5 ms·

1965: He is so smart, he is watching so much TV 1990: He is so dumb, he is watching TV all day 2000: He is so bright, he spends a lot of time on the Internet

• GarrisonPrime 7y ago
  The difference is in quality and quality. Both media began with precious little content, most of it relatively high in value for the times and circumstances. (Even if it could be argued some content was low quality or utility, the simple access to a much wider array of thought was valuable.) But once they matured, of course they filled up with trash. Just like every medium. Given the quality of most books these days, someone “reading a lot” doesn’t mean much anymore, for instance.
  • Dontrememberit 7y ago
    Do you mean quality and quantity?
• michaelcampbell 7y ago
  > 1965: He is so smart, he is watching so much TV I'm not sure this was ever the case. > Newton N. Minow spoke of the "vast wasteland" that was the television programming of the day in his 1961 speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_aspects_of_television#Negative_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_aspects_of_television#N...
• 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
  One reason for this pattern is classism: the novelties of the upper classes are held up as glamorous and even virtuous, and that goes away when something is mass-marketed and becomes popular among the lower classes. Eventually, one might even hear words like "disgusting" and "poison" used to describe something that was once considered perfectly wholesome.
• eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > 1965: He is so smart, he is watching so much TV This never happened.