Hacker News Reader

Comment by pls2halp | Hacker News Reader

There’s a very solid argument for TV as stunting people’s development.

There’s lack of reading, albeit not necessarily due to television (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-dec...)

There’s a direct link between television and obesity (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/75/5/807)

And more general health dangers (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/prolonged-tel...)

Etcetera

View on HN

One substantial benefit of Television was that everyone was simultaneously watching the same thing. This increased political homogeneity by providing a shared belief system, or at least some more common ground. Such homogeneity is correlated strongly with stability and prosperity on a nation-state level.

This was particularly true from 1950 until 1970 or so, before cable television exploded (it remained true for longer in smaller nations without wide cable TV adoption). I think it matches up with a comparatively bi-partisan period in (mainstream) politics around the western world.

Of course, there are disadvantages too, but homogeneity is looking increasingly valuable as legislatures around the Western world succumb to polarisation.

But you can also argue that that polarisation is just a step away from homogeneity.

I'm arguing precisely this. Perhaps you misread my comment?

Via the medium of radio, that worked just dandy in 1930s Germany.

Lots of current problems were created by that unexamined unanimity, so one would have to try much harder to successfully argue it was a "benefit".

What problems were created by the unexamined unanimity?

I am not trying to argue there were no downsides, only that we should account for the benefits. The comments I responded to seemed to be ommitting the existence of some benefits. Whether the benefits outweigh the damage is a more complex question.

Etcetera is not a reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com