Stories

Which is better? To blob in front of a tv for the evening and accept professionally produced stories of unreal people, or to blob in front of a PC and be involved in the filtered stories of real people?
Real people's stories usually cannot provide the sensational variety of the mass media. Mass media material is a selection of dramatic highlights of many people - condensed, clarified, shaped into the mental mould of the producer, then distributed to millions of hungry viewers.
Real people's stories have long periods of ordinariness, punctuated by times of anxiety and excitement. With real people one can afford the luxury of interacting on a one-to-one or one-to-few basis. With this interaction, one can compensate for the long banal periods by exercising creativity. Interactive stories take more effort and may be less spectacular, but they also carry higher risks and rewards. A tv will not say "I've got a heap of work to get done so I can't talk much today." But on the other side of the coin, a tv won't compliment you on things you've done or suggest ways to improve.
I choose to spend very little time watching tv. I would rather interact, whether it be a game, a public bulletin board, or just conversation. I want to be involved in making the story.