focused specifically on subjective reality in the media being pushed as objective. With regards to your argument against artistic expression, Very little percent of nowadays media is actually art by its definition. By the commonly agreed upon definition of ART, media for all intends and purposes is artfully composed. It takes true skill and insight to direct a television show, a commercial, or a pornographic movie. To readily dismiss these as not being artful, means completely ignoring the premise of the word’s definition. I can understand if the media does not suit your belief of aesthetics, but readers, please do not confuse the two terms. Aesthetics and Art are two different concepts. Regarding your statement on cartoon violence, Because television violence is accompanied by vivid production features, preschoolers are predisposed to seek out and pay attention to violence—particularly cartoon violence. I agree with you, violence in cartoon animations are concerning. As a parent, I will make sure that my child watches approved programming only. Furthermore, I will exercise my right of free will to circumvent circumstances that my child is too young to comprehend. Does this seem like an unreasonable task for an average parent? Propaganda and nationalism are products of government not of the private media industry! You can make the argument of marketing being a form of propaganda, in that case I would agree with you, but considering the sense in which you used the word, that is not the case. If your goal is for people to not be fooled by the mind games being played in the media, then I would suggest an alternative; a simple dose of logic, grammar and rhetoric in every man, woman and child’s education will do it. These tools act like an antivirus against the psychological power of the establishment. Otherwise, I say let freedom reign on the airwaves! Give me the choice that is fittingly mine!