Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chaps. 4-6
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 noon, Wed., Sept. 16.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
hey, guys, if you want to impress me (and who wouldn't?), don't save the assignment to the last possible moment. get it in early and get it in right.
What Postman means when he says "information-action ratio" is the frequency in which someone will actually react and take action when they hear see a news broadcast. The information presented in newscasts aren't pertinent enough that it will make someone stop what they are doing and react to the information they received, meaning, the information they were given isn't really necessary. As Postman says, the information given during broadcasts are only really good for filling in crossword puzzles.
I think it is hard to figure out what I do when I hear about news stories. Something like this Health Care reform has made me read up on it more, and try to figure out what the bill really says, rather than what everyone thinks it says. But I think that's really the most you can take it. I'm not running up to Capitol Hill and protesting, I'm just trying to learn more about it, which isn't all that proactive. I do completely agree with Postman that the information which is broadcast isn't all the relevant, or proactive. I'm not going to start a Neighborhood Watch if I see that there is an increase of crime in the area, I'm just going to bring it up to the next person I talk to.
It does scare me just how acceptable it is to have news that doesn't shake up people's daily life. I view news (regardless of the medium) as a way to stay informed. I understand that I'm not very proactive about what I'm reading/listening/watching, but I feel as though at least I'm trying to find out more information. I feel like information is supposed to inspire people to do something, to change something if they don't like it. That doesn't seem like that is even possible at this point. The closest we got was this most recent Presidential Election, but even that was lackluster. People would never sit down long enough to listen to a Lincoln-Douglass debate, they can barely sit down for a 2 hour movie that is specifically FOR entertainment purposes. We as a society need to learn how to see the different between news and entertainment. We need to know that the things that are important can make you uncomfortable and/or want to fight back, and that's ok. Information isn't something that is supposed to be forgotten. It is supposed to contextualize what is going on, and help you make informed decisions, it isn't supposed to be about the entertainment value.
What's it mean in Postman's universe to "stay informed"? Can you stay informed in any meaningful sense in his universe? What are we informed about in his universe? In staying informed are we immersing ourselves in an incoherent sea of trivialities and irrelevancies?
As Melissa said, the information-action ratio is the relationship between information and the way the audience receives it; it's what the audience does with the news that's given to them.
Confession time: I can bitch to no end about news that troubles me, but I haven't ever been moved to action by it. Often, I feel helpless. For example, I am particularly disturbed by stories of kidnap/murder/exploitation of young women and children. The past two weeks have brought stories of Jaycee Lee Dugard, kidnapped for 18 years, and Annie Le, missing and murdered over a weekend. They disgusted and angered me, but what am I going to do about it? I very well can't prevent kidnap and murder. Actually this is beginning to sound like a cop out. For a different example, which I didn't talk about in the first place because I'd sound like I'm stealing Melissa's entire post, health care. I have elderly grandparents who pay ridiculous amounts of money for medications they need, and receive meager social security. My grandfather is a veteran and while he can go to a VA hospital to receive care, my grandmother cannot. Something about that seems very wrong to me. My mother, who was laid off in June, pays over $200 a month for COBRA--a little pricey for someone who isn't working, I think. I'm graduating in May-bye-bye health insurance-and doubt that if I don't find a job that offers it that I'll be able to afford it myself. So many people are uninsured and it seems like nothing to better the healthcare system is happening. I'm no expert--but I have been trying to read as much as I can about it because it's something that will affect me and is affecting my family. However-like Melissa said-reading isn't proactive. I wish I was the kind of person that could rally for reform-but who'd listen to a 21 year old kid, anyway? I think it's that exact mentality that has people frozen-in-their-tracks apathetic: Who is going to listen to me, I'm too young/elderly/poor/etc. If we're all having those same thoughts, our future is bleak.
Perhaps this is why what is considered news exists. It's so much easier to digest the junk that doesn't directly affect us than swallow the fact that we're staring down a beast that could be detrimental to us and our families. Ignorance is bliss-it's easier and more pleasurable to hear about kanye west dissing taylor swift or miley dancing on a pole at a kids award show. If students like us, whose majors are JOURNALISM, can't motivate ourselves with information given to us, what the hell is going to happen?
In response to Prof. Good's second question-in order to get ours news, we are forced to wade through those "trivialities and irrelevanies." How many people just decide to not look at any of it? It's definately scary and unsettling-yet I still don't know what I can do about it.
Melissa-I think we have the same brain-I was thinking the exact same thing about the debates and entertainment. People can't even pay attention to what's meant to entertain them-seven hours for a debate? That will never happen again.
This major really ruined my love of Al Roker, The Today Show, and Good Day NY.
my take is that if people were TRULY informed, then we'd have a chance of mobilizing public opinion for genuine health care reform (and an end of Afghan/Iraq wars and. . .), but in a culture where libraries give away books, where TV sets the cultural template, becoming truly informed is a kind of technological impossibility. we would have to go back to an older way of gathering and processing information. Or am I reading Postman wrong?
When Postman writes about the "information-action ratio," he means that everyone is so over-saturated with information lacking context that it numbs us into doing nothing at all...except finish crossword puzzles and do well with trivia questions.
I don't think that most news does cause people to take action. However, I think that some people who falsely try to pass themselves off as news actually are getting people to take action...but without informing those people of any truth. For example, look at the recent protests in Washington against a public health care option. I think you can trace those protests back mostly to Glenn Beck...which is terrifying. He's sort of like Howard Beale's evil twin, sending people outside shouting about things they don't understand.
As far as "staying informed" goes, I think that the key step would be, since there is no shortage of information out there, the ability for people to filter out all the crap that's thrown their way. I'm not sure how we can make people do that. I agree that we would ideally have less junk to filter through and get our information in an older way, but I don't really expect people to want to go back to an earlier system. I think the conclusion that we're coming to here isn't too far from Ted Kaczynski...that modern technology is ruining us.
But what can we do about it? Voting hasn't stopped the rise of an uninformed public. Neither did Kaczynski's bombing campaign. And, unfortunately, modern journalism doesn't seem to help very much, either...anyone trying to tell the truth is drowned out by a dozen pundits shouting lies.
The term “information action ratio” is referring to how the audience reacts or comes to terms with the information or “news” they are receiving on a daily basis. As an audience, we are being bombarded daily with trivial news, news like traffic and weather reports that may cause us to take a different route or hold off our trip to the beach, but very rarely do audience members stop and think about what is in between the “Now…this..”
When a serious news issue presents itself as a headline, many people do not take an action, many, including myself may say.. “how sad,” or “that is horrible” but then carry on with our daily activities. It may be a lack of compassion and an increase in apathy in our society, but like Tiffany stated, “what can we do about it?” If voting does not work because the public is not getting the “meat” so to speak of the situation, then how can we take action?
Postman says in chapter 4 that there was a time when people regarded oratorical performances and speeches as and “integral part of their social lives” and essential to education. This audience thrived to hear information, and would sit for hours just listening, absorbing and learning. Legislation began to change, and the lives of the audience members were enriched. Many people today think of this time period as inferior to the world of technology today. But, Postman says and I agree, that this was a time of enlightened thought and reason due to the fact that there were no distractions. There was no time for leisure as there is today, instead of discussing what was seen on the T.V., they spoke of the literature they read or the debates they just had heard.
Watching the news today is not worth watching at all. They state the obvious, they give distractions, what we should be asking is what is being omitted, and question it. I think we should question how we got to this point, and how far we are going to allow these mediums to distract us.
I'm just going to lift this from Postman. He says "...most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action." So.. Basically exactly what everyone has said so far.
Of course Postman is right. I think the immensity of the knowledge that's given to us in daily news is too hard to take in and actually take any action with just because it is larger than one person.
Of course everyone can do small things, like with global warming recycling your bottles and cans, but does one person doing that really make a difference? No. It's when a mob of people start doing something (like maybe protesting) that action starts to get anywhere.
I think people, myself included, believe someone else will take care of the problem, so why take the action? And also, in this busy world of ours, who has time to help anyone other than themselves? Not a lot of people.
I think in Postman's universe, staying informed with any meaning behind it would be to have a knowledge on things that directly affect you. Things that are happening in your town and things that harm or help you. When that happens, you can take action. I think everything else in his universe is trivial. It's not on a need-to-know basis.. It's simply to talk about in conversation with friends.
“Information action ratio” is how news is perceived by people and how these people react
to the information they have been presented ( if they react at all).
The news has never altered my plans nor has it made me feel that I needed to take action for some reason. The only time I really felt involved was when the presidential election was going on. I was confident in the candidate I was voting for and at the same time it was important to me to keep up on the news. For me it was the first time I was actually listened to what the news had to say. I think that people only take action when they feel something may actually affect them.
The problem today is there is so much crap on television that is called news. How can one decipher from truth and bullshit. Whenever I watch something on the news or read it in the newspaper, I ask myself “How much of this is true and if any of it is true!) I feel like I have been lied to and I find it very hard to believe anything that the so called news delivers.
I try to stay informed with what I feel is true and news worthy. However, I feel that there is so much to keep up with that if I miss anything I find myself lost and I have to catch up with what is going on. I also think that the lack of interest for a lot of people is because we live in a society that constantly wants to be entertained. That is why the news tells the stories it does. To keep people entertained rather then informed. If serious matters were discussed more, people might actually have to think and take into consideration what they learned from the news. Instead of using it as another form of amusement.
“Information action ratio” is how news is perceived by people and how these people react
to the information they have been presented ( if they react at all).
The news has never altered my plans nor has it made me feel that I needed to take action. The only time I really felt involved was when the presidential election was going on. I was confident in the candidate I was voting for and at the same time it was important to me to keep up on the news. For me it was the first time I actually listened to what the news had to say. I think that people only take action when they feel something may actually affect them.
The problem today is there is so much crap on television that is called news. How can one decipher from truth and bullshit. Whenever I watch something on the news or read it in the newspaper, I ask myself “How much of this is true and if any of it is true!) I feel like I have been lied to and I find it very hard to believe anything that the so called news delivers.
I try to stay informed with what I feel is true and news worthy. However, I feel that there is so much to keep up with that if I miss anything I find myself lost and I have to catch up with what is going on. I also think that the lack of interest for a lot of people is because we live in a society that constantly wants to be entertained. That is why the news tells the stories it does. To keep people entertained rather then informed. If serious matters were discussed more, people might actually have to think and take into consideration what they learned from the news. Instead of using it as another form of amusement.
Postman is very critical of the news media because of the “information-action ratio”, which is the failure of the news media to cause change. The members of our society are becoming increasingly more dependent on technology, and while the advances we have made in communication help people to get information rapidly it has also hindered our ability to take action. We live in a world in which we are utterly surrounded by information so when something happens half way across the world happens we learn about it within minutes. But just because the information is fast does it mean it’s correct or sufficiently discussed.
As Postman discussed about the war in the Middle East, we know there’s war and Muslims but how much do we really know about those member of society. What makes them so radical? Why do they hate us so much? In order for us to fix the problem we must first understand the problem, but society is unable to do so if the news spends half a minute discussing a complex problem that requires much more time. The Middle East was a problem when Postman first wrote his book, and decades later many Americans remain ignorant. And while I consider myself an educated person I have done little to inform myself about a group of people I hear about every day. I have also taken little action with most news during my daily life. I was saddened by Hurricane Katrina and by the stories of disease, starvation and war in Africa but what have I done to help? Feeling sorrow is not enough, neither is just having information. Action is supposed to be the product of knowledge, but in a society in which information is as present as oxygen action is scarce. We are in a society where we know a little about a lot but a lot about nothing.
In order to stay informed one must spend more than a few minutes learning about a topic. The topic must be absorbed into your brain; you must hear both sides of the argument and truly spend time thinking about what you have learned. I believe you can stay informed because the information is out there, be it the internet or books. The problem arises when people aren’t willing to make the effort to find the information. With the health care debate there is more information than anyone can possibly absorb, but if you wish you can surf the web and find arguments defending or attacking the debate. If time is spent one can be truly informed but very few have the time for it.
Postman suggests that technology has rendered information irrelevant and incoherent and those who use it impotent. So long as television and similar technologies predominate becoming informed will be a rarity. The information that exists on such technologies are, according to Postman, a mass of trivialities and stupidities and, moreover, conveyed in a fragmentary, discontinuous stream that demolishes context. We live in the context of no context when we use modern media to become informed.
Essentially, what Postman is referring to when talking about the "information-action ratio" is the amount of news given that will directly effect our lives. The news that will cause us to learn something other than a trivia fact or help us come to a relevant conclusion about something.
To be honest, I can't remember the last time a piece of news directly effected me, at least not in a way that caused me to change anything about my daily routine, or come to any shocking revelations. It's like Postman points out, many of the issues that come up in the news, that would effect us, have only one course of action which is to vote even though its only an option once every few years.
The only thing that I can think of that has actually effected me in some way that altered my daily plans/routine is 9/11. Obviously that day impacted everyone's life but really, it's the only piece of news that stands out as having significantly effected anything. Even this, though, isn't something anyone could really do anything about, it was just an event that changed the way many people viewed the country, the world, etc.
I've always noticed that we are not really informed of anything while watching/reading the news but I don't think I've ever realized just how little relevance most news has on our lives. It's strange and scary to think about how we could literally watch "news" for 24 hours a day but not find out anything that is relevant to our lives.
What Postman means by "information-action ratio" is the amount of times someone will react to the news or broadcasts they hear around them. In my first year of college, I watched the news more often then I had my entire life. Whether it be local news or the so-called major news stations, I can say that I felt a more distressed and confused than before. I would have to say that I do act on most of the news I hear from newspapers, radios or television. The Swine Flu outbreak is what comes to mind first. Later news broadcasts showed that many other people were affected by this "news" also. Hand-sanitizer and any type of anti-bacterial product were sold out because of the emphasis the media put on the Swine Flu outbreak. Personally, I feel like the press is out there, not so much as entertainment, but rather as public's reason for panic attacks. The media blows up stories in order to gain the attention of the desensitized public and sometimes does some good for them, but majority of the time only causes distress. I feel that the media no longer does their job in informing the public. I turn on the news today and all I see is stories about celebrities. In my case, learning about the Swine Flu was helpful, but after about a week of hearing the same story being run throughout the media, Swine Flu was old news and I was getting sick of hearing it. After hearing for so long, the same numb feeling returns and I look for something to pull my attention to the news. It's a little frightening to me that celebrity deaths and sicknesses is all I get out of the news. I believe it is network news that is causing our whole society to spiral downward. With news clips getting shorter how are we, as Americans, supposed to be well informed about anything? Like Postman said, "is there any audience of American's today who could endure seven hours of talk? or five? or three" (45). Television has given everything to us without the need to learn everything about a certain subject. We're all experts about absolutely nothing because of the media.
I wonder what would happen if we had to go back to a time before television and the internet? Would society’s’ need for entertainment once again take precedent over the day’s events? That’s probably why our generation is known to be the most complacent generation of any in history. We have too many things to distract us and the problems of the world seem too big for us to actually go and do anything about them. Not that other generations didn’t feel this way also, but they didn’t have the internet, TV, ipods, and video games to hold their attention.
Though Postman has shown evidence that humans have always sought out entertainment, so maybe it’s not all the technologies fault but just our nature. Our generation doesn’t have to seek out entertainment like previous ones have; it’s brought right to us. So why not choose that over having to actually do something, or actually go seek out information on an important topic?
Essentailly, the "information-action ratio" is the idea of producing an action after processing the information that has been obtained. In other words, to actually do something after hearing or learning about some sort of information. I, unfortunately don't do much outside of ranting and raving about the news to others. Maybe I think giving my opinion is doing something, or a form of spreading the news to someone who wasn’t aware. I hate to think that I can't really do much of anything about what I hear and see, but sometimes I can't. It is like Tiffany said; none of us in this class, or I assume none of us, can directly prevent the terrible crimes that are committed everyday.
However, at the very least I am aware of what is going on. I think we can be "informed" in Postman's universe if we want to be; if we actively seek out truthful and insightful information. In a way we are responsible, as inquisitive individuals with a desire to stay informed in the most accurate way, for researching our own real news. So that we don't become a society (or become a part of that society which already exists) that only knows of things instead of about things. The idea of the telegraph was to enable a conversation between Maine and Texas. Great. The unfortunate outcome with the T.V. and internet as well as the telegraph is that trivial and nonsensical news travels fast. In order to be correctly informed the news needs to be reshaped, “All that is necessary is to frame the subject differently” (73). The medium has become the television. O.K. Now we have to reconfigure what is allowed to be broadcast.
When hearing the news or some piece of information, an individual decides whether what was heard is relevant to him/her and how s/he would act upon hearing particular news. This is how information-action ratio can be defined.
The questions to the readers are what they considered as relevant or serious news and how it is being delivered to them (Was it on the 6 o'clock news? Were they on cnn.com or mtv.com? Which daily newspaper are they into the most?). Anything that is dispersed to the people is judged by action value nowadays. In every piece of news that we hear today, people are likely to comment about it or have a discussion with other people to explain their frustrations. From the Iraqi war to the health care situation and everything in between, there is a high chance that nothing will be done by the people after hearing hard or soft news. Postman noted in chapter five that the news does nothing except elicit from people a variety of opinions that can only be offered (69).
As we stated in class on Monday, anyone can be a reporter or blogger and write about various topics of the world. Even though it's important to be informed, American prefers to be entertained for various reasons. This respectively explains why over 150,000 tweets were posted online minutes before the VMAs started this past Sunday yet citizens hesitate to call in the police about a lead on a serial rapist in a community.
I'm a little embarrassed to say that as I was reading Postman and he asked the question on page 68 about how often the news causes us to alter our plans, I was relieved that something that I've been wondering for so long was actually addressed in a book. More often than not, I feel like I don't have the power to change big issues. Of course I can vote, but like Postman says, at the point all I'm doing is handing over my power to someone else who will supposedly make the difference I am looking for.
It's a funny situation for me because I feel like I am a passionate, educated citizen. When it comes to politics though, I'm just not interested. I don't feel that it is fair for me to participate in political conversations because I can't completely stand by my opinions. I don't feel like I even have enough information to form my opinions.
I know if I wanted to become more educated about certain issues, I could, merely by doing some research. But, honestly, I'd rather keep out and let those who are more educated make the decisions- especially because I don't feel like most of the issues affect me at this point in my life. I'm sure that makes me sound ignorant, but I feel that, as a citizen, I am free to make that choice.
Maybe politics is something that will grab my attention more in the future. I wasn't exposed to it as a kid, which I think highly influences my interests and disinterests. The newsworthy things that I was exposed to were more local and directly affected my family, like when teacher contracts were renewed. I am interested in such issues and I do feel like I have the power to influence those decisions. They don't necessarily affect me in my life right now, however, so once again, there is only so much I feel like I can do.
News is everywhere. It is conveyed to us by many different mediums on a daily basis. The "information-action ratio" is exactly what it sounds like- how people react to all the information they are given. We are definitely given a lot more information than most of us feel we can even process, but the amount of information we we respond to is much smaller. It is our duty to stay informed and hopefully, the more we do, the more of an influence news will have in our life without us even makings a strenuous effort. At that point, I hope it would just come naturally.
Postman's "information-action ratio" is a term he uses to describe how often information inspires people to take action. But he argues that television newscasts are so frivolous that it couldn't make anybody take action.
I don't think the news has ever altered my plans or made me take some action. What am I supposed to do about a murder or a bank robbery? I think that day after day we are bombarded with the same kind of sensationalist crime stories and accusatory political reports that it seems that everything is out of our hands. Maybe the only time I've been called to action was when I accidentally stumbled into a protest in Union Square. That counts, right?
I think that sometimes the news just feels so much bigger than us. The stories that are reported have no significant impact on our lives. They just keep us scared or aloof but never really informed. But I don't think there is any way to be informed. We've discussed this earlier but we live in an age where so much information is available to us that it is much easier to become an expert in one area rather than become a well-rounded and well-informed individual. There is no way to slow down the way we gather information. There are computers in libraries. Who would read a book now?
Even stuff like commemorating 9/11 has become some sick form of amusement. It's a day for everyone to be patriotic on a day that isn't the 4th of July. And they're selling coins and gold and silver. That isn't calling anyone to action. It's probably making people more complacent.
When a person hears a piece of information and then responds with action to that information, that is the information-action ratio. Postman claims that before the telegraph was invented the information-action ratio was high because people only got news that was relevant to them. Whatever they learned was essential to their knowledge and they could act accordingly. However, with the advent of the telegraph Postman says that "everything became everyone's business. For the first time, we were sent information which answered no question we had asked, and which, in any case, did not permit the right of reply" (69). He thinks that this led to a decline in the information-action ratio. People now receive a lot of information, but do not feel it is necessary to act on all of it.
I cannot say that any recent serious news stories have forced me to act in a certain way. I am more influenced by my own experiences. For example, in high school they teach a lot about not drinking and driving but kids do it anyway. My senior year of high school a friend of mine died in a drunk driving accident, and as a result a lot of students in my high school will never drink and drive. However, the same cannot be said for those outside of my high school who might have read the article about it. I cannot say that that is entirely true but I think actually losing someone close to you has more influence on your actions than reading about someone you don't know.
I would also like to point out that although I do not act on news that I hear, the same cannot be said for my mother. Every time a story about a young girl who was murdered or raped or attacked is run on the evening news, I get a phone call the next morning to remind me never to walk alone and keep away from strangers. These reports don't result in her driving up to school and bringing me home, but she does take extra precautions to make sure I am safe and protected.
I think today anything can pass for news because everything is so readily available. People prefer to watch and read drama rather than what is really relevant. The evening news is always tempting viewers with scary taglines like "it can kill you, and you might be eating it for dinner." They report on every crime and then follow it up with the latest sports event, like what Postman calls "Now...this." The news might offer a lot of information, but I am not getting news that might actually be relevant to what I really need to know.
What Postman means by the term information-action ratio, I think, relates to the bystander effect that I learned in psychology. We receive information but it not is in most peoples nature that they are the ones to act on it. This "serious" news is bigger than an individual. No one human being will watch news on murders, gang fights in the city, etc. and act on it because it is assumed that there are others or higher powers acting on it.
A perfect example was actually in the news a couple of years ago. A man was crossing the street and got hit by not one but two cars that kept driving. While he lay there motionless in the middle of the street, bystanders stood on the sidewalk watching. I think that if someone spoke out, someone of motivational speaking to tell people of this world that they can make a change and the steps that we can make towards it, that would make the difference. I think the saying should go the hole is only as great as the sum of its parts.
The nature of "serious" News today is to inform, but nothing more. There is no organizations being stated after the story to tell the viewer of what they can do to act on it. Like previous posts, news today is merely information. A scare in the back of your head, another reason for a guard or wall to put up when you leave your home.
What I look forward to are those stories on little acts of heroism. I find those cool, and most important, inspiring.
This is the link to that news story... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljeVYz_NEQ (while disturbing, it proves the point.)
Okay, everyone else already said it. The information-action ratio is the cause and effect of watching the news and doing something about what you just saw. Postman says that the “news” is a bunch of garbage, and that most people don’t or can’t even process it correctly, so most people don’t or can’t do anything about what they are watching.
Because of the work I do, the news, political and environmental, totally influences my day. When the whole “system” works as it should, which everyone is arguing it doesn’t, and I totally agree (but I have to also say that it does sometimes because if I don’t then basically everything I am working for and fighting for is null and void and there is no reason for me to wake up in the morning), I, or my higher-ups, get the news and rally me and my co-workers into taking action. News about laws, legislation, politicians. What happened during a meeting, what was said, what is going to happen. This is for national, world, and local news. I do take action. I am taking action. I am trying. I can give you loads of examples, but you can also read about it on my Blog, or Face book, or talk to me in person. That may seem lazy and like I am half ass-ing this blog post, but considering what goes for “news” now-a-days, this CAN be your action. You are reading MY news, and are going to take action. Go read what I have to say. Maybe do some more action, come to a meeting. Then do some more action. Write a letter to a senator. Make a phone call. Rally more people. Do something. Be the change that you want to see in the world
http://newpaltzdemocracymatters.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2201102467&ref=ts
The information-action ratio refers to the amount of information that is fed to us compared to the amount of action that we take in response to that information. The point that Postman makes is that the ratio is off; that we clearly have no use for 90% of the content on the news. Of course, he is right. The information that we receive from the television, or the telegraph, is meant only to keep us using the device. If the telegraph were only used to spread useful information, then the Magnetic Telegraph Company would go out of business. The man in Maine and the man in Texas really have nothing to talk about, so instead they need to throw out-of -context, impersonal blurbs of information. I believe that there was nothing we could do about this. Every culture fell into the same time-wasting trap when “space” was conquered, and when relevancy became irrelevant. It’s just the nature of the technology.
The useless information, as the media industry loves it, is coincidentally the most entertaining, and the most profitable. They are not going to go around paying people to write real content, or pay reporters to do an investigation, when they can have 24/7 coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death. It’s simple economics.
Clearly I have no use for that crap. I’ve developed a hatred for TV after not having one in my house for 3 years for this very reason. I remember the exact moment I cursed TV forever, actually. I was working at Dunkin Donuts and the only thing we could watch was CNN. A bridge collapsed in Minneapolis one day, and that was the ONLY thing they talked about for FOUR DAYS. Man, Ted Turner is a genius. I remember all the parts of the coverage too, because they played them in repeat. Stories of “Heroes” of the incident were meant only to appeal to people’s emotions. This was one of my favorite parts of this week’s reading, when Postman refers to Lincoln calming down the audience to his debate when they applauded. Back then, the rhetoric was appropriately aimed at the audience’s intellect, not their emotions. Bill O’Reily lies to people, and gets them to believe them, because he plays into the emotions. Modern commercials work on this same principle. You cannot get someone to buy a jar opener by appealing to their intellect.
In Postman’s universe, the television universe, you cannot stay informed. You can only stay entertained. Only the internet can set us free from ignorance. Off topic, I believe the internet is our key to evolution. If the corporations take the internet from us, we are doomed.
When Postman mentions "information-action ration" he means the ratio between a piece of information and the action that will take place by the receiver who is obtaining this information. As I mentioned in the previous post broadcast is just extra time that needs to be filled in and in turn, the information that is broadcasted is not relevant or necessary to those listening.
I think it's great that you brought up the question if we can stay informed in any meaningful sense. Honestly, I pose myself with that question everyday. When I made my Twitter account I asked the same question mainly because I created the account for professional networking. I had a hard time trying to figure out what to tweet about. Being in the public relations field I need to be able to deliver news that is meaningful and I kept trying to find topics that were actually newsworthy to tweet about. I looked to other professionals to see what they were tweeting about. Some of the tweets were so irrelevant and had no meaning just pure sensationalism. It saddens me to know that society has been sucked into the world of irrelevancy and it has gotten to the point where sensationalism is what's expected. Now, information that is actually newsworthy isn't that interesting and becomes such a bother.
When he says "staying informed" I think he means to stay away from the misleading information that'll make you think that your being informed but in actuality it doesn't. It has gotten to a point where no one knows what is important anymore. We are at the point where people have already prioritized what kind of "news" is important to them and what they will stick around for. It's sad to say but everyone has been at that point at some time. The question is what are we going to do about it at this given moment as individuals who are seeing from the outside in?
First off, apologies for being so late on this, I thought I was one of the first to post on this but it must have been deleted or something because when looking for further comments I couldn't find my own.
I love the comparison of the "information-action ratio" to the bystander effect. In a couple psychology courses I've taken, that has always been one of the subjects that I found most interesting. A simple summary of this theory is that as more people witness something or someone that is in dire need of help or change, the less people feel obligated to rise up and enact that change. They feel that out of the mass of people that have seen this travesty, someone will eventually do something. In the case of the news that we see, people figure that millions around the country are seeing the exact things that he/she is seeing and why is it their responsibility to act on their feelings? Someone else surely will.
Now who knows if all this is the fault of the viewer/reader, or if it in due in fact to the trivialness (not a word I know), of news today. It's a double edged sword, try to stay informed and become "entrapped in a sea of trivialities," or cut yourself off from the world and be just another bystander who feels bad about the worlds problems, yet doing nothing to help.
Personally, I blame the messenger and the message, not the person receiving the news. If the messenger (the media) didn't bombard the public with non-sense in today "now...this" culture, right after discussing an issue as serious as health care, maybe the public wouldn't have the same reaction when they hear about a pet snake that was 500 pounds as they would about Obama's plans for the future.
Post a Comment