Perhaps, but I regret the tens of hours I've spent watching, (say) Frasier or How I Met Your Mother significantly less than the minute and a half I spent reading that article.
"It's a fact" makes it sound like some actual facts supporting the title would be in the article. Alas, no.
Noticing this was from sfgate.com, I suspected this was a Mark Morford piece even before clicking through. Morford is such a perfect exemplar of bien-pensant San Francisco thought, and of what passes for wit among the orthodox politically correct, that I sometimes wonder if he's real. He's like a character from 'Stuff White People Like' brought to life.
It's a fact: The number one reason why white people like not having a TV is so that they can tell you that they don’t have a TV.[1]
Seriously. I skimmed through looking for numbers, but having found nothing, I went to the HN comments section. I feel I made a good decision by not reading the article.
Hmm, let's get this straight - Caveman had no TV, and stayed in his cave for 10 thousands of years. The Middle ages had no TV, and entertained with bloody battles, torture and witch burning.
And right now, the age of TV is the most peaceful and innovative age in a long time. Only marred by a few surly spots in the world - which are the same spots that don't have any TV!
The article starts with "I hate wasting time passively watching that TV stuff", then makes a weak point admitting that wasting time on editing or reading Wikipedia is useful. Then it ends pointing in the opposite direction: "But let professionals do their job and let's just consume what there's on the market".
He could just as easily named the article "As seen on TV" and then it would be cryptic and enticing, rather than sensationalist. But I guess it worked, I read the article anyway. He makes a rather roundabout way of dissing groupthink, but hey, its his blog.
The article says nothing of the sort. It says that TV is a waste of time since you're not making anything new or different. The same would go for watching baseball games, going to concerts, sitting in traffic, eating at a sit-down restaurant, etc.
Man, that was one really poorly written article. I do agree that tv makes people dumb, but really what a circumlocutory way to get to the point. Might as well been wiser off agreeing with the article's headline and buzzing away.
For a contrarian -- but reasoned -- argument, see Steven Johnson's suggestion that TV, especially in its growing complexity compared to past decades, is a brain-booster:
As much as we may suspect TV erodes patience, initiative, focus, and a deep understanding of things, there's still the 'Flynn effect', the not-completely-understood rise in normalized IQs for as long as there's been regular testing. The ever-growing variety and complexity of 'pop' entertainment, from early radio and movies through to TV and the internet, might be a factor.
