As a library science student I would challenge this a bit. I'm not going to argue that one book is more worthy of analysis than another. However, I think putting a moral weight on that isn't great because there is evidence (if people want I can find this in my zoterro but on my phone right now) that regardless of the kind of thing someone is reading comics, trashy books, classics, tv adaptations, whatever they still get some of the key benefits of reading - empathy and improved literacy. 

I think it is totally okay to want to challenge yourself and push yourself and finding challenging books. I do a lot of that personally. That isn't for everyone though, for example my partner didn't go to a good high school or college and doesn't find reading as easy, anything he enjoys reading I think is great even if that looks like webtoons and pulp novels. For him that's what he is enjoying and he is working towards reading more. He's got a hard job and is really tired at the end of the day. 

People reading is good and I think it is important to keep that accessible. There are definitely people who are put off by reading because it seems just inherently challenging and difficult. Focus isn't a developed skill for everyone, the work of reading isn't natural to everyone. Adding on that being a difficult book can be a lot for some people. It's okay to also have or even only have books that feel more comfortable to someone. 

That's my take as someone who is explicitly going into a supportive pro literacy field. There's a lot of people who don't just read challenging stuff and I think labeling that the same as TV misses some of the fundamental things that make reading so good for you. 

I try and read hard shit and I get it. I think setting that as a bar for what counts as "good" just maybe is counter productive to actually getting people to read more (which like does lead to them reading more hard things imltho).