By vividness, I’m talking about the relative powers of various kinds media to impress us; e.g. that television is more vivid than radio, which is more vivid tha

By vividness, I’m talking about the relative powers of various kinds media to impress us; e.g. that television is more vivid than radio, which is more vivid than writing. I wasn’t talking about the impressiveness of special effects specific to visual media. The idea is that since live-action media is more vivid than cartoons and comic books, it might be the case that either it is displacing better media for dealing with complex topics (e.g. books), or monopolizing a particular media that could be put to “better” uses (i.e. more art films and historical dramas)[1]. But, this isn’t a new argument, Neil Postman devoted an entire book to it 30 years ago [2]. Also, the word “nonsense” really wasn’t an appropriate rejoinder because I wasn’t making a deductive argument in the first place. Rather I was suggesting that there might be evidence that using increasingly more vivid media for ever more trivial things is a net harm to society. [1] I say this as someone who is guilty of watching superhero movies almost exclusively (I even paid to see Iron Man 2 in the theater five times). [2] https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#search_plus_one=form https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#s...