It is easy to call anyone who holds a view contrary to popular belief a crank. This is because a person essentially does not have to put forth an argument, and merely relies on preconceived notions. Atheists were, and to many degrees still are, considered cranks.

I see a flaw in the general analysis of television's impact as a source of information. At least in America, most of the news is rather sensationalist than informative. Television as an entertainment source is not even a consideration, since many different societies have different forms of entertainment. So all that is left is the notion that television somehow provides something of cultural substance.

The truth of the matter is that a person can generally be better informed by the radio or reading a newspaper.

Further, the analogy of television to books is, in my view, a false one. Television is essentially a passive medium, whereas reading generally requires a modicum of concentration, and ergo is active.

Everyone you said about television is not about it being an informative medium, but rather its power as an inculcator of culture. So really you are calling people cranks who disagree with certain aspects of culture. And honestly, that is a tricky subject.

Television as a medium in western society has a few huge negatives that I think any of its benefits do not redeem.

1. It essentially does not provide anything new. That is to say, anything of substance I can obtain from television I can obtain from mediums that have few of television's negatives.

2. It is a the most powerful vehicle for cultural indoctrination, and unfortunately it usually presents the most insidious aspects of modern culture. (I.e., television is a huge influence in how people form opinions about gender and happiness.)

3. It is one of the greatest promoters of complacency and sedation known to humankind. I will not go so far as to say that television causes people to be sedate, but it truly is myopic to ignore the ease with which television can induce it. For instance, if a person is feeling lazy, but has no television, the alternatives are to take a nap or do something productive or enjoyable. With a television, just flip a switch. Of course, this example does not pertain to people who DO enjoy television.

Frankly, I have never once heard an sound argument for television's importance. Besides feeding women with messages that they need beauty products to hide their inherent ugliness (not television specific), and men with the idea they need to feel attracted to every female they meet, what cultural edification does television provide? It has its moments. Watching humankind set foot on the moon in real time...that is pretty nice.

But it would be quite absurd of me to lamblast anyone on these forums because they have never seen Top Model Sverige or Floor Filler (the latter a show following Swedish dancers). Yet that is exactly what people do when they call "antiTV" folk cranks. I met an Italian woman recently who had never seen Star Wars. Guess what, I can assure you she lived a perfectly healthy life, and could discuss a wide range of topics.