"Now...This": Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 7

Intro Ch. 1 Ch. 2 Ch. 3 Ch. 4 {pt 1} Ch. 4 {pt 2} Ch. 5 Ch. 6 Ch. 7 
Ch. 8 Ch. 9 {pt 1} Ch. 9 {pt 2} Ch. 10 Ch. 11

And "Now...This" 

But first, this article on "15 Things the Internet and Technology Killed Off".

*A little side note: My husband asked me how I couldn't have finished this book yet. And that reminded me that I'd not finished the book yet. Well, I have been somewhat busy, I suppose. I get caught up in school with the kids because that's still my job. Oh, and there were the holidays; those always take a lot of time. And then there is the fact that I started graduate courses in January. But, I'm getting back to the book and this series of posts. There are after all only 11 chapters {only 4 after this one}. How difficult can it be?*

Part II, Chapter 7 "Now...This"

Terrible words, "now this". It means that what you just heard or saw was unimportant. The next thing will be much more important. Of course that will be followed by something to make the previous story just as unimportant as the very first. Or at least that's how Postman sees it. But it's not all televisions fault. After all, the telegraph and photograph started the fast paced, in-your-face, fragmented series of discourse. Television is just the child of the two combined. 

And here is one way we are 'amusing ourselves to death': 

"Of course, in television's presentation of the "news of the day," we may see the "Now...this" mode of discourse in its 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 (p. 100)."

The next couple of paragraphs talk about what it takes to make a news program that will attract the largest viewing. It takes an attractive news anchor, of course! In 1981 a woman named Christine Craft was fired because apparently studies showed that her face hindered viewing, therefore numbers dropped for the station. You can bet she filed a lawsuit.

Postman suggests that viewers believe or disbelieve a news cast based on the appearance of the person presenting. Acceptance of the news, or interpretation of importance, is based on credibility of the reporter. But credibility, when it comes to television, is not what one would expect: it isn't how much of an authority they are in the field, whether or not they were a witness of the account. No, it rests on how well they can sell it to the viewers and how they look while doing it. Pretty sad.

Why is this sad? Because it changes truth from objective to relative; if one can make it seem so and look good while doing it, then it is so. 

This isn't about aliens, I know, but I am reminded of Georgio Tsoukalos. He looks confident, and he sounds confident. That doesn't mean that he has presented the truth. But he sure has many who think it is the truth. Now, by bringing in the 'alien guy', I'm not arguing one way or the other about aliens. 

Back to this issue with reality: it is important because it goes beyond television news- it ultimately to politics and all aspects of life {buying, selling, teaching, counseling, doctoring- okay, these are my own takes but do you see how I got there?}. In politics, Postman refers to Nixon; he even looked like a liar on television, never mind the fact that he was lying. Switch that to someone who is telling the truth but looks like a liar. Is this how we want to arrive at truths, based on the credibility of looks?

Postman continues on how those in television, behind the scenes, plan the news show. There is music. Wait, what is the music for in news? Entertainment! He says this is a clear indication of "the dissolution of lines of demarcation between serious public discourse and entertainment. (p. 102)" Other entertainment factors in a news show: Short length (not even long enough to seriously convey the facts), inclusion of visuals (quickly satisfy the curiosity; not always relevant to the news story itself; not really any explanation offered), unrealistic presentation (the newscaster rarely shows emotion; no "pause or shiver" regardless of the nature of the story; viewers rarely react), and commercials (these dull the importance of the story much like "Now...this").

This statement is quite relevant:

"The damage is especially massive to youthful viewers who depend so much on television for their clues as to how to respond to the world. In watching television news, they, more than any other segment of the audience, are drawn into an epistemology based on the assumption that all reports of cruelty and death are greatly exaggerated and, in any case, not to be taken seriously or responded to sanely. (p. 105)"

It reminds me when the Boston bombings happened and a niece and nephew questioned their parents with "what's the big deal? what's the difference between this and, say, the school shootings?" {If my sister reads this and I've misrepresented what went down, be sure and let me know, okay?} I have no idea how that actually turned out but the teens' lack of understanding how to respond to these situations is evident.

Postman gives us a glimpse of the mentality of the editor of the news show "MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour" by quoting said editor:

"Keep everything brief, not to strain the attention of anyone but instead to provide constant stimulation through variety, novelty, action, and movement. [Attention is paid] to no concept, no character, and no problem for more than a few seconds at a time...bite-sized is best, that complexity must be avoided, that nuances are dispensable, that qualifications impede the simple message, that visual stimulation is a substitute for though, and that verbal precision is an anachronism. (Robert MacNeil, quoted p. 105)"

How is this the same or different for today's news shows?

The next portion deals with Americans being some of the least informed people in the Western world. He blames this on the format of our current news. Next he talks about the extensive coverage by the media of the Iran hostage crisis {this was in 1979, so before my 'time'; read more here and here}. And yet in spite of the massive inundation of information regarding the situation, the main characters and the location, he speculates that many {at the time of his writing} still do not know what language was spoken in Iran, what "Ayatollah" means, religion of Iran, or other aspects integral to the whole thing. Based on the coverage, wouldn't it be logical to think this would become basic knowledge?

I would liken this to the events of 9/11 for many people in America today. The news coverage was massive at the time and long afterwards. Yet, many people are still fuzzy about what happened, why it happened, who was behind the whole thing, and other aspects. 

Interestingly, and quite accurately I'd say, Postman says that those of the time had many 'opinions' but really they were more accurately emotions, because they were not based on actual information. And those 'opinions' were always changing. Opinions do not change so easily. The information that was being fed to the public, and still is, is through disinformation. That is, misleading or superficial information. When news is presented in the way that television allows, that is, entertainment, it no longer fulfills the information role. Entertainment has become the news of the day. We are becoming ignorant. 

"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies. (Walter Lippman, quoted p. 108)"

Postman gives an example of a newspaper article written in regards President Reagan's misstatements and the fact that the lack of coverage of this by the news "mirrors a decline in interest by the general public. (p. 108)" To this, I direct to many of the current President's speeches and actions, as well as the coverage by mainstream media. I do give a little more credit to the public for showing an interest in detecting lies, however, I do not have great faith that they know how to detect those lies. {Generally speaking.}

We are reminded that Nixon's lies did not gather attention until they "were given a theatrical setting at the Watergate hearings. (p. 109)" With Reagan's misstatements, Postman suggests that the detection of his contradictions {that's what he refers to them as} was not easily accomplished by the people because they were not in context, they were fragmented and voila! they disappeared. How does this relate to television and "Now...this"? Television has bred the "Now...this" which fragments things, takes them out of context, blurs the importance, or essentially, makes them disappear. "In a world of discontinuities, contradiction is useless as a test of truth or merit, because contradiction does not exist. (p. 110)" And this is because television has made our world discontinuous, no longer coherent. He did also give an example of a student's paper that has contradictions; in one area it says 'this' but in another it says 'that'. It cannot be both, so which is it. The student sees it as 'this' here and 'that' there because they come "from a different universe of discourse: the "Now...this" world of television. (p. 110)"

Since Postman's book focuses on this from a "Huxleyan" perspective he shows how this is not "Orwellian" in the sense that the President does not control the news stations and newspapers. He cannot prevent the truth from being presented. What Postman says is that we are rather being amused into incoherence, willingly. MacNeil {recall the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour} even compared television today to Huxley's soma. {Soma was a drug that was taken willingly every single day, multiple times a day to dull thinking and enhance pleasure.} A fitting comparison.

And it isn't just television. The example of USA Today is still relevant today, almost 30 years after he wrote. It is flashy, like television; it has short stories, like television. The magazine was criticized as being superficial and theatrical in its approach, of which it is glad to boast. Going right along with USA Today are People and Us magazine, which have had an effect on television. Television taught magazines that news had to be entertaining; magazines in turn taught television that entertainment had to be news. 

Postman ends the chapter with a bit on radio: it is following in line with the television and flashy news magazines. "Such programs have little content, as this word used to be defined, and are merely an archeological interest in that they give us a sense of what a dialogue among Neanderthals might have been like. (p. 112)" {Ouch.} 

Next chapter: "Shuffle off to Bethlehem" 

I really hope to get back to this before another four months passes...

Before I close, I'd like to link to an Afterthoughts post that talks about The Medium or the Message. Postman referenced McLuhan in chapter 1; Brandy is discussing James K. A. Smith's Desiring the Kingdom.