Sunday, August 30, 2009

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:

Melissa said...

From what I've read so far, Postman is arguing the point that truth is only relevant to the way we communicate. (As Postman says it, "Truth, like time itself, is a product of a conversation man has with himself about and through the techniques of communication he has invented" (24).)When print was the dominant source (and before that, when it was the ONLY source), truth was found in the written word. The writer thought long and hard about their words, trying to connect to the masses. It was assumed that dialogue was mostly babble rather than a sincere, well thought out argument. Now that there are other ways of communicating, and now that it is much easier for a single person to communicate to the masses, we as a society seem to trust the spoken word much more than print. We see assume because someone is put on the spot, they can't get talk their way out of an argument, and if they attempt to, it is easy to catch them.

I've never really looked from this perspective, but I did find myself agreeing with Postman for the most part. I do agree that the way information is presented to us is the biggest reason why we have become the society we are today. There is no time to digest information, to decide its importance, it is just thrown at us and then forgotten about. I do also agree with the fact that seem to believe spoken word much more than written word these days. Aside from the obvious example of print journalism disappearing, and all forms of citizen journalism is emerging, this idea can be taken even farther. We seem to listen to "talking heads" on cable news networks, listening to their opinions and the opinions of their guests, and take those as fact, because someone on TV says so. It seems that nowadays anyone can publish a book, about ANYTHING regardless of whether they are knowledgeable of the situation (Kanye West wrote a book of common courtesies, etc, etc) so how are we to believe any book we read? Aside from not being about to trust who writes what, who has the time to read anymore when someone can TELL them what's going on in the world. Postman paraphrases Huxley saying, "We are all...Great Abbreviators, meaning that none of us has the wit to know the whole truth, the time to tell it if we believe we did, or an audience so gulliable as to accept it" (6).

Howie Good said...

Here's the best thing about Kanye West as a writer. He doesn't like to read. He is practically a poster boy for Postman's theories!

Melissa V. said...

Postman argues in Amusing ourselves To death, that history and technology have dramatically changed the way society views and digests the news. We have entered an era in which the news is just a click away; either by remote or the click of a mouse and becasue of this, the news has shifted from being relevent and pertinent to taking center stage in the show buisness industry. What has become of society becasue of this shift in how we get our news? Postman says that "[A]s the influence of print wanes, the content of politics, religion, education, and anything else that comprises public business must change and be recast in terms that are most suitable to television (8)." Lets take for example, the contrast in past and present presidental elections. Postman explains that before the age of glitzy television, presidents were chooses according to what they may have been able to do for our nation and not how they would look on trelevion. Fast foward to the era of Nixion, who once said, according to Postman, that he lost an election becasue his make-up artist had "sabotabged" him. Nixon also offered advice to Edward Kennedy, which was to simply loose 20 pounds inorder to have a "serious run" for the presidency. Meanwhile, our twenty-seventh president, William Howard Taft, ran for president in an era of American history which was not consumed by cameras and show buisiness; Postman argues that if Taft were running in today's time, his 300 pound stature and triple chin wouldnt get him very far even if his ideas would change and improve the nation.

The fact that what we look like has taken more precedence over how influential or powerful our ideas might be has bombarded our society. I feel that we should'nt rely so heavily upon how the news might look and pay more attention to the content and significane the news has on our lives. It seems as thought technology has taken over evey aspect of our lives. From texting to the internet, society cannot be content with the simple silence of the day, and are too eager to check their inbox and use various technological portals for communication. This eagerness causes us to "abbreviate" the importance of news, as Postman suggests, and we aren't able to see what it means or question where the news might lead and this can only cause our nation top becoame what I call, a bunch of dead heads.

Marcy said...

Neil Postman’s book, “Amusing Ourselves to death”, explores how through the years our society has been given access to too much information. We have been given access to all of this information through advancements in communication technology, and we have fallen in love with it. This was also Aldous Huxley’s vision in his book “Brave New World”. Postman says, “Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance”. He then supports this theory, showing how our society changes with each new communication invention, starting with the printing press.

Postman shows how our society was filled with learned people, who worked hard to become and remain informed citizens. People’s first-hand accounts and spoken testimony were seen as rational, and often sufficed as law. When the printing press and newspapers were established, information could reach greater distances and more people could share their ideas and beliefs. To be an informed and literate citizen became of even more importance. With the invention telegraph, Postman starts to unveil the beginning of the end. Yes, information can go travel even further and faster across the country, but pointless information is being reported. With each new technology that is introduced, the more information that does not effect our day-to-day live is reported, which may explain why so many of us have A.D.D.

In short… we are amusing ourselves to death. The only thing I can think of while I read this book is the movie Wall-E.

mark.schaefer said...

After reading the first three chapters on Postman's book, I feel that the main argument so far has been that television news is far inferior to the news of a print source. On this point, I'd have to agree, in a printed, or written, news report there is more time to go into details and fully explain the situation, on television though the stories are often summarized and not much depth is added to the story.

I felt that one of his best and most truthful arguments for this came when he was talking about the "junk" that's on television. In his opinion the mindless television shows that are broadcast for entertainment purposes are fine. He writes;
"Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant. Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations." (16)

This couldn't be more true, especially in a time when, as others have mentioned, people get their news in the form of the opinions of pundits and when news channels cover things like a man attempting to break the record for throwing eggs (it was really a record for catching them without breaking, as far as I could tell).

Also, the egg throwing/catching as news reminds me of something else Postman mentioned in the book. He writes, of the dangers caused by focusing more on television than the written word;
"...we are getting sillier by the minute."

That quote pretty much sums it up, when we begin considering things like egg throwing news, we are just getting ridiculous.

Howie Good said...

Postman is saying more than that TV sucks. He's saying that TV has taken over the culture. . . that TV, as the predominant medium, has turned everything from politics to religion to education into show biz. . . that we now live in the context of no context as a result. . . I would add that the computer has since recapitulated the cultural ramifications of TV, but harder and faster. . .Keep reading!

Tiffany said...

Postman's description of what one needs to do in order to read successfully describes a taxing task on both body and mind where one must ultimately "know the difference between a joke and an argument" (p.26). This calls to mind the "news" clips we watched on YouTube during the last class. As Postman wrote, "Although the Bible makes no mention of it, the Reverand Graham assured the audience that God loves those who make people laugh. It was an honest mistake. He merely mistook NBC for God" (p.5). The biggest problem I see today, and which I feel Postman addresses, is that people have become so obsessed with television and internet "news" that few can decipher what real "news" is. People would much rather entertain themselves than educate themsleves. Before college, I considered the Fox morning show (which I watched every morning, elemtary through high school) with silver-haired, toothy grin Jim Ryan "real news." I felt so smart! I'd learn about the weather, traffic accidents and grim events that happened in the tri-state area. There'd be segments about back-to-school clothes, etc.-and once an entire segment on the proper way to clean your toothbrush (and I'm not lying--I still rinse my brush in hot water and tap it on the sink a few times after use because of it). Anyway, before I completely lose my point and ramble, people no longer know what the news is. We are so satisfied with the entertainment side that we can't (or refuse to) separate it from the news that will actually affect our lives. It's awful that Jon&Kate are getting divorced and that the King of Pop died. But when I think about how many times I heard about those stories and how many times I actually heard anyone talking about healthcare this summer, it worries me. We (or many of us, to be fair) have become so obsessed with the salacious and controversial that nothing else satisfies us quite like it. Newspapers trudge on, patiently waiting someone to pick them up at the door of the grocery store, but Perez, US Weekly and the like will always be there to derail when Linsday Lohan forgets to put on underwear.

Kelsey said...

After reading the first three chapters, I believe the premise of Postman's book is to show how technology's advancements is skewing people's view of the truth. I agree completely with Postman's theory concerning technology. He uses Huxley's Brave New World in order to show what he believes our society is turning into. It is scary how close Postman's theory is to today's society. According to the text, Postman believed "that as typography moves to the periphery of our culture and television takes its place at the center, the seriousness, clarity and, above all, value of public discourse dangerously declines" (29). I believe that in this theory, Postman is 100% correct. Our class discussed how much the technology of today's culture is more for distraction then for their actual purpose. Turning on the news today, I first see a YouTube video about a laughing bride who could not stop laughing to say her wedding vows. Next an image of Tyra Banks revealing her "real hair" for the premier of her new season of "America's Next Top Model." In old cultures, such as Postman suggests, the 'news of the day' was not available. Now that technology allows for this, we'd rather hear such things as Tyra's new hair do, or other similar stories so we can be distracted from the truth.

Jess said...

The major idea for Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death is that in the past fifty years American culture has defined itself and sustained itself through mass media. Specifically he looks to television as the main culprit. He divulges into the idea that print based thoughts are decreasing as television based discussions are on the rise. He believes that this has consequences that will in fact change our lives for the worse. If Postman notes that reading is on the decline, and imagery is bombarding us daily, will we lose our sense of imagination? Is it true that seeing is our only source of believing or knowing truth?

Postman also reminds us that oral tradition was first and foremost of importance before the thought of print even occurred. Cultures thrived on the pertinence of this communication form. People were able to share and relive every detail in full effect without any abbreviations. As societies grew, the need for print came about. News was now able to travel great distances and eventually reach the masses. Education and literacy began to flourish, those who were able to read saw it as a great gift and attribute, and it was not taken for granted.

Today, according to Postman, our society has become so full of distractions from new forms of communication and technology. We are constantly checking our email accounts, Facebook, news feeds and cellphones for brief updates, that we never really receive all of the information. For example, the newest form of communication that I think Postman would find atrocious is Twitter; here users are limited to about 150 words! How will anyone ever learn to form or even read for that matter fully formed thoughts or vital information?

I think that as television and technology increase, our reading levels and comprehension levels are not the only things on the fall, but our attention spans are suffering as well. The urge for the “I want it now” will then turn into “I wanted it five minutes ago,” and so on. Like Postman, I am not trying to demean television or technology, but we, as humans have to be careful and diligent about the content that is being sent out, and then received. We need to be aware and not lose what once was seen as a gift, the printed word-this will be our foundation for the future.

nicoLe said...

I strongly agree with Postman's major premise that the message is the medium. In today's world where technology surrounds us, I feel that Postman is head on with this statement. The news hasn't changed since it first started being reported. People are still interested in the same things primarily. The way they receive the information, however, is different. Postman says, "the 'stuff' that makes up what is called 'the news of the day' did not exist-could not exist- in a world that lacked the media to give it expression (7). The fact that we can receive information within seconds of an event occurring makes me feel that people associate speediness with greater importance. For example, if a man gets shot, it is a big deal up until the next newsworthy event occurs, even if it is less significant. Postman discusses how news is what we create and how we interpret it. It is merely told differently and thus interpreted differently.
Postman also states that "our media are our metaphors" (15). This thought intrigues me. His explanation is thorough in the sense that metaphors are used to compare and further understand. It also shapes the context of what we are to believe. If media is our metaphor, I agree with Postman's notion that what we deem as important is because of television. If something is being broadcasted, of course we're going to pay attention to it. TV does have an embarrassing power over us that few choose to proactively dismiss.

Maria said...

From the first few chapters I have formulated the idea that as technology advances it's main purpose was to reach more and more people and to deliver accurate and relevant news in a timely manner. However, as technology advances it has been manipulated in a way that allows all sorts of information to pass on in a timely manner without regard for accuracy or relevance, but rather nonsensical information and trivia that has seemingly no bearing on everyday life (or I would hope so). Postman realizes that he must( and we all should) try to "explore how the press worked as a metaphor and an epistemology to create a serious and rational public conversation, from which we have now been so dramatically separated"(43). I would like to see us as a whole ( by us I mean those who enjoy being informed with the truth) decipher when and why we have settled for this separation of relevant information to build a relationship with the likes of Perez Hilton and well anyone who is employed by the Fox network. At this point television has become so ingrained in our everyday culture that it isn't going anywhere. That may not necessarily be the problem. The problem is how TV is manipulated and used as a means of distributing, well garbage instead of relevant information. People are always more willing to be satisfied with a witty celebrity story than any real news. I have to wonder if it is because celebrity stories are all that is "allowed" on T.V. Or maybe T.V. has gotten to big for it's own good.

Howie Good said...

the best way to answer maria's question is to say tv dictates a certain kind of info being used and other kinds of info being ruled out. and as a metaphor, it dictates one kind of society emerging and another kind of society being ruled out. tv isn't just another medium; it's the defining medium of our lives, according to postman. (i'd suggest the computer is working similar black magic at this moment.)

Samantha said...

I think Postman's major premise is that America was built on the print media and had great success with this practice, but we have since moved away from that tradition and our minds are suffering from it. Postman points out that most of the people in America were literate between 1640 and 1700. Somewhere between 89 and 95 percent of males and 62 percent of women could read and did read pamphlets and newspapers because it was the only source of information at the time. However, today we have numerous other ways to receive information that does not require as much effort as picking up a paper and reading the words. Postman says "One sometimes hears it said, for example, that there is more printed matter available today than ever before, which is undoubtedly true. But from the seventeenth century to the late nineteenth century, printed matter was virtually all that was available. There were no movies to see, radio to hear, photographic displays to look at, records to play. There was no television"(41). I think this is interesting because reading was considered a form of entertainment and things were written not only to entertain but to inform. Today the same can be said about the news, except it does more entertaining than informing these days.

I agree with Postman's premise because I also see how far we've moved away from regarding the news as truth and hard facts. When we looked at the top e-mailed stories on the New York Times, most stories were light hearted but did not relate to any major issues happening in the world. If this is an example of what people care most about then it can be said that people in America care more about being entertained by their news than actually learning something from it. I think Postman is also saying that if we don't try to revert back to a time when most people were informed as well as interested in the important things happening in the world then we will quite literally amuse ourselves to death.

Kate said...

Wow. Postman is dead on in this book. Not that I was expecting anything different, but he argues some key points. "The influence of printed word in every arena of public discourse was insistent and powerful not merely because of the quantity of printed matter but because of its monopoly"(41). Back in the 17 and 1800's television was not around to demolish the content that was news, or novels. What Postman speaks of is the distraction Television in general has made on the content most American's so cherish today. Probably my favorite line so far is, "like the fish who survive a toxic river and the boatmen who sail on it, there still dwell among us those whose sense of things is largely influenced by older and clearer waters"(28). This is so true. Technology has brought out in us the robotic self nature to cling to what is given, what is new. But there are few of us that want content and truth of the story, or just a story at all. I wont lie, it's entertaining to watch and take in some of today's "news." Which is why I agree with him that much more. We are all glued in to this idea of news almost as if there are subliminal messages to make you watch. I think it just shows what the human mind is attracted to, but also shows where will power and common sense is lacking, in some. What we have is entertainment overriding education, information and truth. To which I agree with Postman in that what we have to do is always keep an open mind.

Brandon said...

Through the first 3 chapters of "Amusing Ourselves to Death," the main premise I've gathered is that television is not inherently bad, but trying to convey anything of true meaning using television is a poor choice, as some other means of communication would be much more effective.
Out of the three chapters, the second chapter really stood out to me in discussing the way certain mediums for conversation (that is the way Postman uses conversation, not the conventional way)only lend themselves to certain information being discussed. Just as smoke signals are an ineffective medium to convey messages of philosophy or gossip, and as Postman's doctorate teachers pointed out to him, everday conversation and oral tradition is less effective than the written word to impart knowledge and fact, TV is unable to clearly correctly display certain things to a viewer the way a book could to a reader. As our primary means of conversation shift from print journalism to television, so too must the information being covered. To quote Postman, "this change over has dramatically and irreversibly shifted the content and meaning of public discourse, since two media so vastly different cannot accommodate the same ideas...politics,religion, education, and anything else that comprises public business must change and be recast in terms that are most suitable to television," namely recast in a fashion that is more entertaining and consequently less fact-based and thought provoking.
An interesting facet that seems to have been overlooked by the discussion so far is Postmans quick notion in Chapter 2 that it is possible the computer may bring back a certain need and thirst for a more literary based culture. While everything else he has "prophcied" (foresaw) has happened to a tee and been very accurate, he misfired completely on that notion. The computer based internet age has only accelerated America's degradation and regression into an archaic culture interested in pictures and shapes, entertainment and pleasure, not been the savior of thoughtful literature that Postman may have hoped for.

Howie Good said...

he's also saying we want to be amused by our politicians, our religious leaders, our teachers, our . . . TV set the template for all institutions to follow, and if they don't follow, they're reduced to irrelevance

Ericka J. Rodriguez said...

In the first three chapters of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" it perfectly reflects our last discussion in the last class. Who is to say what the real truth is? Who is credible enough to believe? Does credibility even matter or is it what's the next best thing in gossip?
While print became one of the most reliable sources and then came broadcast where there was time to fill and irrelevant topics were being touched upon. Now the biggest question is what is more important to those reporting? Is it the good ratings or delivering truthful news that they are trying to fulfill?

These mediums have have hindered society in such a way that the truth has been covered with such irrelevancy. The way in which people choose or the way society chooses to deliver news is indescribable. It's almost like a joke. It has taken over the culture and has desensitized society. It has become more of a popularity contest more than anything else and money is the rude of all evil in this all!!!

New forms of technology and the way we communicate has had a major impact on the direction that the American culture is going in. The internet, cell phones, and social networks are taking over. It worries me because will the generations to come really know or be able to distinguish what is relevant in the news and what is pure junk?

Miss Rivers said...

Postman is saying that while the rise of television and the media seems to be promising to the people, it's also shift how society will communicate as a whole. The part in the introduction where the son talks about how the professor who challenged his students to take on an e-media fast was awesome. The students thought of it as no big deal, but as soon as they left class, I can imagine the frantic chaos in their heads when they couldn't listen to their music players, or check their cell phones for new messages, etc. They really had to discipline themselves hard to abstain for any and all technology even though the temptation was surrounding their environment rampantly. The point was obvious; people used to actually read print publications and writer letters and post cards to their friends and relatives. Now, people are just a Facebook click away. Now people are going to the television and Internet for everything. Another part of the book that really had me thinking for a while was when Postman joked about Reverend Billy Graham and his televangelism on NBC (5).

It had me reflect on values and priorities that were practiced among families. Mom, dad, big brother Joe, little sister Susie, and even the pet dog Shams used to congregate at the dinner table and talk about spiritual activity, work, soiled clothes, the basketball game and Princess Tiffany's dress to the doll ball. People used to communicate face to face and have timely conversations with one another. Television was on the way to becoming the new baby-sitter and teaching the kids to tie their shoes and proper mannerisms.

When the age of television started to rise, what started off as a mere recreational activity has turned into an addition to peoples' daily agendas. I don't ever remember penciling in my student planner what time my favorite show was premiering on TV. And even if I missed it, I can always catch re-runs online, right?

George Selby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George Selby said...

It is clear from the forward and the title of Amusing Ourselves to Death that Postman is trying to illustrate America as a pleasure-filled, consumption-loving downward spiral. So far I totally agree with him. Many of his points hit home with me, even though his book was written in the 80’s. The first thing that he helped me realize is that our presidents are prettied up just like our newspeople, and their political success depends on appearance. Nixon telling Ted Kennedy to “lose twenty pounds” reminded me of how Kucinich and Ron Paul weren’t even given airtime in the debates last year. I bet if Kucinich was a tall handsome black man, things would’ve been a little different for him. In the days of Howard Taft, Kucinich might have become president, and news of his shortness would have only been a friendly part of his rhetoric. Postman also got me with this line: “what ideas are convenient to express inevitably become the important content of a culture” which backs up his point that our messages must be short and simple enough to be delivered through a TV, and unless someone pretty delivers it, it won’t be effective. In the second chapter Postman points out how every culture has a different view of how the truth should be conveyed, such as in the university where it must be written, and in the field of Economics where it must be in the form of numbers. I agree with him that with a new medium like TV, there is a new form of truth-telling, and it is more dangerous than print. This is made clear to me with personalities like Glenn Beck, who can say something on a whim, without sufficient written evidence, and be a “truth teller”. If Beck was writing a paper for the university, clearly he wouldn’t be taken seriously with most of the things he says. When I argue with those who don’t know who owns the media, I am constantly heartbroken with what I hear, such as connections between 9/11 and the Iraq War. The TV can merely suggest something, and it is still viewed as truth. Print must back up its one-liners.
I also found it interesting how Postman illustrates the American obsession with the media since the days of the printing press. He points out that we have had an overabundance of newspapers since very early in our history, and that some authors like Charles Dickens could’ve reached the same sort of obsessive fanbase as our quarterbacks or rock stars. He traces the very unique American interaction with the media back through history, and this certainly helps me understand our current relationship with television.

pierce said...

Postman argues that truth becomes severely convoluted as new methods of communication are formed and widely used. He makes this argument by comparing print to TV but you could say the same about print to the Internet or even TV to the Internet. Our methods of communication have begun to overload us with information. The substance within that information has suffered.

I completely agree. Postman says on page 25 that even just reading the book is taxing us because of the way we digest information. No one reads to enjoy reading anymore. You must be "immune to eloquence." You must sit in one place to do it. If you can't, then society deems that there is something wrong with you. you are dumb and hyperactive which just isn't true.

We allow "experts" to form our opinions on things. We watch people argue on TV about things that might matter. We don't know it but we are blindsided by images that and trying to influence our ideas. Hannity & Colmes for instance. Colmes was a squirrely looking guy and Hannity was a strong a presence on the screen. Who would you be more likely to side with?

Postman says that our preoccupation with our newly image-centric society is dangerous. He is completely right. You can do anything is you look good enough. You don't need to have any idea what you're doing but people will eat it up. This goes for everything. Presidential elections, TV shows, book deals. It's sad really.

James said...

I'd say the major premise is, as Postman writes at the beginning of chapter 2, "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." Essentially, that the media has become dumbed-down so much that people become dumber with it. I absolutely agree with it. I think that the best example of this is in what Americans are reading. Postman gives examples of what Americans were reading in the 1700s when we had such a comparatively high rate of literacy compared to other countries...and it's all serious stuff. Newspapers and political pamphlets, even Noah Webster's "American Spelling Book." These were media that educated people. Look at what people read today...Harry Potter, Twilight, Stephen King, romance novels...it's all just meaningless entertainment. While I do agree that the television has certainly played an enormous role in this dumbing-down of the media, I think that the internet has also greatly sped it up. Continuing with the example of books, there are websites now that specialize in publishing ANYTHING. Any schmuck can go and write a book and get it printed, which might sound liberating in a different context, but I think in practice has really just produced a bunch of crap. So, yes, I do agree with Postman that our "conversation" (in his sense of the word) has gotten stupid. Also, sorry that I posted this a bit late.