After reading the first three chapters of "Amusing Ourselves to Death," what would you say is the major premise of Postman's book? For a helpful example or illustration of his premise, you might cut, paste, and check out the link below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/us/politics/06thompson.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The major premise of Postman’s book is that America’s transition from being a literary, print-based society, into an audio-visual society, with the ascendancy of telegraphy and broadcasting, has not only changed the way in which we are accustomed to receiving information and ostensibly participating public discourse (upon the premise of which the democratic principle relies), but has reduced the quantity and sophistication of information that we are prepared to absorb.
Postman frames his argument at the outset from a literary standpoint, demonstrating that while society has been preoccupying itself with the chimerical (and propagandistically endorsed) terror of an Orwellian future, it has been willingly and contentedly shuffling into a Huxleyian present: a present in which we are held voluntarily subject by our own dependence upon a continuous regimen of facile amusements, momentary distractions, and superficial acquisitions.
The result, from a political perspective, is that (a) politicians are no longer obliged to offer the voting public the same level of intellectual and rational substance as they were in the age of print, and (b) the public is no longer expected to choose their officials according to the same comparatively comprehensive and rigorous criteria. The modern format for political debate, Postman argues, is no longer the rhetorical academy or the lecture hall, but the television commercial, in which emotions are communicated far better than ideas. Politicians are therefore expected to relate to their constituencies’ hearts rather than their heads, and citizens are generally expected to vote as their “feelings” guide them. These feelings, unfortunately, are apt to be derived from the audience’s (that is, the voters’) impressions of a candidate’s attractiveness, amiability, and confidence before the camera, and not necessarily his or her expertise, intelligence, or competence. While these criteria are alluded to often during the course of a campaign, a candidate is rarely called upon to make a demonstration of them.
Journalism, the dynamo of the democratic power exchange, has responded to the truncated attentions of the populace in the same way as the politicians. With a few exceptions, newspapers and magazines – formerly the people’s primary source for information both crucial and relatively trivial – have endeavored to more closely resemble the television screen, by offering readers more visual (i.e. graphic) stimulation, and adjusting writing styles to make them more digestible and easier to comprehend. In the process, Postman says, the public has lost (or surrendered) much of its capacity for nuanced thought and multifaceted consideration. Held in a constant state of excited distraction, we are near to having our faculty for sustained concentration entirely obliterated.
It is Postman’s conclusion that society’s greatest danger lies not in falling under the tyrannical subjugation of an absolute political authority, but in haplessly allowing itself to be conditioned into self-assumed complacency. Put simply, we are menaced by the prospect of idly misplacing our grasp of reality, by viewing everything around us as an element of our ongoing program of entertainment.
I started to catch on to what Postman is describing in this book last year when I wrote a piece for Little Rebellion. At one point I saw a link in the absurdity of T.V. and many other forms of communication we use and the way we talk to each other and more specifically communicate in a classroom. A lot of college students use the Daily Show as their primary source of news because it’s entertaining. The information doesn’t matter as much as how it is presented.
Television is built to be entertainment, something you went to after work or school to look at to be entertained. Now it feeds us our politics, news, and education to a pretty high degree. The catch is that it needs to be entertaining, because its on a medium of entertainment. Typography wasn’t invented to entertain; it was to be used as a medium for ideas. When Typography was the main medium, the main communication was communication of ideas but now with television, now its entertainment. When Postman wrote the book, an entertainer ran for president and won, and we have plenty of analogies to that now.
I think that Postmans main point in this book is that print is being replaced by the media, mainly television. When Fred D. Thompson announced on Jay Leno that he was running for President he did it because he knew he'd get plenty of exposure with Leno being a popular show. Arnold made his announcement on Leno and he got into office. You would think that you would hear something like this from a news channel or newspaper. Postman writes "the best television is junk television" which I believe to be completely true. Some of the most popular shows are the shows that are pretty ridiculous, sometimes down right dumb and they don't really make you a more informed person (not to say that Leno is a stupid show). Eventhough Leno is not a newsworthy show, it's a popular show that got his announcement exposed to a wide range of people. There was an excerpt from the New York Gazette about newspapers being the general source of conversation throughout the country. So much of todays conversation revolves around television. A few months ago I met someone from Seatle at a concert. The first thing she said to me was something about the ferry she takes and Greys Anatomy. I've never seen the show and had no idea what she was talking about, but thought it was so funny that Greys Anatomy is so popular she just assumed everyone watches it and started a conversation with me about it. Also in Amusing Ourselves it says that the printed book released people from the domination of the immediate and local. This can be applied to television. We can watch television shows about different places in the world and different times. The printed word may almost become phased out.
I'm not exactly sure of Postman's major premise. I do know that one of the many things he argues about is the ability for an audience to be able to hear the truth. We need to be able to seperate the content spoken from the eloquenceness of the speaker. Also we must not be distracted from listening from the truth. The article about Fred D. Thompson announcing his candidacy last week relates to his argument. He appeared on the Jay Leno Show to talk about his candidacy. He spoke on the show to "promote" himself and intended to talk about children of the future and how he has to take a stand and other topics. However, mixing politics with comedy may appeal to a lot of viewers. The question that remains is: are those same viewers able to "hear" what is being said and select the "truth" by not being distracted by the comical enviornment.
According to Postman, in place of the printed word, television has been a main primary source of political, social and cultural information for decades. As far as politics are concerned, Postman says that “we may have reached the point where cosmetics has replaced ideology as the field of expertise over which a politician must have competent control”(Postman, 4). The first demonstration of this that comes to mind for me is the John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon presidential debate. This was one of the first ever televised debates, which allowed Americans to not only read and hear of the strategies and ideas of their future leader, but they were able to make judgments of these ideas in conjunction to how the candidate appeared and was presented physically.
To add on to what Nick just posted, yes according to Postman, typography was invented to function first and foremost as a medium for ideas, yet there was a similar fascination with popular writers and their work such as the work of Dickens and Walter Scott. These two authors and their work for example were glorified and glamorized in a similar way in which we glamorize broadcast journalists and other “talking heads” of television.
Postman noted that Samuel Goodrich wrote: “The appearance of a new novel from his pen caused a greater sensation in the United States than did some of the battles of Napoleon” (Postman, 39). Based on this, one could infer that before television, even the printed word would sometimes take away from more important essential knowledge.
One of the things Postman repeatedly notes is that reading a book (or newspaper, for that matter) requires different skills than watching TV, calls forth a different kind of attention. Even when one is reading a novel, one is still engaged in an entirely different way and in an entirely different experience than one would be while watching TV. It isn't so much specific content that matters, but the media over which the content is delivered (though the media dictates the content to a large extent).
When I began reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, for some reason I was under the impression that this book was written more recently than it actually was. I thought that a book that challenged the values that are placed on television in regards to how people obtain and make judgments about the “news of the day” was maybe something written in the past 10 years. I was a little surprised to find out that this book was written over 20 years ago. After all, I’m only 20 years old and I am able to see how television has influenced my generation, but Postman foresees this change even before this time. The whole premise of his book is to address how television has changed how people perceive what they read compared to what they hear or see, what kind of value is placed on broadcast media compared to rhetoric and how society has glamorized the news-gathering process. Postman does not always seem to be directly attacking the influence of television on American society, but he does make the reader question their own dependency to obtain information from this form of media. For example, how strange it seems that a presidential candidate would find it appropriate to announce his intention to run on a late night talk show. Does it make his intentions any worse than someone who may announce it on the evening news, or at a public press conference? There is no real answer. But I’m sure that the audience 20 years ago would view it as much, as would anyone around prior to that. Some of the points that Postman may be a little outdated, like his comparisons to Ancient Greek rhetoric or the use of African proverbs in lawmaking, but his point does come across clearly that technology, especially television, has changed the written and spoken communication process entirely.
Postman's main premise in is book is to illustrate societies transition from print-based to television, and the effects television has had on society.
As unethical as it may seem , it is not surprising that Fred D. Thompson announced his candidacy on Leno, rather then attending a debate that was occurring at the same time. Todays society yearns to be entertained, which is why shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are viewed more for the news then actual news networks. People today are tired of hearing the same dry news reports from networks such as NBC and Fox, and by making the content of the news funny, people are more inclined to sit through the entire program. While announcing his candidacy on a formal news network may have seemed proper, an announcement on Leno gave Thompson a little more camera appeal.
In retrospect the camera appeal of an individual is worth more nowadays, and by appearing on Leno Thompson got nationwide exposure. Sure Thompson could have attended a debate and argued his case for being the best candidate, but how many people will actually view the debate compared to the Leno show. How many times can we hear a candidate hide behind empty promises and policies he/she plans to implement if elected to office. By appearing on Leno, people where able to get a sense of what this guy looks like, what he plans to do if elected, and got a fews laughs in the process.
In his book, Postman discusses this idea of "the news of the day," which could only be achieved through the use of television. Television as a medium of communication allows for the connection of a vast amount of people through the click of a button. Events that in the past seemed trivial because they didn't directly effect peoples lives, are now topics of conversation. Topics like the war in Iraq, or a fire taking place become topics of conversation because television has given us a way to see it up close, to get a feel of what people at the scene are going through, rather then just see it in words or hear it in passing.
Just as in the past print brought people from all over the world together, television is having the same affect at a higher magnitude, making it apparent print may soon be obsolete.
In the first chapter, Postman writes “As the influence of print wanes, the contents of politics, religion, education, and anything else that comprises public business must change and be recast in terms that are more suitable to television.” We live in a world in which Fred Thompson can announce his candidacy for president on the Jay Leno show, and still be taken seriously by some people. Rather than announce via the traditional forum of newspaper, or via a more modern forum such as the internet, Thompson announced in Hollywood, on a late-night television variety show more known for its comedy than any real political discussion. He is, after all, an actor. This example proves Postman’s point that no matter the content, television as a medium, has changed our way of thinking.
Television requires different tools and methods of interpretation as compared to print. When we begin to dismiss print and fully embrace television, we are making a dangerous mistake. Television most certainly has its place in our society, but we must not look to it to give us everything that we need.
Postman is saying TV is more than just another medium. Is a car just a fast horse? TV isn't just a more convenient newspaper, and our mistake has been, Postman argues, to think it is.
Postman is telling us that we are a mass controlled by the media as in 1984, but more in the sense that Huxtable forewarned, in terms of what we enjoy and love controlling us, rather than an obvious sort of unpleasant authoritarian take over. Postman does not have faith in an audience to be critical, but rather believes that we are weak and easily influenced. His book will demonstrate how our transition from print to television is causing our public forum (free marketplace of ideas) to deteriorate and diminish in quality.
He explores what we have been discussing, which is that the medium affects the content/conversation which is carried. He further explores historically the way humans have communicated and how they have searched for truth. This leads me to believe that he might later on delve into TV content, it's fallacies and faults, and how it affects our communication and way viewing truth and fact, as well as continue to discuss the changes (what has been gained/lost) through the transition between typography/print dominance and the development of TV. He will definitely go further into the meaning of print media, as well as what has changed about communication mediums and what each medium requires of the reader in order to comprehend it. Postman sums up what the book will be about on page 26; "In subsequent chapters, I want to show that in the twentieth century. our notions of truth and our ideas of intelligence have changed as a result of new media displacing the old."
Postman is telling us that we are a mass controlled by the media as in 1984, but more in the sense that Huxtable forewarned, in terms of what we enjoy and love controlling us, rather than an obvious sort of unpleasant authoritarian take over. Postman does not have faith in an audience to be critical, but rather believes that we are weak and easily influenced. His book will demonstrate how our transition from print to television is causing our public forum (free marketplace of ideas) to deteriorate and diminish in quality.
He explores what we have been discussing, which is that the medium affects the content/conversation which is carried. He further explores historically the way humans have communicated and how they have searched for truth. This leads me to believe that he might later on delve into TV content, it's fallacies and faults, and how it affects our communication and way viewing truth and fact, as well as continue to discuss the changes (what has been gained/lost) through the transition between typography/print dominance and the development of TV. He will definitely go further into the meaning of print media, as well as what has changed about communication mediums and what each medium requires of the reader in order to comprehend it. Postman sums up what the book will be about on page 26; "In subsequent chapters, I want to show that in the twentieth century. our notions of truth and our ideas of intelligence have changed as a result of new media displacing the old."
Postman questions whether or not our intellect has declined by looking at how we receive information. Once in a age of "reading is believing," we are now in the age "seeing is believing."
To go along with Professor Good's comment, I agree that the majority of our society uses television as a convenient way of receiving news and information. There have been countless numbers of times when I or someone would say "Oh yeah, I saw that on the news." But did I or whoever read about it? Was it the full story?
I think Postman feels that reading as as media outlet has more credibility than television.
Because we can receive news rapidly, we have made time to do who only knows what. While some people do read the paper, I feel most just skim through it or catch it on television. Its shorter, its faster, and you don't have to do anything but absorb the information. So naturally, the extra time that could be spent on taking in the news and shaping our own perceptions of whats happening is spent on other things, whether those other things increase our intellect or not.
Fred D. Thompson made a smart move by appearing on Leno. He reached millions of viewers and released important information.
Yet, is that what we're coming to? In order to make a large impression, focusing more on politics, you have to appear on an entertainment show, one that makes fun of politics?
So, its a win-win situation. A politician gains popularity, and the viewer is entertained and informed about big news. Its like killing two birds with one stone.
I will have to agree with what Postman himself says about the premise of his book. "It is my intention in this book to show that a great media-metaphor shift has taken place in America, with the result that the content of much of our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense". With the reading I have thus far completed his book seems to being going exactly along those lines. He seeks to expose in an honest interpretation that the printing press and the television generate junk. Postman contemplates the media and its lack of important cultural conversations. Postman also makes a valuable point how the media is simply the advertising of such stories of fires, wars, murders, and love affairs, for without the media these things would still take place but people would not be able to include them in their daily business. Fred D. Thompson announcing or rather promoting his running for president on the Jay Leno show is rather smart in our society, because here we are talking about it. The word is clearly out.
The major premise of Postman's book is that America has gone from a print-based society to one revolving around television. Americans want entertainment, and that is what television gives them. Postman writes, Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education,and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice.
He also mentions that cosmetics are a big part of our society. When talking about TV newscasters he says that most spend more time with their hair dryers than with their scripts. That in order to be on television you need to look good. He makes a point by saying that if a 300 pound man wanted to run for presidency that it would not be acceptable, because people are more concerned with looks than they are about political views.
The major premise of Neil Postman's book is simply to illustrate and analyze the decline of print-based media in relation to the growing popularity of television, and to discuss what effect this occurrence has on our society. Postman discusses how that as television caters more and more to what people enjoy seeing and hearing, receiving news and information becomes more about enjoying how you get it, rather than really thinking about what is being presented. With print media the reader is alert and actively taking in the information as he sees fit and at his pace, usually allowing him to process it and understand it fully. With visual media, the viewer is in a passive, receptive state and generally less likely to critically analyze what is being presented. Also, with the speed of television and the mere few minutes devoted to a topic, the viewer has little time to think about what they just saw before they are being presented with another topic, leaving no time for any reflection on the subject, or time to form an opinion. This is why visual media places a higher importance on the delivery of information, rather than the information itself. People don't watch television only with the intent of becoming better, more informed members of society, but rather they usually watch it in order to tune out from what is happening around them and to simply be entertained.
If the time we spend "tuning out" from the world by turning to television as entertainment, is the same time we devote to "watching" the news, it's no wonder that we have allowed what we value as important information to be determined by the media. Postman brilliantly uses "Brave New World" as a way to illustrate his point. At a time when television should be used to its full potential, to relay more important information than ever before possible, it's only being used to entertain and to, in effect, ignore anything unpleasant, regardless of the importance it may have. Postman uses this example to try and warn us not to allow ourselves to become so apathetic in the midst of all the opportunities we have to educate ourselves.
With the incorporation of the TV into our lifestyle, we choose an epistemology that is unworthy and insignificant. By accepting it as our source for news, we are almost insulting our own intelligence because we are capable of so much more. We lose the simplicity in the overall message if the medium for discourse is inherently incompetent in providing the overall truth. Postman does not denounce television totally, but points out the discrepancies in having a culture that depends on it as their primary source for news and information. His overall message is that television needs to be appreciated for its role, which in his opinion is to provide us with junk and infotainment. When people start relying solely on TV for their source of truth and knowledge is when real problems arise. Their is no resonance with television because most likely viewers do not tune in with their thinking caps on, ready to tackle the presented information with a critical eye.It is important to acknowledge that the medium of communication is constantly evolving, and will forever be replaced by something bigger and better to suit the existing population at that respective time. He touches upon how we have in a way lost our roots. We have gone astray from the characteristics that have made us inherently human such as using the tell tale signs of nature to ascertain what time of day it may be. Instead, we rely on a tool such as a watch to do all the work.
He compares the media to a medium of truth telling, and in this way is metaphoric. He believes that we are amusing ourselves to death with the incorporation of television as a means of public discourse. Postman shines light on this phenomenon but reverts back to saying that we really are lowering our standards in challenging ourselves mentally. This is because early Americans were avid readers because they understood that knowledge was power; something that transcended the restrictions of social class and status. Everyone read regardless 0f how much they had in their bank accounts. By accepting TV, he believes we have regressed intellectually and have potential to be better informed individuals. He doesn't believe that TV is the worst thing, but he thinks it is important for people to realize the dangers it imposes and to just appreciate it for what it is- a mere box that transmits garbage and entertainment. The TV promotes laziness and is a hindrance in the spreading of knowledge and ideas. Maybe this is why so many politicians decide to announce that they are running for candidacy on TV because it is the only way they can relate to the general public.
Postman's main premise in ‘Amusing ourselves to death’ is that television is radically different from a newspaper or ‘the written press’. Postman says we’re simply incapable of absorbing information via the television. It doesn't provide us with the tools to understand the message that is brought to us. According to Postman, television is great for entertainment, but not as a source for information.
In my news class in the Netherlands our professor explained that you need to be well informed as a journalist and therefore, he said, we had to read at least two newspapers a day. Nobody in our class seemed to be willing to do that. We all said that watching the 8 o'clock news every night should be enough.
A week later our professor had a little experiment for us. We had to watch a taped version of the 8 o'clock news, but we didn't know for what purpose. Ten minutes later, the professor asked us to write down the exact topics of the news. Everyone remembered the major subjects, but the smaller ones were simply forgotten. And nobody really knew the exact topics. That's why you need to read the newspaper,” the professor said.
I believe this is exactly Postman’s point.
Post a Comment