The book is a critical social commentary on public discourse, which is highly critical towards the television in particular with regard to the generalized epistemology of sorts it promotes. The point of comparison for Postman is the book - or more generally the print culture - which in his assessment compares extremely favorably to the current television-centric culture.
While Postman may be argued to overdo his main arguments - at least with regard to the contemporary media landscape and public discourse in the Scandinavian countries (i.e. his commentary is probably more apt in the USA), both then and now) he seems to have a point here. The point is nicely - though not fully - captured by the following two passages:
"How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio or television, or in the morning newspaper, causes you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have taken, or provides insight into some problem you are required to solve?"
"Of course, in television's presentation of the "news of the day," we may see the Now...this" mode of discourse in it's boldest and most embarrassing form. For there, we are presented not only with fragmented news but news without context, without consequences, without value, and therefore without essential seriousness; that is to say, news as pure entertainment."
Thus, in Postman's assessment, we are (already were in 1985) on our way to a Huxlean world where people are rendered politically incapable through enjoyable complacency rather than Orwellian state-induced control.
Was it good?
While Postman may be argued to overdo his main arguments - at least with regard to the contemporary media landscape and public discourse in the Scandinavian countries (i.e. his commentary is probably more apt in the USA), both then and now) he seems to have a point here. The point is nicely - though not fully - captured by the following two passages:
"How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio or television, or in the morning newspaper, causes you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have taken, or provides insight into some problem you are required to solve?"
"Of course, in television's presentation of the "news of the day," we may see the Now...this" mode of discourse in it's boldest and most embarrassing form. For there, we are presented not only with fragmented news but news without context, without consequences, without value, and therefore without essential seriousness; that is to say, news as pure entertainment."
Thus, in Postman's assessment, we are (already were in 1985) on our way to a Huxlean world where people are rendered politically incapable through enjoyable complacency rather than Orwellian state-induced control.
Was it good?
The book is beautifully written - Postman is an unambiguous master of language and rhetorics. Moreover, the basic line of argumentation if credible with regard to its main concerns. However, the conclusions drawn may be somewhat far-reaching for a Scandinavian reader, though their accuracy may be somewhat different in the USA. In any event, such social commentary as this book is indispensable in that they 'direct one's gaze' and encourage to raise it to meta level from the daily routines and actions. In this, the book excels superbly.
It would be highly interesting to read a sequel to this book in which Postman would apply his critical analysis to our current social media-heavy media landscape. I bet he would have a thing or two to say about Facebook and Twitter, for example, and the (traditional) media which report public discourse taking place on such platforms.
It would be highly interesting to read a sequel to this book in which Postman would apply his critical analysis to our current social media-heavy media landscape. I bet he would have a thing or two to say about Facebook and Twitter, for example, and the (traditional) media which report public discourse taking place on such platforms.
The main take-away for me?
As noted above, the main take-away for me was the refreshing point of view which prompts one to consider our media landscape, public discourse and ultimately the premises of knowing - and acting upon - anything (i.e. epistemology) from a distance. Thus, the book serves a purpose for anyone even though one would not subscribe to the conclusions Postman puts forth.
Who should read the book?
I firmly believe that anyone with any intellectual curiosity would be quite well-served in reading the book. Moreover, it seems to me that even though the book was written more than three decades ago, social commentary related to media and media-mediated epistemology is currently even more relevant than at the time the book was written.
The book on Amazon.com: Amusing ourselves to death
No comments:
Post a Comment