> The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content", that is, a particular medium can

> The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content", that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Thus rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for this reason. Owing to this shortcoming, politics and religion are diluted, and "news of the day" becomes a packaged commodity. Television de-emphasizes the quality of information in favor of satisfying the far-reaching needs of entertainment, by which information is encumbered and to which it is subordinate. The argument isn't wrong, but it is outdated. We've figured out that we can dilute and commoditize text as well as we can visual media (see Twitter). The core idea ("people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights") is still valid, but the rest of it seems to incorrectly pit textual against visual media and it lacks nuance and sufficient depth. It's more of an ideological argument, which I find less than useful.