• TV rots the mind, not intellectually stimulating
• There are more productive things to do then watch TV
• People become absorbed by TV and controlled by it
• TV doesn't portray real life
• TV is owned by rich white men, and only display what rich white men want to see 

Ill start off by attacking the fist point. I believe that TV is intellectually stimulating. For instance, theres the ever popular PBS, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.  but even the common sitcom has some intellectual value.  It portrays a style of life- whether its common or not, it exists, and can often have increased appreciation through television shows. Also, the wit and humour found in some shows (such as Seinfeild, The Simpsons, etc) is often unmatched and encourages creativity.  I could even find some value in shows like Jerry Springer. Yes, I know many of you will devaluate my opinion for saying that. But, I dont really care, I think its true. I think that shows like Springer often show sociology and ethnology in its oddest manner, but it shows.  Find the show incredibly interesting.  True, its trashy. But what isnt?  Television is a form of art, like everything else. To say that there are better thing to do then watching TV is like saying there are better things to do then look at a painting, listening to music, or reading a book.  They are all forms of art. Or to say, Im not going to go out with my boyfriend tonight because I could be reading Siddartha by Herman Hesse.  Screw it, Im not going to even have a boyfriend, or ever go out, because during that time, I could be reading.  You could  give up everything for the sake of conventional intellectual stimulation. And there is nothing wrong if you do that: its all about relativism.  What you do to make yourself happy is really irrelevant, as long as you achieve that state of mind (with the exception of hurting another person via life, liberty or property) I know, I know, I consistently bad-mouth relativism, but in non-morality cases, like that of the virtues of tv, its simply necessary, because you are not imposing a moral code on society. But thats a whole other essay Anyway, to say that television is bad because of some trashy shows, is like saying music is bad because of certain boy bands or whatever other poor musicians.  That would be an outrageous claim, an extremely untrue one. I think that some TV shows are the Britney Spears of the world, and others the Eric Claptons.  Besides, even if TV had no intellectual stimulation at all would that still make it valueless? Freud wrote about how sometimes you cant describe why you like, say poetry. Does that make you liking it any less valuable? Freud then sort of equates this with sexuality. Can you necessarily describe why you have sexual desires for someone? No, not always. Hence TV relates to that, it like poetry is a form of art, and a good TV program is really not any less worthy of value in society then a good book is.  Sometimes, the simple gaining of pleasure is worthwhile to people.  Obviously then, if it causes pleasure, it is productive in some manner and people value it higher than anything else they could be doing

Moving on to the second point, that people become absorbed by TV and controlled by it.  Now, we are going to assume we are discussing about adults, because children really mess up philosophy, and its hard to place virtues on irrational beings.   When people watch TV over, saying paying bills, they value (at that time) catching up on the latest Friends episode over getting electricity for the next month.  They made the choice to value TV that highly, and thus must accept the consequences of it. What am I trying to say here? People want TV. They like TV. If they didnt want and like it, it wouldnt exist. If it holds them back, or they become absorbed by it, then so be it. To quote Art Alexakis you hold the hand that holds you down. True, it can become a problem when it takes over there life, but heck, anything can. For instance, a person may become so into there knitting that they slowly back away from all other things in life: they forget family and work obligations, they let themselves slip in an aesthetic manner, etc. True, knitting is a rather odd example, but its parallel to TV.  Really, Im taking a rather psychological egoistic approach to this.  If you decide to not study and go to a concert, you value that concert higher than studying, or you think its more important. Now, sure you are saying that you dont really think that knowledge is less important than going to a show, but you obviously do if that sort of situation happened to you.  You do what you really want, thats what separates us from most non-human animals (as far as we can tell): the ability to rationalize and choose what you are going to do, based on past experiences, logic, predictions, etc.  This may sound harsh, but if one allows themselves to be controlled, then they deserve it because thats what they want. Of course, this probably excuses those of irrational mind, but thats an exception really, and I realize you cant always argue all the exceptions, or else nothing would ever be accomplished

This is then basically the same for the third common attack of TV, that of ill portrayal of life, and upper-class majority controlling the production.  Really, its too bad there isnt more people controlling the media. But, again, people want what those upper-class men have.  Or else, it wouldnt have the thriving popularity that it does have.  True, it can be controlling. But again, if one lets it control them, then so be it. And many times, that control can have positive effects, for instance when the Jeffersons showed an interracial couple for the first time ever on TV, it shocked viewers. But over time, other shows followed, and it decreased the tension surrounding the topic. Same with Ellen Degeneres and other TV shows and performers.  It can be positive. Not that positive exploitation is any better than negative, but to reiterate its not exploitation or controlling. It only is if you let it be that way (again excluding irrational beings, i.e. children)