One of the author's major points against society's new visual medium of discourse, television, is that it has made entertainment the new standard for communicating. While the author believes that shows like Sesame Street blur the line between education and entertainment, the millions of kids who were educationally inspired by that show, especially in developing countries, cannot be neglected. Despite the dramatic shift brought upon societal discourse by the advent of television, the typographic tradition continues to exist. It is not as commonplace anymore, but nevertheless prevails in classrooms and academia. Furthermore, the author's accounts of television only mention the news when it is hardly a significant proportion of what is actually aired. Programs like documentaries and interviews inform viewers of topics ranging from influential figures in history to environmental issues. Accordingly, Postman's assertion that viewers are limited in their responses to what is reported on television can be refuted by numerous examples of political and environmental policy change because of mass media.
Postman is largely pessimistic about humanity and the world as he describes the general direction society was heading towards in the mid-eighties. Even though the author has thus far provided insightful speculations on the impact of modern media on society's future, most of it hasn't correlated with the present. Not yet, at least. Unchecked, television definitely could've become the soma of human society, but people have been able to utilize it as a tool to empower, rather than overwhelm the masses with knowledge over the past decades.
Do you think Neil Postman's arguments against television have translated to the real world? Is modern media proving to be a detriment to people and especially the next generation?
- Kevin Gomes
Taking into consideration what you have said in this post, I agree with the part where Postman goes to the extent of judging certain television programs way to harshly. The example you used, Sesame Street, is a great one because although Postman views it as leaving a negative impact on its viewers, it has demonstrated a huge amount of positive impact on many who see it: small children, and foreign language speaker no matter the age. In general, based on what you have shared, I believe that Postman only viewed these modern advancements as negative because he possibly did not have many things to motivate him to welcome change as well as see the positivity in that change. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts and I look forward to reading more about what you think of other topics throughout this new school year.
ReplyDeleteI think you've got some things wrong here, Kevin and Monique. Postman wasn't a sad sack or a pessimist. He says as much as technology gives -- and it gives plenty -- it also takes away. I think we can all agree technology (TV, internet) does not provide us with a one-way trip to happiness, ease, and intellectual enlightenment. It's a two-way street. As much as technology gives, technology also takes away, but many of us refuse to acknowledge that side of the equation.
ReplyDeleteContrary to your point of view, I believe that Postman emphasized not the pessimistic aspects of modern media, but rather the discourse transition the American public has gone through with modern media's emergence. Compared to oral or printed word, TV and phones have been media mediums that are catalysts of change in public discourse. Public discussion has transitioned from one that is reliant on words and articulation, to one that concentrates on image, found in politician's speeches of the past versus present. Rationality in cultural conversation has devolved, where "showbiz" and the urge to invigorate and even keep an audience's attention has evolved. However, it was interesting to read your positive perspective of modern media mediums, as this was articulated well!
ReplyDeleteI believe Postman isn't pessimistic about humanity. He's a realist and bases his claim from what he's seen. I can understand why you feel that way though. To answer your question, I believe Postman's claim about modern media being irrational with information is coming into fruition. He supports his argument with considerable facts. One that boggled my mind is that present day people don't have the mental capacity to listen to hours of debate as opposed to the past where Abraham Lincoln and Stephan A. Douglas would debate and people would attend these because it was a part of their social lives. They were able to comprehend and participate in their arguments while today, most people wouldn't understand a word. Life was simpler and more sophisticated back then due to print culture. Another prime example is when Postman asks the reader to imagine Albert Einstein, Richard Nixon, and two others, and he was right that the reader can only see an image of their faces, but not the impactful words they've said. People began to change when print culture was being overshadowed by other media. For example, it's easier to look at an image but it isn't as coherent as print culture was. Today, our lives are influenced by television culture. It isn't necessarily bad, but it is not the best thing. Print culture was full of factual, relevant knowledge and our society began to deteriorate with technological advancements. Overall, Postman's argument was valid and it holds a more significant purpose now because of our society's changes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a decent amount of what was in your post. Postman does seem to be very pessimistic about television and he rarely ever acknowledges the potential benefits that society faces with the popularization of television. In a way, not acknowledging the other side of an argument detracts from your own, which only weakens his overall thesis and what he says about society.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I completely agree with your views on Sesame Street. It has definitely helped kids learned, even if it is at the expense of warping children's views of school. The American school system has enough problems as it is.