"In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can le
arn as much by watching television as they can by reading books."The speaker contends that
people learn just as much from watching television as by reading books, and therefore tha
t reading books is not as important for learning as it once was. I strongly disagree. I co
ncede that in a few respects television, including video, can be a more efficient and effe
ctive means of learning. In most respects, however, these newer media serve as poor substi
tutes for books when it comes to learning.Admittedly, television holds certain advantages
over books for imparting certain types of knowledge. For the purpose of documenting and co
nveying temporal, spatial events and experiences, film and video generally provide a more
accurate and convincing record than a book or other written account. For example, it is im
possible for anyone, no matter how keen an observer and skilled a journalist, to recount i
n complete and objective detail such events as a Ballanchine ballet, or the scene at the i
ntersection of Florence and Normandy streets during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Besides, s
ince the world is becoming an increasingly eventful place, with each passing day it become
s a more onerous task for journalists, authors, and book publishers to recount these event
s, and disseminate them in printed form. Producers of televised broadcasts and videos have
an inherent advantage in this respect. Thus the speaker's claim has some merit when it co
mes to arts education and to learning about modern and current events.However, the speaker
overlooks several respects in which books are inherently superior to television as a medi
um for learning. Watching television or a video is no indication that any significant lear
ning is taking place; the comparatively passive nature of these media can render them inef
fectual in the learning process. Also, books are far more portable than television sets. M
oreover, books do not break, and they do not depend on electricity, batteries, or access t
o airwaves or cable connections, which may or may not be available in a given place. Final
ly, the effort required to read actively imparts a certain discipline which serves any per
son well throughout a lifetime of learning.The speaker also ignores the decided tendency o
n the part of owners and managers of television media to filter information in order to ap
peal to the widest viewing audience, and thereby maximize profit. And casting the widest p
ossible net seems to involve focusing on the sensational---that is, an appeal to our emoti
ons and baser instincts rather than our intellect and reasonableness. The end result is th
at viewers do not receive complete, unfiltered, and balanced information, and therefore ca
nnot rely on television to develop informed and intelligent opinions about important socia
l and political issues.Another compelling argument against the speaker's claim has to do w
ith how well books and television serve their respective archival functions. Books readily
enable readers to review and cross-reference material, while televised broadcasts do not.
Even the selective review of videotape is far more trouble than it is worth, especially i
f a printed resource is also available. Moreover, the speaker's claim carries the implicat
ion that all printed works, fiction and non-fiction alike, not transferred to a medium cap
able of being televised, are less significance as a result. This implication serves to dis
credit the invaluable contributions of all the philosophers, scientists, poets, and others
of the past, upon whose immense shoulders society stands today.A final argument that book
s are made no less useful by television has to do with the experience of perusing the stac
ks in a library, or even a bookstore. Switching television channels, or even scanning a vi
deo library, simply cannot duplicate this experience. Why not? Browsing among books allows
for serendipity--unexpectedly coming across an interesting and informative book while sea
rching for something else, or for nothing in particular. Moreover, browsing through a libr
ary or bookstore is a pleasurable sensory experience for many people--an experience that t
he speaker would have us forego forever.In sum, television and video can be more efficient
than books as a means of staying abreast of current affairs, and for education in the art
s that involve moving imagery. However, books facilitate learning in certain ways that tel
evision does not and cannot. In the final analysis, the optimal approach is to use both me
dia side by side--television to keep us informed and to provide moving imagery, along with
books to provide perspective and insight on that information and imagery.