Amusing Ourselves to Death, written by Neil Postman, was interesting to me even though it was difficult to read and enjoy sometimes. Postman's claim about television becoming the main medium for public discourse is coming into fruition. He discusses print culture and how its application to information is more rational and coherent than the media used subsequently.
Postman says our society doesn't believe using television for education is unusual anymore. It makes children believe that education should be amusing. For example, various students either fall asleep or aren't attentive in their classes due to the fact it is perceived as boring. I understand that education is hard to grasp and comprehend if it's boring, but it doesn't justify not learning. Students have the opportunity to learn but some choose not to because it's simply not entertaining.
Television should implement important subjects, but it's something that's very difficult to do. For example, Postman talks about when the ABC network held an eighty minute discussion between Elie Wiesel, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, and others about a nuclear holocaust but the limited time prohibited them from any rebuttal, argument, or evidence to support their claims. Postman uses this as a rationale to explain that television isn't an efficient option to display relevant information. Also, ratings significantly affect how often important information is presented on television. If something isn't amusing, people simply don't pay attention and change the channel.
Print culture has been overshadowed since the telegraph. Information is able to travel in larger quantities and in faster times because of technological advancements. Since technology like the telegraph and television was invented, abundant but useless information has begun to be communicated. The information was often of little importance to whom might encounter it because these new technologies have the capability of involving people around the world. It's exceptional that technology like the telegraph and television are able to transport information very quickly and in substantial amounts, but the relevance and quality of that information is lost.
After reading this book, I realized how influential television can be. It has the power to inform everyone around the world. Postman says our society doesn't fully understand new technology, mainly the television. I agree because we hold something so powerful but we don't utilize it in the most beneficial way. However, trying to reorient the way television is used is very difficult. It something that seems impossible to attain. Postman says our society must comprehend television. If we do, there's a chance we can improve upon the way we use it.
Postman's argument was very interesting to me. Honestly, his book made me realize an innumerable amount of things. Do you agree that society deteriorates with technological advancements? Is his claim that television culture is inferior to print culture true? I'm curious to hear what you guys have to say.
-Lyle Cuevas
His claim that television culture is inferior to print culture is a bold one, one that Postman is capable of arguing quite effectively. However, I do not believe that society is deteriorating, merely changing. Who knows, perhaps one day television will be an informative source as print once was?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to point out that Postman did not address the beginnings of print culture. Print culture was once regarded with awe, and the intellectual discussions he speaks of did not come into fruition until the printing press made books available to the general public, and then the general public must become literate in order to understand and take part in these intellectual discussions. In the beginning, before the general public was truly literate, the print culture may have been attacked much the same way Postman is attacking television culture, as something different, and therefore inferior to the previous form of discourse.
I do not believe that television is inferior to print, but is simply different from print. Even if print was the prime intellectual form of discourse, human nature forces our societies to continue to progress, and improve. The television is the next step in this continual progress. Perhaps, as society continues to evolve, one form of discourse is favored over the others, and the others become obsolete simply because they are no longer needed.
You make a valid point. I can agree that print may have been criticized the same way that Postman discusses television. When society advances with new technology, mostly everyone accepts it but some people have opposing opinions. Postman is one of those people.
DeleteAlso, I understand that television can't be inferior to print. It has the ability to display relevant information as print can but our society doesn't use it that way. Hopefully one day our society figures out how powerful and influential television can be so we can use it in the most efficient way possible. You make good points and thank you for responding.
I have also realized the influence television has over people's lives. It's almost as if people are being controlled in a sense by television and what's broadcasted. I as well thought that Postman's arguments were very interesting and he was able to back up his opinions and thoughts excellently.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, yes I do believe that society is deteriorating with technological advancements because the more machinery we create, the less we interact in person. We begin to stay shut in doors and prefer to be by ourselves with our electronics.
At the same time though, all of these technological advancements are also improving society. We can now speak to people across the globe, and maybe we aren't connecting face to face, but we are connecting with people who live like we do or don't. So society is both benefiting and not benefiting from technological advancements.
My opinion on Postman's argument that television culture is inferior to print culture is that it's not true. Despite the downsides to television and the seemingly "useless" information it gives society, there's always room for improvement. Not everyone in the world thinks simply and just goes with the flow of things. There are people out there thinking deeply, wondering, and acting to ensure society doesn't fall into hopelessness. Society has continuously stepped forward to improve and better itself, so television is just a part of that continuous process.
Your reply has made a realize some things. You make a good point in saying that society does and doesn't benefit from technological advancements. Technology today can do amazing things and I'm glad Postman was able to see that as well.
DeleteI like that argument that even though people don't connect face to face with new technology. However, we're able to connect with other individuals around the world. It's astonishing.
Yeah television has a lot of room for improvement because television may have the ability of showing important information. Hopefully our society can act and make that improvement happen. Thank you and I like your response!