Why aren't people who watch hours and hours of TV told that they have "too much free time on their hands"?

Leisure time is a scarce commodity in American society; thus, how it is spent is of concern to many. For most, television watching is the preferred activity during idle hours. The individual who watches ca. 3 hours of television per night is hardly an anomaly. In fact, the nightly television viewer is hardly at a loss to find the like-minded within greater society. To discard television watching as an activity with absolutely no merit is myopic, to say the least. Although programming has been kept, for the most part, at a consistently low level since television's inception, certain networks have done us a service culturally and intellectually. In the modern era, viewers can opt to watch shows concerning history, travel, cuisine, classic cinema, diet and exercise, as well as art appreciation. However laudable these programs may be, they do not represent the bulk of commercial programming. One is more likely to come across inane sitcoms, tawdry reality shows, shallow reporting of current events, absurdly easy game shows, unintentionally funny soap operas and other detritus unlikely to stimulate the mind. Despite the dross broadcast over the airwaves, dedicating one's free time to immersion within this medium is more than accepted; in fact, it is encouraged.

The individual who dedicates three to four hours a night to watching that which provides no enrichment is hardly likely to see himself castigated for how he spends his idle moments. In fact, he will most likely find an eager group of like-minded individuals who will gladly join him in discussing the previous night's entertainment. The same cannot be said for he who spends his spare moments in study of that which is hardly remunerative. Let us compare a person who watches a nightly diet of sitcoms and reality shows to someone who spends his free moments studying dead languages, obscure literature or anything that is relatively arcane. The former is unlikely to be confronted with the accusation of "you have too much free time on your hands," whereas the latter, should he confess that his leisure time is spent engrossed in studying Sanskrit or cataloguing the greatest examples of dulcimer music, may find his use of his own time under scrutiny.

Likely to result in the accusation of "you have too much free time on your hands!"

Not likely to raise an eyebrow, even if your primary hobby is not only watching this show, but also contributing to its fan sites!

This is not to say that the "couch potato" is never subjected to criticism, but his inactivity and passivity are far more socially acceptable than one who expends much mental activity on that which is unlikely to result in monetary gain. The concept of dedicating one's mental abilities to something that has no financial reward is alien to too many. It is a distressing fact that many who indulge in activities of the mind that promise no compensation other than personal satisfaction are perceived as going against the grain in a negative way. This is an unfortunate feature of our modern society. How one spends one's leisure time is, of course, one's own business, but if the declaration of "you have too much free time on your hands," is given readily to he who spends his nights archiving medieval texts, why should it not be applied to someone who has spent the past hour immersed in "Jersey Shore" or some other inanity?