wolfsbane wrote:If you can't see a big difference between the TV of today and that of even a few decades ago, I can't help you.
That's because it's all relative.
TV has been called stupid and anti-intellectual since the moment it was first broadcast. You're just the latest in a long line of detractors. "A few decades ago" The Love Boat
, The Sonny and Cher Show
and Project U.F.O.
were among the highest rated programs on TV. A couple decades earlier, we had Strike It Rich
, Amos 'n' Andy
and boxing courtesy of The Pabst Blue Ribbon Bouts
wolfsbane wrote: If you can't see a big difference between the intelligence level of Zane Grey novels vs. American Idol or Jerry Springer, I can't help you.
Apples to oranges comparisons are rarely of any value, especially coming from the mouth of someone who accuses others of making straw man arguments.
I mean, you do know that American Idol
is just the latest in a series of talent competitions that has existed since the earliest days of television, right? And what possible explanation can you provide for comparing Zane Grey to Jerry Springer? At least choose overlapping demographics!
wolfsbane wrote: There used to be at least some semblance of argumentation in public discourse. Now it is all sound-bytes, talking points, and name-calling.
I apologize for misrepresenting you by substituting "nastier" for "stupider", but you're simply wrong about what political discourse was like in the past. I again call your attention to The Election of 1800
The campaign was bitter and characterized by slander and personal attacks on both sides. Federalists spread rumors that the Democratic-Republicans were radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country.
Those sure sound like talking points, sound bites (please note spelling, Mr. Literacy) and name-calling to me.
wolfsbane wrote:While there may not be a decline in literacy according to broad statistics about minimum levels throughout the entire populous, it's obvious enough in the places where it counts.
In other words, even though you're wrong, you still think you're right. That's some reasoned, slow, deliberate thinking you've done there. I guess the books that disprove your assertion aren't on your reading list, eh?