Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Media Reform
In the last few pages of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman makes several suggestions for fixing the problems represented and created by modern media, particularly TV and computers. Which of his suggestions strike you as most feasible? Why? Do you have any suggestions of your own? You should. Please comment by 10 a.m. Wed., Oct. 8.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Postman’s thoughts on how we can improve media and social conditions were mainly pessimistic and over the top. However, the idea that I felt is the most possible is the one where television shows help the audience understand what the medium of television could be used for. I completely agree with an idea like this. It is a way for people to have more control in determining what is best for them and how watching television can improve my understanding of the world. The structure would point out the flaws in everyday TV. Why does it seem that new organizations’ top story are mainly about scandals or celebrates? What Postman truly wants is substance. As a Comm. Major, most of my work is substance. Most of my energy is devoted to trying to figure out how to give the audience a full and productive viewing experience that I can be proud of. The majority of the time this is a tough feat. Most of your audience gets bored by ideas that are not mainstream or overwhelmingly exciting. Honestly, I feel that there should be more non-profit media channels, not only for television but also for the internet. We need organizations that don’t need to worry about the bottom line or investors. What truly should be there mission statement is fair and engaging material. Obviously, entertainment shows such as “Cheers” and the “A-Team” doesn’t need intervention like Postman speaks of. But mainly shows that provide information and the further education of the American people need some type of ethics and values.
The suggestion of Postman's which I find most feasible is to rely on schools to address the problem of the American obsession with television. Since children are most capable of obtaining information and retaining information, I believe that school is the perfect atmosphere to teach them about the consequences of relying too much on television. Teaching these lessons at a young age will teach children to break the habit or to not even start the habit early so they do not become completely absorbed in it as they grow up. I find the statistic of the average American child watching 3-4 hours of television per day absolutely ridiculous. Unless they are watching shows that teach colors, shapes and animals, I do not believe that they should be exposed to television at all, which is where my proposition comes in. Cable television, when you sign up for it, offers so many different packages that it could make your head spin. AOL can also regulate websites that children are allowed to view based on its content. I propose a package for television where parents can strictly limit and regulate the television programs that their children are allowed to view on a daily basis. Within these permitted programs should be those of educational value, such as the Discovery Channel and programs that cater to the intellectual and educational levels of children, such as those that inspire creative thinking and learning the alphabet and numbers and colors. With these regulations, parents will be able to monitor the amount of violence and bad language that their child is exposed to since the news and violent shows, such as the Sopranos, would have to be approved by the parents in order for that program to be displayed. I feel as though television is an inescapable part of the 21st century and to omit it completely is virtually impossible. By regulating a child's intake of programs, I feel as though they would be more apt to use television for educational purposes rather than mindless entertainment. The only flaw to this proposal, however, is that the child's television viewing relies solely on their parents. If the child's parents aren't dedicated to omitting mindless television from their child's lives, the effort is lost.
In reading Postman's closing thoughts on how detrimental television and media has come to society's intellectual health the reader glimpses in general terms why there is so much pessimism. His ideas for reforming media and television habits are positive yet most are probably not feasible, simply because American culture is so set in its ways, attempting to bring about such drastic change would clearly be met with MUCH more resistance than acceptance.
The ideaa I thought he presented that could potentially work would be trying to, in essence, mold the minds of children during school while they are still in their formative years. Teaching that technology is great for many aspects of life but not for information getting and exposure could possibly work. However, even this would have pitfalls because the child only spends so much time in school...the majority of their "habitual learning" would occur at home or in social environments and I don't think there is any effective way to bring change to this aspect of culture. Preaching for the traditional form of information transfer and against the "dumbing-down" of information via television and entertainment packages can only do so much in a world that's moving closer and closer to relying entirely on these mediums.
I can't think of a way that media could be reformed without meeting severe resentment and resistance from the general public and the government. The only thing left to do is continue to spread these ideas in whatever way possible, even if we must use the very mediums we are protesting against...although I'm pretty sure we're already too late.
There are several ideas that Postman comes up with in order to fix the prblems with the media. All in all none of these ideas can work. His odeas are to stop watching, put warnmings after certain commercials, use schools to educate viewers on the television. There is no way that people would stop watching the television and there is no real way to improve the shows that are on tv. I liked how he sadi that the junk on tv does less harm then shows like 60 minutes. I agree with this beucase they are all entertainment, but shows like 60 minutes give the disguise of importance and intelligent. he also suggest using schools to educate viwers. this would not work etierh because the teachers watch television the same way as the students do. It is sad to say that I really feel there is no way to imrove or fix the problems television causes.
Nielsen May 2008 Traditional TV HOURS:MINUTES watched.
K2-11, 87:00. T12-17, 89:09.
A18-24, 103:27. A25-34, 118:59.
A35-44, 124:01. A45-54, 145:03.
A55-64, 159:59. A65+, 177:50.
Postman had two answers in order to gain some measure of control over television.
As you can see from above that his second desperate answer can not work. School is a good place to inform children on the downfalls and corruptions surrounding the mass media but when they return home their parents are sitting in front of the television and most likely then not they will join in. A child in grade 2 with a parent in their middle 30’s is watching on average about 32 less hours of television per month. It seems as soon as they return home from school they are surrounded by television. This problem is up to parents to solve but most of them are themselves uninformed and watching ridiculous amounts of television. To fix this I believe that parents should get educated on the truth behind the media. Libraries and other public venues around the country should have speakers come and inform parents on the harm that television is doing to their children.
Postman’s first idea of creating television whose intent would be to demonstrate how television ought to be viewed through parodies and has already began to take effect with such shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. But like Postman said naturally television would have the last laugh. Are really only hope is to educate the public so they can pass it on to their children.
I thought that Postman's suggestions were generally unrealistic. Although the idea of creating television that adivises against television should convince people that it is merely entertainment and should not be taken as a central media source has good intentions, it will probably not be viewed by a large audience and not taken seriously. As Postman himself says, people watch television to be amused, and a program that advises against television is not amusing.
I think Postman's most feasible suggestion is to try to reform our education system so that televison is not a main source of information. Although school may not influence how students act outside of class, the time in school will at least expose them to real ideas and concepts; preferably in words. They may even have the opportunity to have contact with other media than that in the world of entertainment that people are so absorbed in.
Well it’s hard to put any stock into an idea when the originator of the idea hasn’t put any real oomph behind it either, but that’s why we love Postman right? Damnation and salvation all in one.
With that being said, I think the most feasible Postman option is to just stop watching it. It is a judgment call, based on the morals and needs/wants of each individual. And it always has been. I guess I subscribe to that Penn and Teller argument. For a person who hates what television has done to the American mind, and thinks it is an abomination, he or she should simply stop watching it. For his or her opposite, just keep on truckin’; tune into each exciting conclusion and never worry about what that boob tube is doing to your head. We could try and tell all people just how bad television is, but unless you have an audience who is receptive to the notion in the first place, it’s going to fall on deaf ears no matter what format you put it in.
Human nature is human nature, and most people aren’t going to stop something that is giving them pleasure, no matter what the pleasure will do to them in the long run. It’s why people smoke, drink, and…well, do anything really.
And we are especially not going to stop when, as Postman points out, we’re in a constant state of movement towards a “preordained paradise”. We think technology will be the vehicle to get us there, so we’re certainly not going to go back as an entire population and embrace books again.
We could try and get the public education system to exclusively teach against it, but they’d fail. Really, how many times can you tell a child not to touch a hot stove? They’re eventually going to do it anyway, and learn the hard way. It works with this as well. Everyone’s curiosity would be piqued and the allure of television would be that much greater if we only taught how bad it was in class, especially without exposing people to it first. A little like abstinence only sex education.
And they’d fail not just for this reason. There is a whole world outside the walls of a kid’s school, one that will influence them, more than likely with a greater impact than the one within. We’re not going to start teaching against television anyway, as we’ve been completely pacified by it. This is evident in the suggestions about using television to teach kids things like colors, shapes and numbers.
I think we really do want to kill our televisions for what they’ve done to us. But for many, a little piece of the self would die with it, and we’re not ready for that to happen yet.
So perhaps a solution does START with education. Postman touches upon it, and it is that we open the damn dialogue on it. We have personally started it here, and in class, and if any sort of progress is going to be made on it, many more need to start talking about it as well. We need to just stop accepting television or computers as they are, and start questioning, analyzing and then properly utilizing them. “To ask is to break the spell” as Postman says.
Most of Postman’s suggestions regarding the reform of television are impractical, he even admits this himself. I don’t think it’s possible for Americans to completely detach themselves from their TV sets. We have too much invested in them. There are holidays and events in which we deliberately gather together around our TV sets; watching commercials on Super Bowl Sunday, awaiting the ball to drop on New Years’ and so on. So to completely detach ourselves would be a difficult task, and even so most people would choose not to.
A more effective possibility would be to open up the public dialogue about what TV is. We watch blindly. Like Postman says we use enthusiastic phrases referring to “the information age” that we live in, but what does it mean?
We know that technology has gotten us to a point where there is an increase in the forms, volume, speed and context of information—but we need to understand what these changes mean in context to our society, if they even mean anything significant at all!
Americans allow the TV to hand feed them regurgitated and chopped up facts, with no knowledge of how the ideas fit together or why they’re presented that way. Postman explains, “No medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are.”
This idea of opening up the public discourse on television is the most feasible of the suggestions posed by Postman. Americans need to start asking questions about what information is, or rather, what it has become in the age of television. Most importantly, we need to ask why we accept TV to be this way. Like Postman said, the answers don’t even have to be his answers for success, the questions just have to be asked. The fact is that most Americans just accept it to be this way; so to create some further understanding of television and how it’s begun to define so many aspects of our culture is of importance, and a valuable place to start reform.
Postman himself does not really believe in any of his suggestions. “But as a true-blue American who has imbibed the unshakable belief that where there is a problem, there must be a solution, I shall conclude with the following suggestions.” He is giving us these ideas as a way to satisfy the reader. Because now in this age of print and television, we crave for conclusiveness. If at the end of a book or a movie, everything just stopped, no scene or chapter to bring it all together, the reader and viewer often will say that they wasted their time and money.
I am not even sure if I could pick one of Postman’s suggestions as a solution to fixing the problems with modern media. The idea of fixing television with television is ironic and a bit absurd. But, it is an almost guarantee to have people see it. As k.bell pointed out, we are all watching over 100 hours of television a month. If Postman’s idea of showing us how to properly utilize the screen were seen, some could just acknowledge it and keep going about their daily business. I find that most people do not want to give up watching television or using the internet. When Postman described the month of no television, it does not really solve anything because in a month people are right back to watching, because they want to.
Now, the education aspect sounds hopeful, but there are also some flaws in it. It would take a very long time to fully come into effect. You can teach a five year old that it is not good to watch a lot of TV but when they go home and dear old mom and dad are watching it, they are not going to shut their eyes and read a book. They are most likely going to sit right in between the two of them like the typical poster child would and enjoy what ever is on. Even if not with their parents, a child, if he or she is left home by themselves and has nothing to do but stare at this big black screen, they are probably going to turn it on. The comments that Jessica made seem ideal, but not everyone’s living situation is conducive to parents monitoring every program the child watches even though some cable or satellite companies along with AOL have parent programming features.
I find that each of Postman’s ideas has its flaws and each has its possibilities. I am not sure if just one will solve the problem, if a combination of the two or if neither can help. Maybe it has to be a personal choice to educate yourself and watch what you think is properly using the medium. But even after reading this book, I still find myself falling asleep to the same crap I did a month ago. As much as I find what Postman says true and informative, are people willing to change their lifestyles? or are we heading down the path to Idiocracy?
At the end of the book, Postman reiterates his statements that he wrote in the Foreword about Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," that what we love will ruin us, that our passion of technologies will make us lose our capacity to think. I agree with this statement, but not how Postman suggests we fix the media. Quite frankly his suggestions irritated me when he discussed how stupid kids in high school are. Postman's suggestions clearly focused on television, which is fine considering he wrote this in the 80's and the technology was not the same as it is in this decade. Either way his ideas on fixing the media would not work. In my eyes, the real problem is the computer. The problem with society today is that they believe anything they read on the computer. Anything they see they think comes from a credible source. For example, so many people depend on Wikipedia to find answers to anything they can think of, meanwhile the site is a blog that can be edited by anyone. Until people realize that the Internet is just a huge "chat room," we will never be able to move forward and our society will take one step closer to becoming a "brave new world."
Well, unfortunately for Postman, maybe unfortunate or not for us, television has only become more popular now, from the time when postman wrote this book. Clearly his ideas didnt catch on very much with the public and television is still a huge media/entertainment source. Most of his suggestions were very unrealistic and would never work in todays already hooked on TV society. His suggestions about making television programs about how television should be viewed i think are the most practical, becasue it still involves watching television. He said it himself that they would probably take on a saturday night live parody effect but if people were to watch it, then i think that would be the closest way for a Postman idea to be spread.
I found it interesting to read this last chapter and see how very dedicated Postman was to changing the ways of television. As a technology dependent student, i just dont see how it would be possible or if any suggestions could even be thought of on how to get rid of our dependency on things like tv and computers. We are already sucked in. Teachers would probably be stumped if they could not use a computer to enhance their lectures during class, and students would be screwed if they didnt have the help of the internet to help then with research on what they read in class. If presidential debates and what not were not put on the television, i wouldnt probably even be aware that we had a president! ( maybe a little exaggerated but still...) I do not think any of our modern day media problems are going to be fixed anytime soon, unless maybe Postman becomes president, but he probably wouldnt want to debate on Tv so noone would understand him.
Before presenting his solutions, Postman makes it clear that he does not believe that the American people will or should “shut down any part of [their] technological apparatus,” and neither do I. Human knowledge has led us into this technological age and we should not throw that knowledge away, but rather explain what it means to have this technological knowledge and better research how it can be more efficiently used. Postman agrees with John Lindsey’s suggestion to ban political advertisements which seems one of the more feasible ideas that I would agree with. Postman’s end point and suggestion to the overload of media garbage is to educate, which I find very interesting. While we can not reverse the technological advancements of our time, we can work to better understand them, and this Postman suggests, can be done within our educational institutions. As Kim noted in her response, Postman suggests, “No medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are,” and this is a point that should be driven home. Not only do I agree with this statement by Postman, but I see it as my own solution. I have been following this idea my entire college career. I am a Public Relations Major, but I will be the first to tell you that I hate PR, my goal in studying PR (and African American studies which is my minor) is to, as I call it, “stay above the influence.” What I mean to say is that by educating ourselves, and educating children of the future of how things work, we can better asses our own opinion in a given situation, so that we will not be feared into supporting backwards, war hungry politicians or Bill O’Reillys. Postman references a similar concept through Huxley, who referenced a similar concept through H.G. Wells who “wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media.” That understanding is necessary now more than ever.
P.s. I hope Kevin is not the one passing any education to "are" children....
Of the suggestions given by Postman,I feel a television show about how we should not take television seriously would be the most successful. I'm sure there are similar shows available today which poke fun at the way the media has taken over our lives. Postman even goes against his own teachings in a way by explaining how the show would have to be highly entertaining through the use of comedy (parodies). It's ironic that even the solution to the problems expressed in this book must be put forth in the form of entertainment.
I also find his second approach interesting. Even though he mentions the use of the education system as a way to help distinguish television from reality, he then explains how flawed the system is. Which I believe as well. As a soon to be college graduate I am well aware that I don't know the common sense things I should know in order to have that title. I think this is due, in part, by the testing system that is put on such a high pedestal in America. It's not about retaining the information for the long term, it's about memorizing and then spitting it back out in order to get a grade which is considered acceptable in the eyes of the educational institution.
I have mixed feelings about the problems created by modern media, especially after reading this book. I find it hard to think about my every day life without these vices, but then I think about the educational value (though limited) that computers and television can provide. Shows such as Planet Earth and How It's Made are shows that I find to be valuable. Postman would most likely confirm that these shows do use various forms entertainment (music, special videography) to lure in viewers, but I find the overall goal of these shows is to inform. Having said that, I feel that my only suggestion in terms of the media would be to filter it more thoroughly; to make sure shows like "Paris Hilton Needs A New bff" do not make it to broadcast. I'm sure people would argue that some of these reality shows have some value, but in the end they really are dumbing down our society, especially the younger generation. If content on television and the internet were monitored so that we only received information that can be valuable to us in life then I think our society and the world would be a better, less superficial place.
I believe that Postman's idea to use school to educated children about television is the best solution. Though, by the time children get into school, TV is already a huge part of their life, now the internet as well. I do think that Postman's thoughts on junk TV are true, they don’t do harm. But the TV that is supposed to be "informative" is not. Shows that show this contradiction would be beneficial and I think exist - Jon Stewart - but even those shows, that directly tells its viewers that it is a comedy show, are taken seriously and people consider it to be their number one source of news, when in reality it is showing only the news that is covered by the media and that it can make fun of.
I honestly feel the best way to educate children about this is to get them to read more. When we are younger, we have "reading" as one of our periods during the day. I think that should stay with us all the way through school and there should be mandatory reading times built into schedules. Teachers expect the kids to read at home but why would they when they can look up the footnotes online while chatting with friends or playing an only game or even during TV commercials.
TV is a huge part of our life and misleads Americans to think they are really informed. Until a large enough population demands more of the media I do not see the situation getting any better.
Postman’s most relevant suggestion is to teach students about how the media is a form of epistemology. In fact, I think this is the only way to truly break the grasp our media has in shaping our culture and how we think within our culture. I mean, here we are in a college course analyzing how the forms of our technology have shaped the press in America. This course, I think, would greatly please Postman in some ways. For me, it was not until reading Postman’s book did I really get a hard slap in the face about how our media has shaped us. Sure, I knew it did before, but not to the extent I know now. The only real and possibly feasible way in my mind is to educate people about how the media does affect us. Every media carries with it a certain form that can only hold a certain type of message. Television is show business, period. Television is most likely never going to be any more or any less than that. We are stuck with what television offers us, but, as Postman has stated, I don’t think that is a bad thing. Put junk on the tube and let people have a laugh. For I don’t think getting a rise out of someone is the worst thing, but the worst thing is when the media pretends to be educating us and we believe it. At least we currently don’t seem to be overly questioning it. Postman did write a very timeless book and I think a good beginning to dealing with our problem would be to have every high school student read this book. Let us hope that high school students have the will to read it, because that is a whole different issue.
Now where do I start with my suggestions? Personally, I kind of like the idea that involves the government limiting what time and how long television can operate. That would certainly change the American culture and way of life as a whole, but I don’t think that is a real answer. Anybody could just as easily go on the internet or pop in a DVD. In essence, stopping TV will not stop the show business. So, one solution, which I guess is not really mine, is to just put junk on TV where it belongs. Why not? That seems to make sense to me. Lets stop trying to believe that we can have informational shows on TV. Let us use it for what it is good for. Although, I think maybe the best idea would be to take it out of the hands of corporations. Make it so the stations don’t have to worry about ratings. That might allow for some “better” educational shows to air. I know the media can only allow a certain form of information, but there are surely very informative documents out there. Yes, they might be amusing, but I think it is wrong to say that anything amusing is not informative.
I'm sorry for posting my response late to the blog.
I find that Postmans ideas about trying to get rid of our dependence on Television are interesting but I think in today's society it would never work. Most of society has grown up on television and our dependence on it has only grown with each decade. Creating a show on television about how to watch television is an interesting idea but something that would never work in today's programming. While some people may tune in for satirical humor or just because they agreed with Postman's ideas, I don't think the show would ever generate enough ratings to stay on air.
As much as I would like to say that I am not addicted to Tv, I still find myself sitting down like a drone every thursday night with all my friends to watch Grey's Anatomy. Whole days have been planned around not missing evening programming. Even though Postman's book has made me look at TV in a different light I have not changed my lifestyle or stopped watching Tv. We live in an age where society is addicted to technology whether it is computers or televisions and I don't think that our dependence on either will become less anytime soon.
Postman's suggestion of education as to how we can negate the extremely detrimental perceptions of society television instills in our minds seems very feasible to me. Only when television viewers have a knowledge of what they are watching as a framework of societal norms that seriously infringe our ability to accept alternative knowledge and ways of life can viewers break away from television as the most popular information source.
When viewers are educated about ideas such as the information-action ratio and the limited information we truly know because of the ways we acquire information, Postman's idea of television programming as a commentary on current events would be increasingly used for that purpose, because the demand for television programs that reflect that idea would increase. I believe the reason why mindless television which consumes the lives of many is the most popular type of programming on television is because it is the most in demand. When there is a decreased viewing of shows which disable our minds such as "reality" television and celebrity news as the number one type of news all Americans share a common knowledge of, television shows that comment on information we should all should truly know, such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show, would take over television. But the ideal usage of television can only come into effect when the dangerous aspect of television as the way everyone acquires knowledge, rather than a commentary on the knowledge we all should know by way of everyday acquisition of detailed knowledge by way of legitimate news papers and education, is limited and the latter said intention of television and media discourse is increased.
My belief is this can be accomplished when knowledge of independent media sources is increased. Most political commentary and attempts to challenge societal norms and realities instilled in us by way of the monopolization of public discourse by the government are accomplished through independent media, because there is no higher power that is manipulating the way the commentary is developed. If independent media sources were more publicized and viewed by way of television and the press could the education on the corruption of our minds be fully known and altered for the betterment of our education and understanding of increased tolerance of other ways of life and knowledge not typically covered by the media. These ways of life which would be more tolerated and understood could be of groups undermined by oppression such as minorities, those with different orientations and classes. The promotion of current events viewers could take action and protest about to reverse negative impacts would increase if the knowledge that one could make sure attempts was expressed in the media. An overall acquisition of the true worth of knowledge not being through manipulated television programming but by an educated and extensive knowledge promoted by way of the independent media sources that should and could be more publically known and utilized would truly change the way we utilize the media during this age of show business and distraction.
Post a Comment