Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Can the Media Be Fixed?

In the last few pages of AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH, Postman makes several suggestions for fixing the problems represented and created by modern media, particularly TV and computers. Do any of his suggestions strike you as feasible? Which one seems most feasible? Why? Do you have a suggestion of your own? You should. Please respond by noon, Sunday, Oct. 4.

17 comments:

mark.schaefer said...

Although there seems to be a small amount of hope in Postman's last chapter, even he paints a pretty grim picture about what can be done to help the current state of media, more specifically television and to a lesser extent (while he was writing this) the computer. He even states, while addressing the problems of trying to find a solution, that "there probably isn't one." (158)

Postman suggests a few things that could be done to help the problems created by the media (namely television) but only two seem as though they would work, at least in theory and in an ideal world. As far as I can see, though, there is only one that he mentioned that could even remotely work in today's society and even that is a long shot.

If we lived in an ideal world, or if this were closer to the beginning of the problem I would completely agree with his statement that; "We would all be better if television got worse, not better." (159) He gives the example that if television only consisted of shows like "Cheers," etc. there wouldn't be anything to worry about because no one watches those shows with the intention of learning something about the state of the world or country, etc. Unfortunately, at this point in the game, there is no way that we could get television companies to stop broadcasting things such as news programs and "Sesame Street." Especially not in a time when we have entire channels dedicated to "news" 24 hours a day. When Postman wrote this, he was mostly concerned with programs that lasted, at most, about an hour and he didn't even have a real hope that they could be stopped.

His suggestion of leaving the issue to schools to address with their students is the only option that even seems remotely possible. We are, after all, discussing this situation in the classroom. But Postman again reminds us that this solution "rarely ever works" and that "there is even less reason than usual to expect it to" (162) with regards to television.

Although this solution seems to have a small amount of promise, I feel like, at this point, we may have gotten ourselves into a vicious circle. If people are so used to being entertained by their information (regardless of how useful or true it is), and from everything we can conclude, like it that way, why would they listen to someone telling them to get their information from a place other than television? Especially if the person telling them these things is not entertaining?

I hate to be overly pessimistic but I don't have much faith in our schools being able to change the way people view television and the computer as viable sources of information, even if this is the most feasible of Postman's options. Our culture has been raised on television and computers and it's the main source of information, however reliable, for most people in America. I almost feel as if we would have to start from scratch if we really wanted to fix things.

At this point, I think that a complete fix is out of the question. Useless news programing and TV pundits have solidified themselves as cornerstones of television and trying to change that would be nearly impossible. The only thing that we can do is to try and counter-act it with better programing. Entertainment can not be taken out of educational programs and still retain viewership, it's simply not possible in my opinion and it wouldn't work. So, what we should be trying to create is truly educational shows that are also, secondarily, entertaining. They would need to be longer for one thing, preferably with no commercial interruptions and they would need to contain substance, not just brief overviews of incidents and situations. They would also need to be unbiased which means hiring teams of writers with vastly different backgrounds and political views.

mark.schaefer said...

Currently, however, it doesn't seem as though there is a huge outcry for anything to be done at all so why would a company attempt to make a change? Unless enough people stop taking what they hear on television or from the computer at face value and start asking to be more informed and for a change, nothing is going to be solved and everything will remain as it is.

Sorry I had to break this up into two posts, it wouldn't all fit into one.

Jess said...

Postman’s suggestions I believe are unfortunately easier said than done. I really liked his point on page 160, (the problem) “does not reside in what people watch. The problem is in that we watch. The solution must be found in how we watch.” This whole idea of media consciousness or awareness is a solution that seems feasible and makes logical sense. If the audience knew how to reap the benefits of these different types of mediums to enlighten themselves, instead of mindless entertainment, then perhaps modern media could move in a right direction. Like any other product that is deemed harmful, there should be guidelines on how to use it responsibly. Postman suggests that society looks to the school systems to educate to perhaps redeem what we have lost, but as he states, there is no way an educational system can do so, if we do not have the ability to transform education.

Education always seems like the scapegoat, and the only answer. It’s very tricky to find a solution to this rising problem. If the government steps in, then it will be seen as some sort of censorship, but if they do not, then what our forefathers worked so hard for will be gone. To rectify and reverse the damage that already has been done, we as a society need to accept the fact that yes, television, Internet, radio and even the newspapers are harming us. We as a people need to step up and work along side those who understand the damaging affect. There is no way we can live up to our potential or achieve a higher level of knowledge if we are being held back by the things that are now entertain us.

Kelsey said...

Postman's theory of eliminating the "serious modes of public discourse" would have to be my favorite of his theories (159). I believe it is the people who are watching these programs who are helping to turn our world into Huxley's Brave New World. Personally, I think even the "junk-entertainment" that he refers to is even worse at time than the "news" (159). If he watched the television shows that have replaced "The A-Team" and "Cheers," I'm sure he would agree with me. I still believe though that this proposal would work the best because without news on television or educational programs littering the the young children, we would have to go out and do and learn things for ourselves.

As for my theory, I would have something instituted in the school systems. Seeing how bad school systems have gotten, I believe it is their fault why generations have been ruined. I believe that with a stronger education system would teach the younger generations that going beyond television and question technology is better than accepting its authority.

Kate said...

"But it is much later in the game now and ignorance of the score is inexcusable"(157). This quote by Postman caught my eye because it may be too late in the game. This issue with fixing the media is like, for example, taking all the heroin addicts in the world, putting them in rehab and every single one coming out successfully clean. The reason why I would like to say that the idea of starting through our educational system is feasible is because I believe that would be the only place to start. Cold turkey does not work for all. In order to stop or fix the media I believe we have to start at the source. Just as you would tell kids growing up not to do drugs, the way we learn and what we learn growing up in schools about media should be enforced and changed.

The one suggestion I have would be to sending out some type of form or petition on media to our schools or to our government, with a clear explanation of the negative effects it is having on our society's and the world in general. Like Postman said, "Our reach for solutions ought to succeed our present grasp, or what's our dreaming for? (163)"

Marcy said...

I apologize for this being late once again, I had it in my head it was due by 5.


As most people have said, Postman gives little advice on how to change society, he mostly leaves it up to us. However, he does say we need to realize the value of media technology is for mainly the sole purpose of entertainment. At least this is what he says about television. Postman may or may not have found educational purposes in the use of the internet. I'm thinking not.

He also warns of the use on media technology in schools. He says teachers should stop promoting it's use and placing such high value on it's educational purposes. He basically believes schools should go back to using just books and teaching fundamentals. This advice should be taken up considering the types of books students are encouraged to read today. Yes they are reading, but it is still entertainment.

I also use this quote in my essay, but I like it a lot. Postman says about television, "The problem, in any case, does not reside is what people watch. The problem is that they watch. The solution must be found in how we watch." (160) He goes on to say, "For no medium is excessively dangerous if it's users understand what it's dangers are." (161) His answer is awareness and education of the world and technology around you.

Maria said...

Mark quotes Postman in the best way: "We would all be better if television got worse, not better." (159) Postman brings up the point that people are unaware of what information is and how it "gives direction to a culture"(160). There is the possibility that if things got worse, T.V. got worse, than maybe the whole thing would collapse and rebuild its self to finally become an accurate outlet for significant information such as news, science, religion, etc. This is my romanticized theory on improving television without outright banning television, which would never work. (There would be riots. People are in love with not being and individual and having to think for themselves.) Unfortunately, I am not sure that television will ever collapse and if it does I don't know if I have enough faith and confidence that it will be rebuilt into a more useful piece of technology.

However, I do think that if people are more aware of information, what it is and how to use it and what television's effects are on that information, we may have something here. At this point television can be taken for more than face value and looked into instead of at. And if it does have to be in the form a Saturday Night Live skit or something similar to Monty Python's "And Now For Something Completely Different" at least there are more people becoming aware than not, right? The solution seems to have to be to manipulate T.V. in order to fix T.V., if that somehow makes sense.

Unfortunately, I don't know if I agree with the idea of the education system as a solution. After all, " Our schools have not yet gotten around to" teaching students about the danger of television on society( 162). All classrooms are now equipped with t.v.'s and if not used there is the idea that the students are not being taught in every form possible, getting their full educations worth. Showing a a movie segment on relevant information to the class: great. But leaving some random "science" program for the sub to show the students just promotes the same drone like state.

Maria said...

I also had it in my head it was due at 5pm. Sorry

Samantha said...

I think the most feasible solution Postman came up with is to change the way we watch television and use the computer. He says that we don't have to change what we are watching or why we are watching it but instead we have to change how we watch television. I think this solution goes along with his last suggestion which deals with education. If everyone were educated on how to use the television and the computer as a tool rather than a source of entertainment then maybe we would be better off. He is well aware that now that the television and the computer have been introduced it is unreasonably to think they can be taken away without consequences. The monster has been created and now we have to learn how to take control of it.

Postman also suggests that a television program teaching people how to watch television could be a good solution. However, he is already aware that in order for that to be effective it would have to follow the same formula of the shows it is trying to warn against. "In order to command an audience large enough to make a difference, one would have to make the programs vastly amusing, in the television style...The parodists would become celebrities, would star in movies, and would end up making television commercials" (162). While it is a good idea it seems that we have already moved too far into a culture that wants to be constantly entertained and visually stimulated so this method would never work.

I don't have a fool proof suggestion of my own to fix the problem with television, but I agree with Postman that it can start in the schools. Even after having this class I am more aware of the things I watch on television and how it is affecting my life. I think if more people were made aware that television is not the only source of information and is in fact a poor source of information then a change could start to occur. Starting with a younger generation will lead to a solution in the long run because each new generation eventually grows up and is in charge. Change would not happen over night, but it could get the ball rolling.

Howie Good said...

The deadline for responding to the blog passed more than five hours ago with not even half the class responding. This is a disappointment to me. It suggests something is fundamentally wrong. I don't know what that might be. Perhaps most of you are too busy watching television to remember the assignment. Perhaps the class isn't entertaining enough. Perhaps I'm not scary enough and I need to add fill-in-the- blank tests and pop quizzes.

Also I can't help but notice that not everyone has become a follower of the blog despite my repeated requests for you to do so.

Interesting.

Tiffany said...

I'm late and have no other excuse except that I forgot, but here goes anyway..

Early in Postman's last chapter, he writes: "But what if there are no cries of anguish to be heard? Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements?" (156)This reminds me of our culture right now-it seems like everyone is enamored with twitter, facebook, iphones, reality tv and everything else, because I haven't heard much opposition other than in our class (or from my mother, who still doesnt understand tweeting). My point, to start out, is that it'll make this "love-affair", as Postman puts it, with television and other unnecessary media that much harder to remedy.

Postman begins by saying that only awareness will truly keep people from being damaged by the mindless junk that is aired on television-"For no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are." (161) His suggestions in doing so are creating television programs that actually criticize television's pitfalls, in hopes that viewers will learn of and avoid them; in a sense, Postman suggests programs would show viewers how television should be watched. The second solution would be to teach of television's problems in schools. I do not see either of these, especially the first one, as Mark said, being feasible.

Sure, kids could learn in school what makes television a pleasure only to be enjoyed in small doses and that there's much more out there that matters, but then they'd go home and would probably turn on the television and watch whatever they wanted for hours. Education about television would need to start early-many of us are way too addicted to meaningless reality shows by now (Guilty-Real Housewives of NJ) to give it up for books or a walk outside. Children should be taught by their parents-given a book, monitored t.v. time-in order to learn from a young age that t.v. isn't the be-all end-all in entertainment (and that it certainly doesn't lend itself to education 90% of the time). If parents could teach their children to be more educated and informed, in conjunction with teachers doing the same-then maybe the television-driven "Idiocracy"-esque generations would taper off. However, many parents are hardcore t.v.-technology lovers themselves. I think there'll always be people, such as us in the class, that value information and print and will continue to do so as we age (hopefully we'll have offspring we can teach that appreciation to), but I can't imagine changing society's love of television completely. Everytime I turn on the television there's a new reality series premiering-which suggests to me that we may be too far gone to change how television works.

nicoLe said...

The idea of a "TV Turnoff" is interesting. Postman points out the reasoning behind it is pretty easy to understand; it's like a liberating fast. He then goes on to ask "then what?" Sure people feel this sense of accomplishment, but I agree with Postman that this is too much of a penance. While he congratulates them for being able to get through a month of no TV, he points out that once they're done with the fast, it's back to the same old thing. I feel the same way- if someone wants to change their ways, they have to take the next step.

In this instance, I feel the next step would be to not remain in the dark about issues that are occurring in the media simply because the TV is cut off. At that point, people are responsible for seeking out the information through numerous different outlets. When the "TV Turnoff" period is over, I feel like they should still continue to do this.
TV should not be the only outlet for people to get information from. As individuals, we are responsible for staying informed. Learning information from just one outlet is not enough.

I agree with Postman when he says It is key to understand how we watch TV. We must pay attention to what is being told to us and then question it. If we were to take everything for granted, we are as uneducated as we were before because we are mimicking the opinions of others who put the information out there for us. News is bias no matter what.

I don't think it would be possible to syndicate television shows that show people how to watch TV like Postman suggests. We are a body that likes to be entertained, and being lectured at is boring. Instead, we must learn on our own and read as much as possible.

Having means of communicating with the television would be wonderful, but I don't think we're there just yet. Will there actually be someone on the other side listening? Probably not. Therefore, it is up to us, as reporters and educated people, to gain information from various outlets and not simply absorb what is being told to us, but to question it constantly.

Melissa Vitale said...

It is obvious that technology such as computers and television have become a huge part of society. You can even say that they have taken over our society. Technology has its advantages and disadvantages. However, more and more people are abusing it and are becoming completely consumed by it rather than using it to one’s advantage.

As of right now, I don’t think any of Postman’s suggestions would work. Today’s technology has become a way of life for many people and there are some who could not imagine a day without their computer, television, or cell phone (myself included.) It is difficult to go a day without a computer or television, when a person’s homework assignment must be done on the internet, or a student might spend hours doing research for a paper. As for myself after a long day at school which involves using computers, I look forward to going home and relaxing in front of my T.V.

Postman suggest (pg. 161) that television should create a program explaining how it should be viewed instead trying to get people to stop watching television. I then wonder how many people would actually take it seriously.

My suggestion is that people need to have more control over themselves and should be aware of how many hours one spends using technology. People should put limits on how much T.V. they watch and how many hours they spend in front of the computer.

Melissa Vitale said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brandon said...

Unlike most of the posts, I feel slightly more optimistic about our current situation. The simple reason being for this mindset is that Postman seems like an extremely intelligent guy, with deeper meaning behind his thought and knowledge of broad sweeping social change beyond what I know. If he spent time to write an entire book, hell dedicate a good portion of his life to railing against the ineptitude of a society that relied on television for anything other than entertainment, he must have felt that there was some good to come from it. He wouldn't have written this book if he felt we were beyond repair.

The idea that the best way to remedy the situation would be to make television worse, not attempt to make it better and more informed which is posed on page 159 will never work in today's society. Too many people are too invested in certain educational shows, the discovery channel, the cooking shows, oprah type talk shows, etc. Nothing we can do will stop these shows and nothing will keep people from accepting these things as fact without further investigation.

I feel the only real solution, and I actually do feel this is a plausible idea, is to overhaul the school systems and completely change the mindset in the classroom. Stop using technology in the classrooml; stop filling every nook and cranny of a school with computers and screens. This only teaches the kids that these things are inherintly good and truthful. If we can get kids reading more books, and this means reading for enjoyment, reading because the things they read enrich their lives and make them think about real-life situations, applying the knowledge to their own lives, then it is possible to ween them off television reliance.

In todays world, I don't quite know how well Postman's last idea about making a channel that would warn the viewer of the dangers of tv, as well as teaching them how tv should be viewed, would really work. The veiwer, being so used to entertainment and ubiquitous technology, would ultimately take it as satire; a sort of John Stewart type show where he is a journalist making fun of journalism.

Ultimately, the best form of reform for this situation is most definately changing the education system. When Postman quips that he is afraid we may just be beyond repair on page 157, I feel it is more of a scare tactic employed by Postman in order to inspire change.

If more people read this book, there would be more of an outcry for social change. Hell, if we turned this book into a play, a movie, even a Made for TV Movie, there may even be a few people who understand the underlying message, and push for change. I've never considered the dangers of television as being such a deep seated problem before reading Postman's criticism. Like I said earlier, if he found no hope in the situation, the book wouldn't have been written, but it was, and our best shot now is to rework the education system and going back to the roots; namely making class more interactive, with discussion based classes beginning earlier on, insuring that the reading and writings assigned are actually completed.

Chris said...

The three remedies that Postman suggested for fixing the problems created and represented by modern media are to ban certain content, improve content or to teach media literacy. I am very against the first suggestion because I don’t see any great value in censoring or banning certain content. I see value in all content even subjects that aren’t socially acceptable. Improving content is almost impossible since everyone has a different view of what they believe to be an improvement. To the people who run television an increase in money is an improvement so the only changes that would be made are changes that bring more money to the stock holders. In my opinion, teaching media literacy, especially to younger children, will allow society to view television for what it is. Media literacy will help people take opinions that are said on television are simply opinions, because at this point in time people too often take one’s opinion as fact. Media literacy can also help inspire people to seek out more information after hearing the blurbs on the news.

I do not believe that the problem with television is as drastic as Postman believes, because I think 24-hour news networks such as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC do go more in depth about certain topics. On regular news channels a news story will only get a few minutes, but I have seen news stories on CNN take up to an hour providing the audience with a wealth of information. A newscast really can’t go too far in depth because people can only take in a certain amount of information in one sitting.

Miss Rivers said...

Media technology has the potential to be beneficial and provide relevant information for inquiring minds. The problem is that the television and internet is constantly injected with what Postman called misinformation (107).

Instead of people tuning into the night news that could either affect them or their community, they need to (or think they need to) see some sad reality sitcom about bad dates and fighting roommates or check their Twitter before checking for assignments from work or class. People are allowing themselves to be controlled by media technology and yet, as if it's a drug, claim that they can stop anytime they want to. Postman also noted that the public consciousness has not yet assimilated to the idea that technology is ideology (157). I think people of society have already assimilated to technology being an ideology and are conditioning others of the same concept, they just don't know the name for it.

They do know, however, that they should make changes in their lives so that precious hours that can be used for working, learning, and exercise aren't dedicated to YouTube. All is takes is discipline, which some people tend to lack.