In the media world of today, there are some arguments between books and tv's. Some thinkers defend that books promote people's thoughts while televisions can not. And other thinkers think that televisions promote thoughts better than books. This polemic changes person to person in some ways. For example some person understand and begin to think with visual things. And others promote theirselves from written sources like books.
             I think books are more reliable than televisions because in the television you can't see the details about some events or vital knowledge otherwise you can see detailed things in the books. You can find what you want from books and everything you find, has many examples and models from life. For example when you watch the film of 1984 you will understand the basic forms of subject but when you read the book of 1984 you will understand and see the extensive events and you can comment the life and you can easily compare today and past because you will see the details in the book. Shortly, when you watch television you will understand the main idea but when ou read the book about the same thing you will make comment and you will add to your knowledge, so you will apply to your life.
             I belive, the people who watch television are lock of creativeness than the readers of the books. We can define those viewers of the magic box as the flock people since they think in the same ways, do the same things and suggest the same comments. So that people believe only what they see on television. For example according to research done in Italy people who watch television for a long time are not able to create new ideas and use their creativeness in establishing an outlook of life.
             There is one more truth that low and high contents coexist in both forms of media. For example in the Bravehearth movie there are two opinions about the film. One side watches it for its historical side and the other side says that...