One is Crack and the Other is the Box
Almost a century has passed since two revolutionaries have been born to change the world: television and drugs. It is clear that both drugs and television made their way to society at the same time, but it doesn't seem that obvious what is that made them escalate together. Some studious people say that it may have to do with the presence of drugs in the media, but it remains a mystery. In 'Crack and the Box' by Pete Hamill, there is an intention to explain the reasons to this phenomenon. Hamill accuses television to be the instigator of drugs. However, his statements fall into contradiction because the effects of television watching cannot be compared to those of drug consumption.
Primarily, the domination power television has on its viewers is incomparable to the one drugs have over their addicts. First, addicts to television are not dominated in the same level addicts to drugs are. Hamill says that television absorbs its viewers in the same way drugs absorb their users because both television and drugs cultivate asocial behaviors in people (63, 64). Departing from this idea, it may seem reasonable to say that addicts to television and drugs both portrait unsocial attitudes, but doesn't this happen with any other kind addiction? Here Hamill is isolating a generalization which intention is to proclaim an assumption to be true. In his example, Hamill explains how some Americans fight their loneliness by leaving their TV sets on as companion (63). Instead of support Hamill's idea this example shows how Americans fulfill their vacancy of company rather than how Americans become lonely due to television. Second, independent studies on television do not qualify to determine the relation between TV and drugs. Hamill supports his idea of the television's domination power with a study on 4-to-5-year-old children, which showed that one third of the children was willing to give up their parents before giving up television (64). Obviously, one third has no relevance to support television's domination power, and it loses even more authority when focusing on the judging capability of five-year-old children. Furthermore, this study cannot establish a connection between television and the willpower of drug addicts due its inaccuracy. In summary, television viewers are not subjected to watching as drug addicts are to doping themselves. In addition, television viewers are far from becoming addicted to watching while drug users become addicted to drugs almost instantly. For example, anyone who spends over seven hours per day in front of a TV set could stop watching it at any moment, without any frustration, while any drug addict could never even take the initiative to quit using drugs.
Also, Television attacks more the unconsciousness rather than the consciousness. Hamill says that, similarly to drugs, television is a consciousness-altering instrument (64), but this is not true. First, television cannot do more than...