Thursday, September 30, 2010

Amusing Ourselves 3

Describe what Postman means by the term "information-action ratio." Now answer his question: How often does it occur that news causes you to alter plans, take some action, etc.? (He's not talking about weather or traffic news, but so-called "serious" news, the kind that shows up on the network evening news or the front page of a newspaper or as the lead item on a news Web site.) What does your answer tell you about the nature of what passes for news today? Please respond by 4 p.m, Sunday.

13 comments:

joelle odin said...

Neil Postman's term "information-action ratio" relates the information coming in to the direct action that results from getting that information. He says that "prior to the age of telegraphy, the information-action ratio was sufficiently close so that most people had a sense of being able to control some of the contingencies in their lives. What people knew about had action-value." Today, we are fed so much information on a daily basis. It's not often that the news we hear causes us to alter our plans and take action. When news came out about the earthquake in Haiti, or the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico most people didn't jump out of their seats and personally go to those spots to offer their assistance. Most people didn't even do anything. There are a number of reasons why most people didn't do anything: jobs, school, money, lack of interest, etc. Another reason no one sprang into action is because this news is only a small fraction of the other news that we are bombarded with. Yes some news is more substantial than others, but when swarmed with so much information on a daily basis, it's hard to sift out the relevant news that we actually should take action for. What people hear on the news gets to be overwhelming. There is so much information and not enough time for it to really sink in and what happens sometimes is people forget and no action is taken to help the situation.

Marietta Cerami said...

As stated by Postman, "In both oral and typographic cultures, information derives its importance from the possibility of action." What he means is that information and action should have a cause and effect relationship, or at least the ability to. News information is only valuable when the people who hear or read it have the potential to do something with that information. That potential is what Postman means by the term “information-action ratio.” With the invention of the telegraph, people became bombarded with so much irrelevant information that the potential to do something with the news became dormant.

I had to reflect for quite some time in order to remember when the last time news media encouraged me to take some sort of action. It is a little embarrassing but I would have to say it was last winter. When the earthquake hit Haiti I would constantly check CNN to see what the latest updates were. The network kept encouraging viewers to visit some website in order to make donations to help the victims. I went online with my mom and we made a donation. The reason why this is embarrassing is because I think about all the other disasters like the Oil Spill and the economy, things I hear about all the time yet I feel like I can't do anything about it. It’s what Postman calls “information glut.” We have all this information but "diminished social and political potency." I think what this means is that our media is paralyzing us. News is just something to talk about, something to watch to pass the time. We think we are becoming more informed when in reality we are suffocating ourselves with meaningless flashing messages.

Kasey said...

Information-action ratio refers to the amount of information that is thrown at the public that is almost all irrelevant and/or incoherent. We read so many headlines and hear so many “hooks” on the news but do we really know anything about these events or issues? Most of the time the answer is “no”. The amount of time the information I absorb from the news motivates me to stand up and do something to change or help is minimal. This is unfortunate, but very true. Half of the time I will simply read the headline of a story and get bored unless it directly affects me in some way. Postman makes it clear that most of the news we hear about is irrelevant or incoherent to the public, especially because of the way it is presented. How are we expected to feel emotionally attached to a disaster and feel the need to help when two seconds after hearing about it there is a baby playing with a tickle me Elmo? It really is pathetic what it takes to hold the public’s attention today. What really hit hard for me was reading about how people used to sit for hours upon hours and hear our past Presidential debates go on and on, and they would not only hear, but they were actively listening. These people were capable of appreciating the debate and learning something from it, instead of having an edited version playing in the background on your kitchen television set, the way it is done today.
News is not necessarily about informing the public anymore. It is more or less about ratings and keeping viewers tuned in long enough so that the next time they run out of small talk they can pretend they know something about that oil spill, when they actually would much rather be talking about something more interesting like the Kardashians.

Suzann Caputo said...

According to Postman, the information-action ratio is the proportion of information coming in, relative to the action taken when that information is received. There were times, not all that long ago, when newspapers and the news people viewed on TV caused rebellion. Today this is not the case. Important news is cut up by commercials distracting the audience and trying to get us to buy products. People become detached from the news, and if it does not directly affect them at the time, many people consider it irrelevant. It becomes incoherent to us because of the way it is presented. There is no connection between the news stories. Serious news is put right before entertainment news that distracts and makes viewers aloof.

Isn’t that the original purpose of news in a democratic society? Isn’t the reason we are presented with news so that we will react, take action, and try to make the world a better place? Now news has shifted to entertainment, something to talk or complain about.

I get frustrated by TV news. Many times I get so annoyed with it I just change the channel. I rarely take action over something I see on the news. Sometimes, I will look up more information about something I hear on the news, if it really catches me or I think it is ridiculous. Then I’ll spread the word, but even that is annoying because there are so many people who don’t know what they are talking about. Even though we are bombarded with news, we are all so uninformed.

Jade Schwartz said...

According to Postman the term “information-action ratio” refers to the idea that information derives its importance from the possibilities of action. However, “Most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action.” Due to the telegraph an abundance of irrelevant information was generated, which altered what Postman called the “information-action ratio.”

Postman also discusses how news can cause one to alter plans, take some action, etc. Even though I do not watch the news very often I do not believe that the news portrayed on television today persuades individuals to take action. The fragmentation of news is so all over the place that it goes from one story to the next so quickly that I am not even sure what happened in either story. It makes it hard for the viewer to fully understand what is going on in the world and how you can even help, if you even can. As a result it makes people just regular viewers, not individuals trying to get involved and do something. As a result the nature of what passes as news today is if it is entertainment friendly and allows the viewers to stay focused. If it is not entertaining and not short enough for the attention span of the audience they will probably shut it off quickly or change the station to watch something that is more interesting to them.

Bobby B said...

According to Postman, the telegraph created "an abundance of irrelevant information" that dramatically changed the information-action ratio. This ratio refers to the amount of information absorbed in relation to the extent of the action that is taken as a result. As we obtain more and more information, the ability for us to take action on it decreases.

Almost every day there is a new murder story on the front page of the newspaper. Most of my life I have read the Daily News in the morning and I see now that maybe it is something that grew on me. I always saw murder cases or twisted rape cases on the front page and I always assumed there was nothing I could do about it. Due to its abundancy, it became part of the routine, as sick as it sounds. There was little action that could be taken and since it occurred almost everyday, the ability to do anything at all decreased dramatically. And it continues to do so today.

This opened my eyes a bit about the content of news today. I realized that it takes something more than a murder case for me to consider taking action. Since it is an everyday occurrance, the only news that would prompt any action would be a national terrorist attack or a natural disaster. Sadly, this is what happens with a daily overload of information.

AnthonyV. said...

The “Information-action ratio” expressed in Postman’s book is the amount of times that the information from the news will motivate people to make direct action. Besides predicting the weather or traffic, the news today lost a sense of seriousness. Back when it was a word-centered culture most people were aware of the issues that faced their world. They would read up on many debates (Lincoln and Douglas) or political issues and try to make a change if they did not agree with it.

Today, in an image-centered culture, there is less time for critical thinking because the news and media about celebrities, shows, and technological devices have distracted us from the serious issues or news. When I turn on the television and put on the news channel I notice how unbalanced and unfocused the news is broadcast. They would have an anchor first describe a brief statement about the war in Afghanistan, cut to a photo of a boy who had committed suicide and then end the segment on how to bake warm muffins. This then follows a consecutive montage of commercials that seem to brainwash a viewer into to buying everything; from cars, to makeup, to alcohol, to a Big Mac, to a subscription to a gym or to a dancing float. Also, when certain news is important, it will only stay in the media until it loses the public’s interest; like the oil spill or the trapped miners. I haven’t heard anything from the oil spill after it was capped. I’m sure the people living in the Gulf region are still dealing with the effects.

Advertising and commercializing have plagued people to focus on the meaningless entertainment instead of the important news which could let us make smart decisions and teach us about the world. Instead of moving forward to enlightened thinking, we are getting lazier and dumber. More action needs to be taken on important news and more “serious” news needs to be shown.

eden rose said...

In todays day and age it is really hard to give our full attention and allegiance to a news story or even world wide/national crisis’ that the media tell us about. The word news in general is a word that we all use from day to day but really cant define. There is so much excess that is thrown at us when we turn on the TV, flip open the newspaper and log onto the internet that the line between the Pakistani flood and brittany spears new boob job is becoming more and more blurred. Information-action ratio refers to the amount of information that is produced then distributed to the public that is nonsense and irrelevant and the action that we take. Like with the example I just mentioned, we like to think that the news is a safe ground and a place that we can really trust to get information but the question is how can you trust something that is so deceiving. I like to think of the media as a place I go to be more educated about problems that face us and yeti find myself not taking any action because of getting distracted with either other hard news or the entertainment bullshit that is flooding every media channel possible. The fact of the matter is that the amount of information that is coming at us is only increasing and I think that if people could be better choosers and take more of an initiative then we, as a society, would be able to recognize the excess and use the important information to our advantage.

BennyBuckets said...

The information-action ratio refers to the amount of information taken in by the public relative to the amount of action taken in response.

News rarely causes me to alter my plans. I definitely try to stay informed, and I pay attention and look up more information on important topics. I get most of my news from the internet, and not television, so I choose where to go and what to look at.

Even when news does persuade you to take action it doesn't necessarily mean that you know who you are helping or why. I remember when the earthquake hit Haiti there would be commercials saying, "to donate $10 to Haiti, text this number..." So even if I donate I probably have no idea what is actually going. I might feel good and think that I'm really doing good but in reality I am just blindly texting, trusting my TV.

I also think that news is so fragmented and in some cases overplayed that it is nearly impossible for the public to understand the gravity of certain situations. It seems like despite the fact that technology abounds and that it should be easier for people to get news today, it has become much more difficult to be a truly informed person who really understands world news, rather than just know that it exists.

I think that the nature of news today is clearly entertainment. Violence and sex are the two most interesting things to the majority of people so that is normally the lead. I think it is partly the media's fault; however it is also up to people to care more about what is really important and not succumb to all the "entertaining" stories.

pspengeman said...

When Postman describes the information-action ratio he is talking about the information we receive in contrast to what we can do to actually act upon the news. For example, natural disasters in South America, disease in Africa, or even killings or other disasters in various parts of the the United States.

I would say that the dynamic of helping out, or showing support has become a two dimensional system where people are expected to throw money in order to show their care. When Haiti happened, Americans (for a short period of time) become empathetic to the disaster, but what did we, the viewers, do to help the cause? WE donated money to the cause but in terms or actually seeing a change in result to our actions, we could do very little. Like we've discussed so many times in class, Postman's view of information-action ratio makes all news trivial, whether it's a disaster or a murder or an entertainment story.

This point further enforces the attention economy, and how little Americans possess in terms of staying focused on a news story for a long period of time. In addition, the stories presented to the people are now shown in a sensationalist way -- it seems the people and the media are teaming up to lower the standards of our news. It also makes events that happen far away seem meaningful to others not there, giving people a false sense of connection between various parts of the world.

Colin V. said...

Postman says that when information was scarce, it was only important information that could somehow affect your life in a significant way. So the information you would receive would have a higher chance of making you change your behaviors.

News very rarely causes me to change my actions in some way, but that is because very rarely is it pertinent to my life. That is exactly the problem that Postman speaks about. I can't even think of any examples of news altering my behaviors in anyway. my answer just proves that anything and everything is news, and its all useless.

Unknown said...

The information action ratio is something postman describes as ranking system for how important something is. If news were truly newsworthy, than it would spark riots in the street. This, however, is not the case.

I watch the evening news some nights and strain myself to pick through the garbage to find something newsworthy. I find it discussing when stories about mittens the kitten are put next to stories of rape, murder, and war. Our country is fighting two wars at this very moment. Reports of roadside bombs, suicide bombers, death, and destruction come into newsrooms every day and get packaged into 30 second briefs in between gaudy human interest pieces and nauseating anchor banter.

If news is judged on how much action it sparks than nothing is important, because the news usually doesn’t motivate me to do anything. The occasional health story will cause me to not eat at Taco Bell, but stories of either of the US’s wars never motivate me to riot and protest.

News has become just another television show, a reality show, if you will.

Fagnani24 said...

Information-action ratio refers to the cause and effect relationship that should exist between the intel that we receive on a daily basis and the way in which we react to it. Postman says that information is only important based on its potential to illicit some response. In today's society some of the only "information" we receive that leads to any response is advertising; a commercial announcing a sale or a pop-up advertisement for the next-gen ipod might make us run out to the store to do some shopping or pre-order a new gadget, but it's pretty rare that anything we hear on the news creates a similar immediate response.

In the case of major disasters the most direct action that most people involve themselves in is perhaps making a donation, as has already been mentioned. In the case of the many less significant stories that air on the news each day on topics such as an alleged rape or a fire in the Bronx, there isn't even a reaction that we CAN have. We're not going to start sending donations to the rape victim or drive to the Bronx to help put out the fire or rebuild. That news is completely irrelevant to our lives but we feel it is essential to be aware of it in order to feel informed.

I think the last time I can recall a large scale immediate response to something reported on the news was during the presidential elections, when polls were reported during the day and people who were interested in the outcome of the election went out to try and swing the vote in their favor before the polls closed. I feel that some people who may not have voted otherwise went out to try and swing the election in a last minute effort to change the outcome, based on what was being reported in the news. Otherwise, I can't think of a good recent example of people reacting directly to something that was reported on the news in a tangible manner.

I know the post is late; I was out hiking with my dad who came up for a visit.