A rather lengthy argument by a TV critic for respecting television as a medium and appreciating the rich cultural gifts it's given us. The author's right when he shows that new media are always reviled by the protectors of the old, from Plato to the very recent birth of "film studies" as a legitimate field. And yes, many critics of TV are simply following this pro-status quo, kneejerk line of reasoning. But Bianculli goes a little overboard. Yes, a lot of BBC specials and American literary adaptions are high theater, and "The Simpsons" is a very clever reflection and parody of our society. But he has to keep referring again and again to the same thirty shows, in all the 50 year history of TV, to make his point. Obviously, when television is used to adapt literary works, or documentaries, it's a very powerful medium, and kneejerk criticism of it - "Turn TV Off day" including the news, Discovery Chanel, etc. - it's absurd. And he certainly makes his point that what's on TV becomes common knowledge (does anyone disagree?). But popularity isn't a sign that a medium deserves respect. What Bianculli constantly steps around in his at times repetitive treatise is that 99% of TV is, at most, amusing; at worst, appallingly inane. In short, he succeeds in arguing that TV is a superb medium of creative expression; but he fails to convince that the great bulk of what is actually on TV is worth watching.