Radio is almost as bad as TV -- high cost of entry (which means easier control over what message is put forth), the only difference from TV is "no visual element".

Internet is more like magazines or newspapers -- it requires the active participation of one's reason (brain) to absorb any information -- an active participation -- so there is no possibility for brainwashing. Also, there is a very, very low cost of entry as anyone can start a website for zero cost.

So I don't know what argument you envision could be applied to Internet, Radio AND TV -- but that argument doesn't matter to me.

When I say the TV medium is dangerous, it is uniquely so. Programs with a Catholic worldview don't make it to your TV screen. Period. Even "The Passion of the Christ" could have been much better. Read the book -- it was much better.

I've said many times, that TV has MANY problems, so it's hard to decide where to begin. There's the medium -- completely passive for the viewer, with high cost of entry for content producers, ability to induce a passive trance-like state, ability to insert ideas into your subconscious without your knowledge, and its consequent ability to cause hypnotic, effective brainwashing (read the history of advertising -- it will scare you!)

Then there's the content -- I've always said, it's not about "flesh and blood" (sɛҳuąƖ content and violence) being on your screen -- even a child can recognize and turn that stuff off. Every Christian mother with an ounce of decency keeps her kids away from that stuff. AND YET -- plenty of anti-Catholic ideas can be taught by PG-13, PG, even G-rated movies. I've learned how to watch movies critically, and every subtle "assumption", every bit of propaganda, jumps out at me. Mother/father roles, children vs. parents, role of religion and God in daily life, etc. EVERYTHING in the movie either paints a picture of a good Catholic life, or it points people AWAY from it. I will say that almost every movie I've ever watched points people AWAY from an integral (complete, uncompromised) Catholic life.

Rememeber that there are certain rules in God's creation that can't be violated. However, they CAN be in the fantasy world of Hollywood. Hollywood could portray a man willfully pursuing adultery, divorcing his wife, leaving his kids completely behind, and living a blissfully happy life with the woman he was committing adultery with.

They could portray a gαy couple adopting 3 children, and having them all grow up well-adjusted, smart, successful, and portray one of them as finding the cure for cancer. Hey, in Hollywood anything is possible! And here's Hollywood's secret -- it looks real. More real than "real life" for some people. It looks 100% reality, believable, like it could happen out here in the real world. This has been taken advantage of by Hollywood for decades, to bring us things like divorce, irresponsible men, feminist women, snotty kids, etc.

Matthew, thank you for your reply. I will try to summarize it, then apply some responses. My goal is to both understand your position, sometimes by challenging assertions, and also to maintain a civil, charitable exchange of ideas in keeping with gentlemanly discourse.

You seem to draw 2 conclusions: 1) Television the medium is bad, 2) Television programming is bad.
For the first conclusion, you seem to state the reasons are: a) It is a passive medium, b) It is expensive to create and air programming on TV, c) It opens up oneself to brainwashing (implicit to this is television programming includes brainwashing content).
For the second conclusion, you seem to state the reasons are: a) Anti-Catholic ideas can (implicitly are, since in television, all programming either points one toward Catholic teaching or away from it, and no programming currently points one toward Catholic teaching) be portrayed, b) Television programming presents a life at variance with natural law, c) TV is responsible for obscene, disrespectful, and immoral behavior in our society.

Assuming I correctly summarized your positions, here are my counter-points. In the spirit of discussion, I hope you reply to these, helping me to better understand your positions.

For the first conclusion, I grant the passivity and expense, but take issue with the brainwashing rationale. I understand you recommend studying advertising, but in my own studies of it, I have seen no conclusive evidence of subliminal messages beyond the few well-docuмented ones, and I have seen no conclusive evidence of general TV consumption leading to brainwashed conditions.
While I do see that TV advertising works well, studies I have read did not conclude it was due to a brainwashing "A causes B" situation, but rather a general modification of viewers' perceptions and evaluations of products advertised on TV. Over a period of time, many viewers (not all) experienced a modified perception (not radically altered).
TV advertising is not brainwashing; further, you seem to attribute nefarious motives to TV programming, as if it would cause all viewers to succuмb to all values (or lack thereof) being broadcasted. This is just not the case.

As to your second conclusion, I do not agree with your black-or-white reasoning. Some programming is just plain neutral. I do not agree that if programming is not pro-Catholic, it must be anti-Catholic.
While some programming is contrary to our Faith, and to natural law, I do not see that even this "bad" programming is to blame for our societal immoralities, and there are degrees to which this "bad" programming veers away from the Faith and natural law. It's not all Sex in the City; in fact, some of it is just docuмentaries, news/weather, and some dramas. Note, I am labeling these as "bad" because they ignore the role of God and His Law, and they present people who take the Lord's Name in vain or who express viewpoints that are not Catholic.

For either of your conclusions, I would argue that some media literacy coupled with maturity in Faith would cure most ills. Who in the world watches the news and assumes it is God's Own Truth? Or that a new home-owner who uses our Lord' Name in vain is representing upright and praiseworthy behavior? Such naivety/foolishness would be stunning. Perhaps it is due to these people that you express the concerns you do.

I can watch TV, veg-out for a while, and not adopt its world-view. It is entertainment, and some of the content is actually quite good even though it is not EWTN.

As for being the cause of society's ills, I doubt that TV is the culprit. I blame bad parenting (for not instilling good values, fear of God, and basic media literacy) coupled with a general barbarization of our culture. Is TV programming a factor? Probably, but not the cause.

With all of this stated, I do share your concerns in general. I believe it to be wise to limit the amount of TV watching one does. There are, as you stated before, several other worthy uses of our time. I also believe the programming should be cleaned up, and should portray good Catholic values and views. And if I were to only go to TV for my education, enlightenment, and moral formation, I am sure I would be more barbarous and less charitable than if I read books and periodicals, partook of the Sacraments, prayed, and generally tried to lead a virtuous life.

For me, it's a matter of prudence and balance, pure and simple.