"Time is money, people!"declares the vice-president in charge of finances as he rushes out

the doors of his office building onto the crowded streets of downtown. He is on his way to

an important meeting involving the future of his company. Once in a cab he takes notice of

the traffic and knows that he will be late. Out of his briefcase comes his mobile office:

laptop computer and digital camera connected via modem and cellular phone to the

conference room thirteen blocks away where he will be joining the others shortly. They

can't afford to wait for him. Through video-conferencing they will start the meeting. After

all, time is money.

This business man is among the many others who are trying to compete in the "age

of information" where each day has only twenty-four hours in which one can strive to

become better than before. No one has the time to wait three or four days for a crucial

message to be sent by post to reach it's destination. Solution: e-mail. Six to eight weeks

for delivery? Not if you want to stay on top. Courier services use state of the art

equipment to get your package delivered overnight. Whatever happened to relaxing

Sunday afternoons when we could sit down with a book capable of using words to

describe to us wonderful situations directly out of the author's imagination? Once again

modern technology has a less time consuming alternative. If a picture is worth a thousand

words then what could be better than replacing endless hours of reading with billions of

pictures all crammed into a half hour? In other words, television.

From the perspective of a youth oblivious to the creativity and knowledge inspired

by reading, replacing effort-requiring novels with lazy tube viewing makes perfect sense.

And who could blame them? Modern culture has repeatedly displayed television to the

point where it is expected. For example, there are big screens at Rockefeller Plaza in New

York, in all major sport complexes and in downtown Tokyo. They are a reflection of our

need for visual thrills. We also see televisions in schools and museums as efficient

demonstrators of phenomena otherwise impossible to experience.

The question is whether or not teachers, parents and the media are able to draw

the thin line separating positive moral-building material from destructive behavior

influences.

I believe that the education system has done a fine job at this. Often the best way

to learn a new language is to watch a familiar television program in which the characters

converse in this language. Museums as well deserve a pat on the back. Unless government

grants permit the purchase of multiple microscope and equipment stations, visitors can

find themselves in front of a television set observing microscopic bacteria along with an

anatomic diagram.

The negative side to this controversy is when children are exposed to topics like

violence and sex when they are not yet ready to deal with such adult issues. This

premature exposure causes them as young adults to be desensitized which can lead to

immoral behavior. An exaggerated case of this was demonstrated on an episode of The

Simpsons when the infant daughter Maggie repeatedly attacked her father after viewing

such violence on a cartoon show. As soon as her mother intervened and had the network

change the content of the cartoon, Maggie's behavior immediately changed as well. While

real life parents need not go to such extremes I believe that the most constructive thing to

do would to actively help children decide what and how much television to watch.

Television is a tool: it keeps us informed, it allows for microscopic viewing, it

entertains us, it teaches us, it parents us, it demoralizes us and it's faster than reading.

However not unlike other multi-purpose tools, not every function is right for every job.

Who are we expecting to decide what is proper usage and when? Parents? Educators? The

government? You?