Little Hawk - you mentioned that you were "radicalized" and then go on to say that you read a lot of books. You say your views were different from those that watched television, and you also said that TV has been aimed at the lowest common denominator and commercialized.

Well, I assume the books you read were by choice. Your views were formed by the books you read and I presume the experiences you had.

Is that really different from people who learned from television?

I never agreed with McLuhan's theory that it was the medium that was the message. I feel that television HAS offered and CAN offer a great deal of GOOD information and can be a suitable teacher.   Books can also be commercialized, full of lies, and guide you toward the opinion of the author. No different than what television does. You have the choice to read or not to read, and the choice to change channels.

Having worked in television (in a technical capacity)since 1980, I can say that SOME of the elements of "Network" ring true. But there is much that does not. The news has become corrupted since deregulation and the competition for ad dollars has changed things. I don't think journalists are taught the proper lessons. The rush is to get things on fast and first, not accurate.

Still, it is no different than other sources of information.   It all falls back on the individiual. You are an intelligent person with well formed opinions. I give you credit. I also feel that people DO understand the dangerous side of television, which is why we have so many diverse opportunities. When I was a kid, we could read a book, watch TV or listen to the radio. When I was a bit older we had a stereo.   Today with the internet, DVD's, computer games, ipods ALL existing with the media that we had as children - there are more opportunities to learn and grow than ever before.

Give people a chance. Don't be clouded by rhetoric you read in books! :) (Just teasing there!)