The 'popcorn of the mind' theory

I have often been secretly proud of the fact that TV holds little attraction
for me, and I prefer to read books instead. In some senses, I looked down on
people who watched more TV and read fewer books - buying into the theory
that TV deadens the mind. But a couple of months ago, I started thinking
more about this habit and came up with a theory - which I call the 'popcorn
of the mind' theory. It goes like this - people prefer different kinds of
popcorn when they go to watch movies. I prefer plain salted popcorn, some
others prefer caramel. Most novels are really like popcorn - how can I
classify anything from Sidney Sheldon or Ludlom as anything but light snacks
designed to waste a few hours? If I want a richer experience, one that
engages more senses, I may just as well watch some Hollywood flicks instead.
And here's the kicker - I'd probably learn more if I watched NGC instead!
So, what I'm really trying to say is, I concluded that the real difference
between TV and reading is not in the medium, but in the content that I
peruse. Someone who watches a lot of interesting TV may end up knowing and
learning more than someone who reads a lot of Desmond Bagley.
Of course, books make it easier to add a lot more depth than video does
(there is a reason why scientists publish their material), but video can
make an experience richer - watch Schindler's List or even The Mask (!) -
and try to think how they can be captured on paper.