Thursday, September 4, 2008

Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chaps. 1-3

After reading the first three chapters of Amusing Ourselves to Death, what would you say is the major premise of Postman's book? Do you find yourself in agreement with it? Why or why not? Be as specific and concrete as possible in your response (such as by including examples). Please respond no latter than noon, Wednesday, Sept. 9.

22 comments:

Salem said...

The major premise of Postman’s book is how the rise of television media and the decline of print media is shaping the quality of information we receive. Postman clearly states what form our information comes in will affect the quality of the information. The example Postman gives how American Indians used smoke signals showed how “the news of the day” did not exist. The form of information transfer through smoke signals would not allow for a news of the day, nor could people make the news of the day part of their daily business. This example was interesting to me, because something like “the news of the day” is routine to us even though it is something our forms of communication allow us to do. I never really pondered the thought greatly how we do make the news of the day and how much our forms of communication allow for us to express certain information in certain ways. On top of how the television media is a different form, Postman also shows how it is a form built off show business. The analogy on the first page of the book was great, because through history different cities truly have been the center of American spirit. Now, we are an America of show business, an America striving to be Las Vegas, with a “thirty-foot-high cardboard picture of a slot machine and a chorus girl.”

Overall, I do find myself in agreement with Postman’s opinion on our media. His details of the Dunkers deliberations were enlightening, because they showed distrust of the printed word in the early stages. The Dunkers knew “that the form in which ideas are expressed affects what ideas will be.” What some seem to have overlooked is how the form of television and online media will affect what ideas are expressed. What you can say in a news story, which is short already, is much greater in length than what you can say in a fast paced news broadcast, in-between the commercials. Now, we have limited it to small sound bites that don’t even convey the original meaning of what was being said. We need to condense everything. Make it tight and easy to swallow. The only problem is what we are swallowing. Postman will even say there are benefits to television media, but the real question is do the positives outweigh the negatives. “It giveth and taketh away,” said Postman, but our current media trends have not seem to give enough for what it has taken.

Nicole99 said...

So while reading this book, i was completely comfused and really was not even sure what was going on in it. I know the major premise has something to do with media and what not but maybe just from the language in the book, i was unable to comprehend what point he was trying to make. However, one part in the book that i did understand and thought was very interesting was where he talks about clocks. The idea starts off with how their are people out there who notice more things then others. The example of Luis Mumford is used and how when he thinks about what time it is he actually wonders how the invention of a clock is what inevitably created what we call moments. I found that part really interesting and im sure once someone explains to me a little bit more about the book i will better understand what is going on.

Howie Good said...

Postman challenges conventional thinking about the media in that he comes at media content from an unusual angle. He basically argues that media technology determines media content, and that media content in turn is an index to who we are as individuals and a society.

If you're having trouble interpreting him, then I suggest that you read more slowly so as to better savor his ideas. I also suggest you ponder his example, cited by John, of smoke signals, which can express some thoughts and fulfill some functions but not others (such as it would be hard to carry on a political debate using smoke signals). Apply that notion to the printing press, TV, the Internet, etc., and you can begin to see what Postman is driving at.

Julie said...

After reading chapters 1-3 I would say that Postman’s major premise is to try to educate and reach out to the younger generation that has been so calloused by the simplicity of information. I really enjoyed the introduction of this book and the fact that it was written by his son was heartwarming. I find myself mostly in agreement with Postman, however I know that I would find it extremely difficult to revert back to the time period where the technology I see as normal in my every day life, is seen as an “annoyance” to him. I took Media and Society over the summer and one of my assignments was to create a media log where we would write down what type of media we were exposed to three times a week for a month. We would have to include the time and duration of the media as well along with who else was exposed to the media. After jotting down my media use for the month of June it occurred to me that I really am exposed to it all day long. On a day when I had work and then went out with friends I was exposed to almost 13 hours straight of media. I agree with the statement that “silence is being replaced by background noise” especially after doing this experiment. One thing Postman has not covered yet is the positives of television and media. Although television can sometimes make a viewer jaded and lazy, it also offers a great opportunity for jobs. Postman talked mostly about the methods of communications of the past such as the smoke signals of the Indians. As the book continues I hope to read more about the current use of media and communication and how he feels it affects our society today.

Julie said...

After reading chapters 1-3 I would say that Postman’s major premise is to try to educate and reach out to the younger generation that has been so calloused by the simplicity of information. I really enjoyed the introduction of this book and the fact that it was written by his son was heartwarming. I find myself mostly in agreement with Postman, however I know that I would find it extremely difficult to revert back to the time period where the technology I see as normal in my every day life, is seen as an “annoyance” to him. I took Media and Society over the summer and one of my assignments was to create a media log where we would write down what type of media we were exposed to three times a week for a month. We would have to include the time and duration of the media as well along with who else was exposed to the media. After jotting down my media use for the month of June it occurred to me that I really am exposed to it all day long. On a day when I had work and then went out with friends I was exposed to almost 13 hours straight of media. I agree with the statement that “silence is being replaced by background noise” especially after doing this experiment. One thing Postman has not covered yet is the positives of television and media. Although television can sometimes make a viewer jaded and lazy, it also offers a great opportunity for jobs. Postman talked mostly about the methods of communications of the past such as the smoke signals of the Indians. As the book continues I hope to read more about the current use of media and communication and how he feels it affects our society today.

Elizabeth Gross said...

The major premise of Postman's book can be summed up in the last sentence of the chapter entitled "Typographic America": "...to explore how the press worked as a metaphor and an epistemology to create a serious and rational public conversation, from which we have been so dramatically separated." I do agree with Postman's logic throughout the text, and I do really enjoy the way he goes about explaining his consensus very carefully. The first couple of chapters lay out why television is dangerous: it is a media tool that conveys a message taken as truth and reaches across cultural and class divides with this one way to perceive the world, which many deem as important and is certainly influential in the ways we perceive those within our society. However, In reading the text I had a problem with Postman's continuous need to bring up the point that he does not think the television itself is a problem, but merely the way people take in the information as truth, but looking back at it I agree with him very much so. I think the problem I had with it came when he admitted his like for distraction, because I think an expert on the topic should be an expert on it at all levels. However, I realized after my initial annoyance that his admittance went along with what he has been saying in the text all along... that people look to the media as a form of all-knowing and the end all of knowledge seeking, a major problem he stresses throughout the text!
The introductory text to this book has so far been very thought out and explanatory. I enjoyed very much his background to the formation of knowledge in terms of the written word at the time when ideas of American government were forming. It brought up an appreciation for those who seek out knowledge as opposed to knowledge being handed to them... a key problem with the age of show business I'm sure Postman will dive into later on in the text. I personally do not feel I succumb to the amusing distractions television has to offer, but I enjoy learning about the disturbing, so this book explaining something embedded in the culture I grew up in and how screwed up it is is the book for me.

Lisa Burdzy said...

Lisa Burdzy

Postman claims that "what a culture means by intelligence is derived from the character of its important forms of communication" (Postman 25). These different forms of communication are what comprise the epistemological shift that has occured in the media. The major premise of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is to examine how the recent epistemological shift from a printing press focused media to a televeision centered media has affected the seriousness and rationale of the people. Postman explores the history of the media; how it originated in Guttenberg's prinitng press and how the 19th centruy was defined by thr various forms of print media available to people. This impacted the importance of a good education and made people serious about gaining knowledge. He points out that it is not that the type of media people adhere to changes :the structure of people's minds" but rather the the experience from which they are getting their knowledge embeds an idea in a certain manner.
I agree with Postman in that the shift from print focused media to electronic media has impacted the nature of the information people are getting. Television, for example, is presented with a very obvious mood and atmosphere. And since human beings are inclined to want to be entertained, they are more likely to engage in watching something amusing to them, important or not, rather than grave or dry news stories. Although information in print does carries a mood as well, it is less obvious than in electronic media where there are often sound effects and more engaging visuals. As Postman puts it "television gives us conversation in images, not words." And images tend to be more powerful. But ulitmately it comes down to the reality that people get more amusement hearing about the latest celebrity scandal than hearing the number of soldiers who have died in Iraq.

Lisa Burdzy said...

Lisa Burdzy

Postman claims that "what a culture means by intelligence is derived from the character of its important forms of communication" (Postman 25). These different forms of communication are what comprise the epistemological shift that has occured in the media. The major premise of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is to examine how the recent epistemological shift from a printing press focused media to a televeision centered media has affected the seriousness and rationale of the people. Postman explores the history of the media; how it originated in Guttenberg's prinitng press and how the 19th centruy was defined by thr various forms of print media available to people. This impacted the importance of a good education and made people serious about gaining knowledge. He points out that it is not that the type of media people adhere to changes :the structure of people's minds" but rather the the experience from which they are getting their knowledge embeds an idea in a certain manner.
I agree with Postman in that the shift from print focused media to electronic media has impacted the nature of the information people are getting. Television, for example, is presented with a very obvious mood and atmosphere. And since human beings are inclined to want to be entertained, they are more likely to engage in watching something amusing to them, important or not, rather than grave or dry news stories. Although information in print does carries a mood as well, it is less obvious than in electronic media where there are often sound effects and more engaging visuals. As Postman puts it "television gives us conversation in images, not words." And images tend to be more powerful. But ulitmately it comes down to the reality that people get more amusement hearing about the latest celebrity scandal than hearing the number of soldiers who have died in Iraq.

kim plummer said...

Postman brings up the point that the clearest way to see through a culture is to attend to its tools for conversation. This point is largely related to the premise of his book which is that the medium of communication, he focuses on television, dictates what becomes significant in a society. To make his point clear, Postman explores the progression of communication through advances in technology, and how the structure of public conversation changes as new mediums evolve.
Humanity has evolved from oral societies into print societies (or The Age of Typography as Postman refers to it) and into The Age of TV. According to Postman each era encourages the use of a certain kind of intellect, favors certain definitions of intelligence and demands a certain kind of content, or truth. He focuses specifically on America’s cultural move from an Age of Typography to an Age of Television, and analyzes what this move means as far as public discourse and culture is concerned.
I like Postman’s example of the age of printed word being a river, which over time is gradually polluted by electronic media, until it reaches a “critical mass” as he explains. He explains that the river becomes toxic, and can no longer sustain life; but the river still appears the same, and while some may occasionally venture out on boats the river is no longer valued the way it once was. This example explains our cultural shift away from the printed word and into an age where our ideas and information come from television or computer screens.
I agree with Postman’s idea that discourse on television is largely conveyed through visual imagery, and it is this visual imagery that changes the public discourse. It is the reason why, like he explained earlier, that newscasters spend more time worrying about their appearance, as opposed to reading their script and researching the stories they read. It is largely why we define beauty in the terms that we do, when most of America can’t conform to such standards. But mostly, like he explains in the first few pages of the book that we are a society that looks to entertainment, rather than information.

Melissa said...

I find the premise of Postman's book thus far is that along with the age of screen media comes not only a different way of getting information, but also a different type of information. Postman discusses how media has transformed from mostly oral, to written and now to the screen. His section on truth I found most interesting. I find as a journalist we are always fighting to find the truth. He discusses at one point truth was found in stories and oral messages. Later, with the uprise of print media, facts were then associated with text. "Our written statement would represent the 'truth'. Our oral agreement would only be a rumor." He then states, "As culture moves from orality to writing to printing to televising, its ideas of truth move with it." I found this interesting because I don't believe that we are taking print information as false, only that we are getting more of our information from a multimedia world...maybe this is the point that he is trying to make.

I also liked what he said about screen media and the biases that come with it. On page 4, Postman discusses when Nixon advises Senator Edward Kennedy "on how to make a serious run for the presidency: lose twenty pounds." With the rise of visual media, we are not only judged by the words we write and the intelligence we have, but by how we look on the screen.

I do agree with most of Postman's writing, and like he says, I do not know if the age of the screen will necessarily bring a positive or negative result. I think it could be extremely beneficial but I also can see the other side and how we (journalists, readers, and those seeking information) could be hurt by it.

Erica said...

After reading chapters 1-3 of Postman, I found myself nodding in agreement with him. His premise is that the form of media that is predominate does shape the way society interprets things and effects what they are able to communicate successfully to each other.
The most interesting example of how the media shapes society was in chapter 2. The story of the student having his doctoral oral showed how the truth is judged. Before the written word, the truth was obviously spoken. But because the written word can be held on to and does not disappear, people feel it is more credible. I half agree with this and half find it to be crazy. Combining this with the example of the court room not being able to write things, I feel that we are at a crossroads in some sense. On the one hand, the written word is able to be scrutinized more because it is unchangeable on paper. Once it is written, it can be copied and viewed numerous times. The spoken word, according to the legal system, is more honest.
Thinking about these two examples, I think that television, or better yet, recordings, are the solution to this. Once the spoken word is on film or tape, it can be replayed and checked out; it no longer “disappears.”
For this reason I feel that the progression of media is not as bad as Postman is making it out to be. But with most every point of his, I find myself nodding my head in agreement, especially as he spoke about politics on television and how we would never elect an overweight President. Usually I can tell right away whether I agree with someone’s ideas or not, however, I have yet to make up my mind in this case.

mcummings said...

after reading the three chapters I would have to say that the premise for Postmans' book is to discuss the change from written to visual and its affect on society. To me he best shows this on pg 8 when he says "the decline of the Age of Typrography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television". He gives an image of the affect this has when he describes Las Vegas as todays' symbol. For me this is absolultely true and it made me laugh. As a society today we are so ficused on entertainment and the physical that we lost meaning in everything else. I enjoyed when he described how newscasters spend more time with their hair dryers than with their scripts. If you watch the news the female newscasters usually have some poofy hair. I also liked how he said with todays' standards and obsession with entertainment and looking good to gain ratings that our twenty-seventh president would not even be considered because of the way he looked. I completely agree with him here and in many parts of these chapters. I agree that the switch to television has ultimately changed the cotnent and also as he says its definitions of truth. On pg8 he states "This changeover has dramatically and irreversibly shifted the content and meaning of public idscourse, since two media so vastly different cannot accomodate the same ideas". I really liked his thought here.
In chapter 2 there is a spot where to me he basically describes how one should read the newspaper. Its too long to quote but its on pg 25.
Overall, I agree with his view that the emergence and popularity of the television has changed our culture and the content that is given to us. As he says on pg 29, " as television takes its place at the center, the seriousness, clarity and above all, value of public discourse dangerously declines".

CaitNalven said...

As far as I can surmise, the premise of the first three chapters of Postman's book is that the ease by which television is produced and received has shaped the way in which the public views news to be. That is to say that because tv is such an easy medium it presents the public with a large variety of "news," some of which is meant to inform, but most of it meant to entertain. The problem lies in that people look to the media as a guide to what is important; people believe what they see on the news to be "newsworthy" simply because of the context in which they find this information, when that is not necessarily the truth. Postman's desire in penning this book is to help educate the public so that they can make educated decisions when it come to viewing and understanding the messages they receive when watching tv. I can't say that I don't find Postman's ideas on media to be dark and cynical, but I also can't say that I don't see the truth in them. It seems to me that in the past 5 years the media coverage of celebrities and other inanities has become outrageous and I find myself asking more and more, "Why would I care about this?"

chloe said...

While Postman’s first three chapters provide key evidence to his premise, the foreword really explains a major concept in media and Postman’s overall point of discussion. Postman’s comparison of Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World summarizes the overall theme of his early chapters as he explains; “Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”
Part of the idea is that as the mediums for our conversations evolve and function in new ways, they are some how more believable, but the point that is missed is that “concept truth is intimately linked to the biases of forms of expression,” as Postman explains. Postman also explains that “the weight assigned to any form of truth-telling is a function of the influence of media of communication,” which supports his agreement with Huxley’s idea that truth can be “drowned in a sea of irrelevance” when the definition of truth is developed by its medium.
I am no philosophy major so sometimes I need to really conceptualize my own approach to such concepts, but I am in firm agreement with both Postman and Huxley, thus far, in the idea that media can work as an epistemology as it defines truth, “truthfully”. In other words, as a medium defines itself the concept of truth changes in a way that functions through that medium, so for example, if you assume something to be true in print it might have a citation at the bottom, or if you decide a news broadcast is truthful, it might come in the form of a “special report” or “breaking news”.

Unknown said...

I think there are many ways to interpret even just the title of Postman’s book but rather than regurgitate much of what the class has already said, I’ll go with this… I think one of the more interesting concepts that Postman pointed me to, in an abstract way, is that any form of media has at one point been the “in vogue” form by which people receive their information and are also entertained. We scrutinized television as a base form of informative entertainment, but one time it was meant to be the only and best way to inform the public. So we can follow a timeline of sorts, and place the blame that Postman is blaming on television on everything both before and after. In doing so, we can see another interesting facet of human nature, and that is how we become hypocritical in our decisions. It is also interesting to see how we flow so easily between raising and cutting down our cultural icons.
There was no real way of communicating ideas, outside of the oral tradition, before the written word. Yes, with the smoke signal example, there was communication, but nothing outside of “need to know”—there was no room for growth. Upon the creation of the written word, specifically the word that could be duplicated by the means of a printing press, people began to put down the mundane of everyday life—that is to say that people began to go into “thinking” professions and not just “doing”. Children of farmers, cobblers, tinsmiths all took to books and in doing so began to create an intellectual state of being that had yet to surface. American philosophers emerged, intellect became highly regarded, and being literate meant to be part of a higher class of society. Postman outlines a few examples of this in the 3rd chapter, when talking about the celebrity of authors and the rush to print materials for the masses. And this was all because the invention of the written, of the book, was a miraculous and marvelous event.
So where did we go from there? Well soon, this intellect that we created, this overpowering intelligence that was seeping into man wasn’t just content with a book. We wanted better. We created the monster that created the monster.
And so we created better—the radio, the wire service, the telephone, and so on down the line until we stumbled upon the boob tube. And it was with this invention that the book went flying out the window. We could inform ourselves, entertain ourselves and never leave the house. We’d never have to flip a page again, just a channel. And it was readily available to every man and easily accessible because you didn’t have to be able to read to understand it.
So where am I going with this? Well, every form of media takes another form’s place! When the television came along, books were gone, when the internet came along, poof! out goes the television. And with the initial endangerment of each of these, we seem to turn on them. When television allowed for information to be readily available, books were seen as dangerous. We thought that people who enjoyed them more than the TV felt like they were better than the rest of us. People who were entertained by books just had something wrong with them, because why would you want to imagine the picture when the picture could be imagined for you?
We had an age of anti-intellectualism because TV made it easier. And in the age of Postman, we had the opposite—an age of intellectualism because we saw the way TV pacified us. We hated that we had allowed our intellect to be quieted by something as trivial as a moving picture. We hated that we allowed television networks to decide news for us. And I think that is a part of what Postman is saying. We allowed ourselves to be spoon fed entertainment and information because it came in an awfully pretty package.
And now, in 2008, I think it can be argued that we’re pacifying ourselves, just with the different screen of the computer. And this is why Postman’s book still holds meaning, 23 years later. Because we have not learned from the past, we repeat it. We can receive our news in an even easier way than ever before—it’s fast, we choose what we want to watch or read—we don’t even have to sit through commercials or segments on things that don’t interest us. We simply click and choose. We’re constantly bobbing up and down with opinions towards the media. We’re exciting AND boring ourselves and all of the up and down is all part of this idea of “amusing ourselves to death.”

Eloise said...

The premise from Postman's first three chapters of Amusing Ourselves to Death was that media has evolved from old technology to new and with this new technology has created new people and perceptions. What I agreed and got from his writing is that with these new forms of media it makes “information” more accessible. If the press and media were meant to keep people informed shouldn't the increase of media availability be a positive attribute in American culture?

Well Postman would say, "No.” That with all of these forms of media outlets our society has become a society that agrees with the media content and is ultimately content with the research that has been GIVEN to us. As consumers to the Internet, newspapers and television we are automatically trusting towards these media outlets and need no other source of information.

Which gives the makers of these media outlets more liable to our opinions. We are shown what we want to see, we access what the “information” givers want us to access. With more media we are succumbed to more entertainment and distraction.

EHolahan said...

I think that the major premise of the first three chapters of Amusing Ourselves to Death is that the transition from informing society through print to informing society through television media has had a profound impact on how and what we perceive as newsworthy. “As a culture moves from orality to writing to printing to televising, its ideas of truth move with it.”Media today has such a strong affect on society that it is directly influencing how we think and what we talk about.

As a society we are surrounded by media and we are only a mouse click away from top news events from all over the world. I do agree that we have given the media too much control and we are at times at the mercy of what "news" they will report and will not.

I agree with Postman's opinion on our media and I feel that his viewpoints will hold true in the future as well. However, we cannot stop change and the benefits of having information at our fingertips outweigh the negative.

Joseph said...

The main point of the first three chapters of Amusing Ourselves to Death is that our culture changes with technology. With the world becoming more like a global village, more cultures are able to communicate or start a different type of“conversation” then once able to according to Postman. I do feel that his comment on fragmented news is completely true. Television format today is face paced and summarized. By using this type of structure results in not a full understanding of an issue or event. News events can be interpreted differently according to editing and positioning, which gives power to who controls the media outlets. However, the plus to an expanded media is the spread of new ideas to a mass audience. Little then fifty years ago, knowing events outside of the larger nations was harder to come by. Now knowing the news is a matter of desire. However Postman has an extremely pessimistic outcome of what expanding technology can do to truth and culture. The presidential race of Nixon and Kennedy is a great example of how new technologies can effect an out come. Nixon lost to Kennedy not because of just straight policies but because Kennedy brought a youthful energy to television audiences. Nixon was not coached for TV like our politicians of today. His election would have been much different in 2008. Government now uses the media differently and effectively knowing how a slip up on television can be more costly then one from a radio interview or a news paper article. I do feel that the next step with such an accessible media potential, is the acceptance of user created news and entertainment as legit ament alternative to mainstream outlets.. Youtube and many sites like it already provide a theater for new and obscure material. As personal media technology grows and develops so will the content.

Jessica said...

After reading the first three chapters of "Amusing Ourselves to Death," I believe that the main point Postman is trying to make is that the decline in the Age of Typography and the rise of the Age of Television has dramatically affected the content and understanding of the public news, as "two media so vastly different cannot accommodate the same ideas."

I think that one of the best examples Postman gives of this is by pointing out the differences between the spoken and written word and how the shift has resulted in "dangerous nonsense." The author brings up the issue that in an academic setting, "the published word is invested with greater prestige and authenticity than the spoken word." With this, he speaks of a story of a man who spoke his thesis in the presence of another, but without any written documentation of the event, except for a footnote of where and with whom the speech took place. The jury fought on the grounds that they couldn't "assume the accuracy" of his spoken word or his references as well as they could a written word. Also, the spoken word could not be edited or researched as thoroughly as the spoken because there are no editors or authorities to double check it.

Another point that Postman discusses in the end of Chapter 2 is that "most of our modern ideas about the uses of the intellect were formed by the printed word, as were our ideas about education, knowledge, truth and information." This example forces me to think of the game of telephone. In the spoken word, be it a speech, or a story spoken aloud, but not recorded down in print, the message is bound to get distorted when attempted to be duplicated. With a written version documenting the even that occurred, there is always a dependable reference point for people to look back on and fact-check themselves or get the information 100% correct.

I completely agree with the fact that Postman addresses time and time again about how the age of the media is changing drastically and dramatically. I do believe, understand and retain more of what is printed rather than spoken, since it can be referenced as many times as necessary. There is no way for anyone to recall, word for word, what is said in a court room or at a political campaign, unless it is written down. Even if it is video or audio recorded, there can still be confusion due to mumbling or accents. Printed word is definitely the most reliable in these cases.

Alyssa said...

Amusing Ourselves to Death is about news, media, information moving and transitioning from more "primitive" or traditional forms such as print and typography to electronic, Postman specifically mentioning TV numerous times. The way that information is transmitted and understood has made society acquire an attitude of not really caring how we get the info or what it really is, as long as we're amused that's the most important thing. I think Postman is right on target when he makes this point because look at the numerous Web sites that deliver news, specifically cnn.com--sure, the headlines and top stories are there but there are countless forms of interactive media, videos, photos, anything that can further appeal to viewers and pull them in, amuse them. "News" or information is so infiltrated into life from pop-up news announcements on Web sites to scrolling tickers at the bottom of 24/7 news stations and E! and MTV, to having the ability to have news sent straight to cell phones in the form of text messages or email. Nearly every aspect of life (since the majority of interaction much of society has is through or with electronics) has a form of exchanging or obtaining information. Postman seems to explore this growing trend and the implications it has on society. Like he says in chapter 1, "Teacher's aren't considered good if they don't entertain their students." This is similar to the concept that news stations must essentially entertain their viewers in order to get good ratings, retain viewership and keep up with other media competition, since new forms are constantly arising.

Bryan said...

In the Foreword of the book, Postman compares Orwell's "1984" to Huxley's "Brave New World." Postman claimed that in short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us, and that Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. Postman then explains that his book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right. I agree with Postman. His major premise in the book is that the decline of a print-based and the rise of a television-based media has had grave consequences for public life. Postman said that most of the content we receive from television has become dangerous nonsense. People are so wrapped up in and love television to the point that they are getting "sillier by the minute," as Postman refers to it. I completely agree with Postman because in this country the "news" created by the media is no longer intended to inform, but to entertain. Britney Spears makes more top headlines than does Iraq and the War on Terror, which is absolutely ridiculous.

After reading Professor Good's post, I took a closer look at the "news of the day" excerpt. I found it interesting that Postman says that the news of the day is just "a figment of our technological imagination," that it is simply a "media event" that will eventually be forgotten. With the evolution of the way we have received news in this country, from the printing press to the television, the news we receive has lost its truth, its importance, and its reputation. Postman claims that "the published word is invested with greater prestige and authenticity than the spoken word. The written word endures, the spoken word disappears; and that is why writing is closer to the truth than speaking."

kevin.bell said...

After reading the first three chapters of Postman's book you can see that his main purpose is to educate readers of the decline in print media and the overwhelming increase in the TV media. Where one used to read a newspaper and discuss its contents among peers, that is now lost to television. People have become isolated socially and culturally by watching television. Print used to give us our media, now television, a medium used primarily for entertainment, is being used by government to supply media that is,” shriveled and absurd."
Postman's book was first published over 20 years ago but still holds up and the media shift continues to get worse. I agree with his ideas about the media shift but find some of his writing to ramble on a little. You have to read his book with a philosophical perspective.