Huxleyan Warning: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 11

Links in this post go to outside and unaffiliated links. I am not responsible for the content nor do I necessarily endorse the sites. My browser is set to have no ads via AdBlock for Chrome; I have no idea what you'll encounter at the sites on your browser. 

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

Part II, Chapter 11 The Huxleyan Warning

I have begun to read 1984 and also picked up Darkness at Noon as recommended by Postman in this last chapter to "have a fairly precise blueprint of the machinery of thought-control as it currently operates in scores of countries and on millions of people" (p. 155)". He also recommends Animal Farm, which I have already read.

It is Huxley, however that is the more correct with his prophecy: "in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate" (p. 155). Postman directs this mostly to America, perhaps because that is where he lives and sees it taking place most, but I dare say it is world wide. Postman thought that most should have been aware of what was going on but he does point out most have been trained to see when an Orwellian world is threatening, not a Huxleyan world. We would put up quite a fight if Orwell's world were to materialize. On the opposite end, "who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture's being drained by laughter?" (p. 156)

By now we should have realized that technology is an ideology and it has the power to change cultures. 

"To be unaware that a technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple...Introduce speed-of-light transmission of images and you make a cultural revolution. Without a vote. Without polemics. Without guerrilla resistance...All that is required to make it stick is a population that devoutly believes in the inevitability of progress...We believe nothing if not that history is moving us toward some preordained paradise and that technology is the force behind that movement." (p. 157, 158, emphasis mine)

So what can be done? There are two options as Postman sees it, and one is really not an option at all. The television {electronics} is not going anywhere; we must first realize that. That is the first option that isn't really an option. Turn off the television. No one will turn off the television {electronics} completely and for good. No one. I mean that to include even the Amish, some of who refuse modern conveniences like electricity; many have cell phones and internet, if not television. {Okay, fine perhaps there are people who have gone completely off-grid...}

Back in 1984 there were attempts at having "TV Turnoff" events. There are likely to have been similar ones more recently. {Indeed there are: Screen-Free Week (this year it is May 5-11); International TV-Turnoff Week (2006, I think)} I found the The New York Times article Postman quotes from: THE REGION; Town Is Planning 2d 'TV Turnoff'. It is interesting to note that the librarian who proposed the activity is not quoted by Postman. What she said was, "We're not really hoping for a media event this time, although that helped in some ways the last time. We're aiming at educating parents to realize why they should turn it off or cut down or be selective in what they and their children watch." The irony is evident much more by Postman's quote of Ms. Ellen Babcock. I got a chuckle out of the last sentence in the paragraph because here I am discussing this book against not just television but all that has come after it on the very media that it is against-

"It is an irony I have confronted many times in being told that I must appear on television to promote a book that warns people against television. Such are the contradictions of a television-based culture." (p. 159)

Really turning off the television {giving up the electronics} is not a viable option because people will not do it. Not even I. We don't have television in the sense that we can watch it, except with DVDs. My phone I don't think has internet capability. I've never tried nor looked to see if it does. It doesn't even have a camera, and I cannot receive images or photos. But even so, I won't give up my electronics. So this isn't really an option.

Postman is also quite pessimistic about changing the quality of television programs as an option. Instead he says that we have to change how we watch because we will watch. There are some questions that need to be asked about this thing called television.

"We have apparently advanced to the point where we have grasped the idea that a change in the forms, volume, speed and context of information means something, but we have not got any further...Does television, for example, give a new meaning to "piety," to "patriotism," to "privacy"? Does television give new meaning to "judgment" or to "understanding"? (p. 160)

And there are many more questions to ask {he lists at least a dozen other than the ones I quoted} before we can really see the television for what it is. "To ask is to break the spell," he says. The only part that Postman misses the mark is like I mentioned in last chapter's post: he failed to predict the impact of the computer. It has taken up where television left off and, even more so, is plunging us into a Huxleyan world.

Ultimately, education is the only possible solution to this problem. But his "hope" is not going to be realized by the public schools. It might be through private schools {but only a few I would dare say} or homeschools because as he says, 

"it is an acknowledged task of the schools to assist the young in learning how to interpret the symbols of their culture. That this task should now require that they learn how to distance themselves from their forms of information is not so bizarre an enterprise that we cannot hope for its inclusion in the curriculum; even hope that it will be placed at the center of education." (p. 163, emphasis mine)

It can't happen in the schools because the drive to keep and get more of the gizmos and technology that makes it super easy to have so much information is in those schools. Schools are not helping students learn to distance themselves. They cannot. What a major upheaval it would be to take away all of the electronic junk that feeds in "information" to the schools! They don't know that they are not thinking. They have all the information at their fingertips and don't realize that without them they would have to think.

And that is how the book ends. The only hope is to make people question technology and actually think about it. I say technology where Postman said television because as he himself stated "technology comes equipped with a program for social change," it isn't neutral by any means and it isn't always 'friendly'. And technology is many different things. Today it is television AND electronic gizmos, internet, i-things, smartphones, and etc. 

Teaching as an Amusing Activity: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 10

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

Part II, Chapter 10, Teaching as an Amusing Activity

While Postman does indeed have the right idea in this chapter, I think he really missed out on how much of an impact the computer would eventually have. Either way, the fact that television, and now computers and like technology, isn't really intended to help education but rather education is to help entertainment is evident. 

Postman begins with "Sesame Street". It was a bad idea from the start. It wasn't really to help educate children; it was to help children love television more. Because using television -and I think I will switch this here to stay modern technology because television itself is, imho, just about done for; it isn't what it was in Postman's time, that's for sure! -in the guise of education is a lie. It goes against traditional learning. Oh, and sure there are those who say that traditional learning is wrong and that there are better ways. Baloney. Anyway modern technology goes against book-learning and the traditional classroom. 

We face the rapid dissolution of the assumptions of an education organized around the slow-moving printed word, and the equally rapid emergence of a new education based on the speed-of-light electronic image...I mean only to say that, like the alphabet or the printing press, television has by its power to control the time, attention and cognitive habits of our youth gained the power to control their education. p. 145

There are three commandments for television:

Thou shalt have no prerequisites- this one is interesting; a show should not have to explain what it means or what went on in the last show to help understand this show. There are plenty of television shows now that do require a little backstory and even in Postman's time, with shows like "Dallas". But for the most part, each show is independent and requires no existing knowledge of what the show is about. "Television is a nongraded curriculum and excludes no viewer for any reason, at any time. In other words, in doing away with the idea of sequence and continuity in education, television undermines the idea that sequence and continuity have anything to do with thought itself" (p. 147).

Thou shalt induce no perplexity- A perplexed learner is one that will turn the channel! Thinking about this, I reflect on shows that we watch in our home. Some require mindlessness, really. Specifically I'm thinking of the television shows that our kids watch like "Teen Titans", "Pokemon" and such. They require nothing but mindless viewing. Then I think of other shows we watch such as "Jeremy Clarkson War Stories" that give plenty to chew on and think about. But unless you stop the show, you can't really take the time to digest what you've just heard and seen. There's good, and there's bad...

Thou shalt avoid exposition like the ten plagues visited upon Egypt- "Television-teaching always takes the form of story-telling, conducted through dynamic images and supported by music" (p. 148). It's hard to argue this; television and modern technology are image and sound driven.

The name we may properly give to an education without prerequisites, perplexity and exposition is entertainment. p. 148

Postman relates a project called "The Voyage of the Mimi," which consists of a television series of twenty-six shows following a whale-research laboratory. There were books printed and computer games made for the project. According to Frank Withrow of the Department of Education it was to be a "flagship of what we are doing. It is a model that others will begin to follow" (p. 150). One of the biggest flags here is that the television series is the primary focus and books are now the "visual aid". 

There are plenty of proponents for modern technology to take the place of book-learning and reading of the printed word {and just a side-note: perhaps the reason so many have a learning disability when it comes to reading is because it is a secondary feature in education now; cognitive habits have been changed with the television and modern technology as the curriculum, as Postman said in the start of this chapter} but really they cannot say with definitive truth that technology is better for learning. In fact, Postman lists a lot of researchers who have found the opposite to be true {pages 151 & 152}. "In other words, so far as many reputable studies are concerned, television viewing does not significantly increase learning, is inferior to and less likely than print to cultivate higher-order, inferential thinking" (p. 152).

Postman ends with the assertion that television is educational. 

Just as reading a book -any kind of book- promotes a particular orientation toward learning, watching a television show does the same (p. 144)...Mainly they will have learned that learning is a form of entertainment or, more precisely, that anything worth learning can take the form of entertainment, and ought to. And they will not rebel if their English teacher asks them to learn the eight parts of speech through the medium of rock music...Indeed they will expect it and thus will be well prepared to receive their politics, their religion, their news and their commerce in the same delightful way. p. 154

Continuing with my studies to be an "official" teacher {going through all the college classes} I've been so surprised and shocked that there is such a push to use modern technology in place of books in education. They say that kids "can't learn" without these; they say that it "enhances the experience"; they say that it "makes it enjoyable." What happened to learning for the sake of learning and not for the sake of entertainment? 

The last chapter of Amusing Ourselves to Death is titled "The Huxleyan Warning." That will be the last post in this series.  

Celebrity Politicians: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 9 {2 of 2}

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

Part II, Chapter 9, Reach Out and Elect Someone {2 of 2}

Continuing on with politics as show business, Postman starts by saying it might be a bit much to suggest the politician-as-celebrity on its own made politics irrelevant. But it has definitely played its part.

"Some readers may remember when voters barely knew who the candidate was an in any case were not preoccupied with his character and personal life. As a young man, I balked on November at voting for a Democrat mayoralty candidate who, it seemed to me, was both unintelligent and corrupt. "What has that to do with it?" my father protested. "All Democrat candidates are unintelligent and corrupt. Do you want the Republicans to win?" He meant to say that intelligent voters favored the party that best represented their economic interests and sociological perspective" (p. 133).

They didn't vote for the "best man," they voted their party; their loyalty. It still happens. Television does not allow viewers to determine who the best man is, rather the politician allows himself to become an image of the audience. Recall that commercials are not really about the product- there are no real claims made. It is about the viewer, in this case, the voter.

This chapter's title is taken from a play on the slogan for Bell Telephone, "Reach Out & Touch Someone." Someone is far away and we aren't likely to see them often but they are important to us, and used to hold a daily and vital role in our lives. Postman makes the comment, "though American culture stands vigorously opposed to the idea of family, there is a...nag that something essential to our lives is lost when we give it up" (p. 134). In the Bell commercials, the telephone is presented as a way to make/keep that connection; as if it were a suitable replacement. I see it as a way to make the viewer  feel better. -Sure, I moved far away and the family unit is fractured because of it but here I'll just put in a call and it'll be like I didn't leave. I'll feel better. Again, the commercial isn't about the product; they are about the viewer. The same applies to television politics.

Through the television "those who would be gods refashion themselves into images the viewers would have them to be" (p. 135). Postman brings up Abe Lincoln as an example. He is rarely photographed smiling and was prone to bouts of depression, most likely not helped by the possibility his wife was mentally unstable {Postman actually said "in all likelihood a psychopath"}. No one wants to see that! Well, actually, in today's world, perhaps people would like that; it would be entertainment {quote/unquote}. "We do not want our mirrors to be so dark and so far from amusing" (p. 136).

Postman goes on to say that "television is a speed-of-light medium, a present centered medium" (p. 136) and because of this it removes any historical content from political discourse. 

Czeslaw Milosz said our age is a "refusal to remember" (p. 137); Carl Schorske says "indifferent" because we see history as useless. Bill Moyers said, "We Americans seem to know everything about the last 24 hours but very little about the last sixty centuries or the last sixty years" (p. 137). Postman however thinks that it isn't so much we refuse to remember or find it useless, "rather, we are being rendered unfit to remember" (p. 137). He quotes Henry Ford: "History is bunk" (p. 137) Does he in fact mean the Henry Ford? Apparently:

"I don’t know whether Napoleon did or did not try to get across there and I don’t care. I don’t know much about history, and I wouldn’t give a nickel for all the history in the world. It means nothing to me. History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we make today."

Interview in Chicago Tribunen (25 May 1916)- source

I was rather shocked by this quote, and I realize it's going off on a tangent, but I will anyway. I've been to the Henry Ford Museum, which is huge and has a ton of, wait for  it, history. I found this little tidbit on Ford's words and thought it interesting. I guess I shouldn't be too shocked at Ford's words. Many thought the same. Many still do. 

Back to Postman: In regards Orwell's envisioned destruction of history, Postman says it's not from the state. It is more as Huxley foretold: 

"Nothing so crude as all that is required. Seemingly benign technologies devoted to providing the populace with a politics of image, instancy and therapy may disappear history just as effectively, perhaps more permanently, and without objection" (p. 138). 

It is Huxley rather than Orwell we should look to understand television's threat to liberal democracy, freedom of information. Orwell supposed that the state would blatantly control information. But this would apply primarily to books, not television. Postman goes through history sharing censorship of books because that is where "censorship had found its true metier" (p. 138).

Orwell's worries of "1) government control over 2) printed matter [posing] a severe threat for Western democracies" (p. 139) was wrong. Perhaps to the Age of Exposition he would have been right. But the Age of Television {Age of Technology} is completely different. Postman felt there was much more to fear from television glut than the government.

In the previous section Postman talked about the "Ministry Culture" by quoting George Gerbner, Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication. The jist of it: the three television networks is the Ministry of Culture, and its paid for by people who watch it or not. And it won't stop just by not watching. Someone will watch and they'll tell others. And this Postman says is the real danger: "we have no way of protecting ourselves from information disseminated by corporate America" (p. 140).

Postman doesn't think that the banning of books in high school libraries is that big of a deal. It's trivial in fact. Taking a book or a few books from a single place doesn't truly jeopardize the students' freedom to read. They could find the books elsewhere to read. But television is a more subtle threat and impairment to that freedom; it displaces books. 

Now there isn't a problem so much of a censorship; rather an overwhelming flood of information. It is Huxleyan in nature as it attempts to get us to watch continuously. Unfortunately the information is packaged as entertainment. Who would have thought that amusement would be more effective than censorship?

"How delighted would be all the kings, czars and fuhrers of the past (and commissars of the present) to know that censorship is not a neccesity when all political discourse takes the form of a jest" (p. 141).

I almost don't want to read chapter 10, Teaching as an Amusing Activity, but for me- for everyone- this is very important. Studying to be a teacher myself, the push to use any and all forms of entertainment as education is outrageous. 

Politicians: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 9 {1 of 2}

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

Politics. I've never really been much into politics. It would have been much more interesting and worthwhile back in the founders' days. My opinion of course, because they didn't smear each other as a means to get votes for themselves. They ran, or rather were nominated, based on their known character, which interestingly enough, was gathered from their written works. They didn't gallivant around the country schmoozing with the public. That came later. I believe they even often refrained from communicating with  very many people because it might sway their vote. 

Those are my pre-thoughts. 
This post contains affiliate links; I'll let you know. See Disclosure/Policies. 

Part II, Chapter 9, Reach Out and Elect Someone {1 of 2}

Politics is just like show business- Ronald Reagan, 1966

I'm probably as up on sports as I am on politics, and this chapter starts with sports. Politics is a spectator sport. Postman compares politicians to athletes. Athletes' reputation rise and fall based on how well they meet a set standard. He mentions David Garth (a sports journalist?) in regards improving the image of a baseball player with a .218 batting average. Not going to happen. And Martina Navratilova's performance for tennis. Performance is what it is; it can't appear to be more or less than it is. The answer to the question of who is best doesn't get answered by a poll, rather by performance. Those who watch generally know the rules and aren't fooled.

If politics is like show business, though the standard may be there, one doesn't actually need to meet it, just appear that they do. Here Postman references Joe McGinnis' book The Selling of the President {affiliate link}. If I didn't already have too many books in my to-be-read pile, I might add this one.

What makes you cast your ballot?

A Presidential candidate or a good campaign?

How he stands on the issues or how he stands up to the camera?

The Selling of the President is the enduring story of the 1968 campaign that wrote the script for modern Presidential politicking—and how that script came to be...In his introduction, Joe McGinniss discusses why—unfortunately—his classic book is as pertinent today to understanding our political culture as it was the year it was published. -from Amazon

And just how do politicians sell themselves? Through commercials of course! "In America, the fundamental metaphor for political discourse is the television commercial. (p. 126)" Postman says that by age 40 most Americans will have viewed over one million commercials. I'd venture to say that number is larger now than in Postman's day. According to A. C. Neilsen, the average child will see 20,000 commercials in a year. They also say that by age 65, 2 billion commercials will have been viewed. I don't know how old that information is, however.

Commercials influence- period. Postman's purpose in this section is to show how it has degraded {he says "devastated"} discourse. He starts with commercial's impact on commerce. Capitalism was an offshoot of Enlightenment, like science and liberal democracy, he says. "Both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature, well-informed and reasonable. (p. 127)" It's a give-take relationship; they rely on each other to make it work well.

Monopolies and cartels undermine capitalism, of course. Even worse, Postman says, is the commercial. "Any claim must take the form of a proposition, for that is the universe of discourse, from which words are "true" and "false" come. (p. 127)" Recall in chapter 4 about advertising that they began to include illustrations and photographs. By the 1950s "the television commercial made linguistic discourse obsolete as the basis for product decisions. (p. 127)" It encouraged emotions to make consumer decisions. No claims are really made in a commercial- other than what the viewer projects on the commercial themselves. Commercials are not really about the character of the product any longer; it's about the character of the consumer. The shift has been from making and marketing quality products to making the consumer feel valued. 

Postman moves back to politics and talks about George Orwell's understanding that politics, although corrupt, would remain a distinct mode of discourse. "He feared the politician as deceiver, not as entertainer. (p. 129)" And yet the tv commercial has been one of the chief means for presenting politics. We get a glimpse into the "backroom", so to speak, of two Senate candidates through Postman's eyes. One, Ramsey Clark, prepared well with documents that included facts and figures, "carefully articulated position papers...and an enlightened sociological perspective." The other, Jacob Javits, "built his campaign on a series of thirty-second television commercials...to project himself as a man of experience, virtue and piety. (p. 129)" Javits retained his Senate seat, showing that he understood that having pictures is more important to voters than having words in this century. 

By now Americans have accepted commercials to be a "normal and plausible form of discourse. (p. 130)" Commercials are instant therapy since they address the psychological needs of the viewer {remember again chapter 4}. Postman goes on to suggest that the commercial offers a theory that is rather preposterous: "all problems are solvable, that they are solvable fast, and that they are solvable through the interventions of technology, techniques and chemistry." To read or hear this, one would understand it is a preposterous theory, says Postman. But the commercial disdains exposition; anything that would enable the viewers to think about refuting the claim (remember, commercials make no real claims any longer). Instead commercials use pseudoparables such as Ring Around the Collar to appeal to emotions but "are unambiguously didactic. (p. 131)" {Side note: unambiguous means not open to more than one interpretation; didactic means intended to teach.}

"The television commercial is about products only in the sense that the story of Jonah is about the anatomy of whales, which is to say, it isn't. Which is to say further, it is about how one ought to live one's life. (p. 131)"

So this leads to commercials giving viewers the impression that political problems have fast solutions through simple measures. But the point I like the most is that commercials use individuals from a variety of arenas -athletes, musicians, scientists, etc.- to push a product that has nothing to do with any of those professions. This allows politicians to be free from the "limited field of their own expertise (p. 131)," and people don't catch on. 

When did politicians begin to have 'celebrity' status? Being famous isn't the same thing as being a celebrity, Postman says, and while I'd not really thought about it before, of course he is right. He goes through the years pointing out which politician showed up in which tv show; most of them I don't know- the politician or the show! Did you know that former President Ford was on "Dynasty?" Huh. Ralph Nader {ah, that name sounds familiar} hosted "Saturday Night Live;" if that's not entertainment, what is! 

And on that note, I will stop this part of chapter 9. Next time Postman continues on with how this 'celebrity' status changed the way of politics. 

Religion: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 8

Source

{If you don't see an image, it's not important.} Just change that out dated television to a computer screen, or better yet, a smart phone and it's applicable today. Do you agree?

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

Part II, Chapter 8 "Shuffle Off to Bethlehem"

At the start of this chapter, which is relaying how television has affected religion, Postman gives some descriptions of televangelists that I don't know who are. "Reverend Terry" who just looks uh, perfectly religious? Perhaps that is a good paraphrase. But her audience looks just like what you'd see in the audience at a Las Vegas performance, but they might be "more wholesome" looking. Reverend Terry's message is of prosperity, and getting closer to Jesus. She offers a "kit" that will bring them closer to Jesus and set them on the road to prosperity at the same time. 

By the way, according to Postman, Reverend Terry ended up filing bankruptcy...

The first more modern examples of this for me may be Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyers. I will be honest and tell that I don't listen to either but smidgens that I hear through friends. I get the impression they'd sell a kit that promises getting closer to Jesus and getting rich in the process.

Postman continues with a contrast but still the religious scene: Pat Robertson. The name is much more familiar to me. I grew up sometimes watching the 700 Club on television at my grandparents house. He is much more low key than Reverend Terry but still includes features you'd find on an entertainment show: skits, singers, and video segments. Postman states that the people featured in the videos, people who have been helped by the 700 Club, are twice elevated. First by bringing them closer to Jesus and second by making them a star on television. But which is the higher elevation? It is often difficult to tell.

Next up, Jimmy Swaggart; a fire-and-brimstone kind of evangelist. "But because this is television, he often moderates his message with a dollop of ecumenism...his message suggests that they [meaning the Jews in this particular instance] are rather to be pitied than despised but that, in any case, many of them are pretty nice people" (p. 116). Interestingly he doesn't go soft at all when speaking of the Devil or secular humanism: "Then they [evangelists in general] are quite uncompromising in the ferocity of their assaults, partly, one may assume, because neither the Devil nor secular humanists are included in the Nielsen Ratings. Neither are they inclined to watch" (p. 116).

I am afraid I will skip most of this chapter because it seems that it need not be gone over overly much. I know it is not just me who thinks that churches today are more entertaining than convicting. They are more concerned about numbers, whether through the Nielsen Ratings or the membership count at a physical location. Postman makes the repeated mention of televangelists offering something more than just salvation; more than closeness with Jesus. They offer, as Reverend Terry, "prosperity", or as he says later about Jerry Falwell, something physical. "You can get your share of the audience only by offering people something they want" (executive director of the National Religious Broadcasters Association, quoted p. 121). How many churches hold free events with freebies for those who attend? Too many perhaps.

Christianity demands much but when it is put on television, or put out as entertainment, then it is delivered as amusement and is not given serious consideration. I really like where Postman talks about how easy television makes idolatry. I would think it would be easy to see how this is, no pun intended. Preachers on television are often charismatic, appealing to us, but not because of what they preach. It is rather the presentation. "For God exists only in our minds, whereas [a televangelist] is there, to be seen, admired, adored...If I am not mistaken, the word for this is blasphemy" (p. 123). These become the graven images we are forbidden to idolize. Nowadays, I think that the entertainment factor in the church in general is becoming a problem. Did it start with the television?

I will end with these words from Hannah Arndt and the reply of Postman:

"This state of affairs, which indeed is equalled nowhere else in the world, can properly be called mass culture; its promotors are neither the masses nor their entertainers, but are those who try to entertain the masses with what once was an authentic object of culture..."

"There is no doubt, in other words, that religion can be made entertaining. The question is, By doing so, do we destroy it as an "authentic object of culture"?"

Perhaps I've only skimmed this chapter but is because it is better presented by Postman himself. There is much reference that I don't get because I don't and haven't really seen it, on television. I see it in real life.

Next chapter is titled, "Reach Out and Elect Someone"

Politics, anyone? 

"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. 

Age of Show Business: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 6

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

Two articles of interest: Reviving the Art of Observation, or How to End the Age of Inattention and You Won't Remember This Article, or Anything Else You Read Online, Unless You Print It Out

I'll make a note really quick here that I have read Brave New World by Huxley and boy howdy! it was a twisted look at where societies are going. I was quite frankly disturbed when I started reading the book, from the first or second chapter, to the end. I was so affected at first that I thought I would not finish the book. After some thinking, and wise words from others on the Ambleside Online forum, I persevered through the end. I think it is perfectly fine to read Amusing Ourselves to Death without having read Brave New World. And if you should decide against reading Brave New World, I would not blame you. I would direct you to a quick review of this book at the Ink Slinger, not because I think it is an especially well-done review {but I do think it is a good one} but because of its brevity. He sums it up without a bunch of details. You'll get the gist of it, I think.

Part II, Chapter 6 The Age of Show Business

Television. Just about every house has one or more. In our house we have two televisions {we also have three computers, two tablets and two ereaders which are used much more than the television}. How many uses can you think of for the television? Personally, I came up with two: watching it for what it is and using the top for a shelf. In this chapter Postman starts with the many uses of the television. It can be used as a 'lamp' (if it is muted and you turn your back to it), a 'radio' (just listen to it without watching it), a 'bookshelf' (this is in reference to the rather large 1960s and 1970s television sets), and an 'electronic billboard' (turn to the channel that is simply script).

Aha! The last one shows the television can be used to further the literate tradition. It can be seen as an extension of typography! Right? Uh, no. Postman says to think this of the television is fairly delusional. It is rather an extension of the telegraph and the photograph. In fact, in chapter 5, Postman said that the telegraph and photograph were an assault to typography so to see television as an extension of typography is in short, crazy. That is my word not Postman's. 

Postman goes on to explain why television can't be thought of as an extension. In short, technology is a machine. A medium is the social and intellectual environment created by a machine. Technology cannot truly be neutral; it is inherently predisposed to be used in a certain way and not in other ways. An example is the printing press. It can be said that the printing press was created for the purpose of the written language. It wasn't invented and then a use discovered. It doesn't generally work that way.

Just what is television? For the sake of the book Postman was writing, television is a medium created by the machine (technology). In America the "liberal democracy and relatively free market economy" spurred the programs on television at an alarming rate. Interestingly, the shows from America were in high demand the world over during this time. Postman lists some popular shows {know any of them?}: "Gunsmoke", "Bonanza", "Star Trek", "Dallas", and "Dynasty". Roughly 100,000 to 200,000 hours of US programs were exported to countries around the world. As the demand for US programs increased, the moral and political prestige of the US decreased worldwide. The world liked the US tv shows, not necessarily the US. 

How does it look today?

Of television George Bernard Shaw said it must be beautiful if you cannot read. It is fast, flashy, and bright. "Television offers viewers a variety of subject matter, requires minimal skills to comprehend it, and is largely aimed at emotional gratification. (pg 86)" That television is entertaining isn't being disputed nor is it the issue being presented by Postman. What is the issue? The issue is that all subject matter sent through television is presented as entertainment. 

Television is visual. It is for viewing and not necessarily "for education, reflection or catharsis. (pg 88)" Having not watched a news program myself for quite some time, I'd have to agree with Postman's observations of past broadcasts that it's all for show. The news people are inviting; they are visually appealing, and their words belie the gravity of the news they present. Postman does caution against being critical of those who work in television because they are simply working within the medium.

The next pages (88-90) cover a "discussion" broadcast November 20, 1983, on ABC. I can only assume it was to be over the use of nuclear power. Having been only 5.5 years old myself, I have no recollection of this event. I gather it was a joke to call this a "discussion" at all. Each man was given an allotted time to talk. There was no real discussion. "There were no arguments or counterarguments, no scrutiny of assumptions, no explanations, no elaborations, no definitions. (pg 90)" There was none of the usual "discussion" elements in this because to allow such aspects would show uncertainty, or the act of thinking. "Thinking does not play well on television..." Postman goes on to reference some shows that did attempt to facilitate intellectual discussions, showing participants in the act of thinking. "Firing Line", "Meet the Press", and "The Open Mind" are the mentioned. However, these shows were not {are not?} the norm.

Personally I don't regret not having television in the sense that many have it. We have no channels and no reception for the two boxes that hold the screen where we normally watch movies and documentaries that we rent. I am sure there are shows in more abundance today than in Postman's day that attempt to get discussions going. Yet even those rely on the entertainment value to bring and keep viewers. They show the popular individuals and the best (or better) looking ones. 

"Television is our culture's principal mode of knowing about itself. (pg 92)" I was going to argue that the internet has replaced this but really it just feeds television. Television can be watched via the internet. Internet is not a new medium in the sense that television was new from typography. Now if we were to talk about social media and texting, we could point to an altering, yet again, of public discourse. But Postman didn't have those in his day.

Here is an excellent excerpt:

"As typography once dictated the style of conducting politics, religion, business, education, law and other important social matters, television now takes command. In courtrooms, classrooms, operating rooms, board rooms, churches and even airplanes, Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials. (pg 92-93)"

Postman uses the rest of the chapter to drive home his point. He gives examples of how those in the church, the schools, the corporate world, the hospitals, and more are relying more on entertainment through television to conduct their business and life. "Our priests and presidents, our surgeons and lawyers, our educators and newscasters need to worry less about satisfying the demands of their discipline than the demands of good showmanship. (pg 98)" What do educators say nowadays? It's not how you teach but what they learn. {My stance? How you teach does indeed directly affect what they learn.}

One example Postman gave, of the Amish in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, stood out to me since I see Amish frequently where we live. The Pennsylvania Amish are not 'allowed' to watch movies or be photographed, according to Postman. During the filming of Witness, in 1984, many Amish clipped photographs of Harrison Ford and dashed off to watch the filming. One Amish woman naively stated that "it doesn't mean anything to us. (pg 96)" Her response shows how so many did not, and still do not understand the consequence of television and electronics. If you read Brave New World it does indeed look like that is the way the world is going. It, being television but more recently electronics with entertainment still the main focus, will dictate our world.   

Next time, Chapter 7 "Now...This"