Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Television is Making Americans Do Nothing
In the chapter "The Peak-a-Boo World" of Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Author Neil Postman, introduces Henry D. Thoreau's idea that creating systems that allow information to be sent easily over large spaces decreases the information's quality and the number of responses to that information. Postman warns that one of the perils of television lies in that Americans use it to watch the news. Television is a medium used for entertainment. So, Postman argues, when it is also used as a means to convey important information, the television alters the information's tone, construing it into entertainment. Postman claims that Americans will watch a dire situation occurring in a foreign country on a news channel, ruminate on it for a moment, and proceed as if nothing had happened. Since this will almost always be the result, what ways could American responses be improved? Postman argues that this indifference to information stems from the television and that this was not the case in a typographic world. Therefore, a plausible solution would be to revert back to periodicals. Modern cellular technology would allow such journals to be distributed instantaneously but also have the tone that Postman attributes to typography. Americans would receive information not constrained or misconstrued by television. Be that as it may, should we, as Americans, concern ourselves so much about the foreign world? If we should, what other methods could we implement other than the one suggested?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Americans should still concern ourselves with the foreign world. We are one of the most powerful countries and can help others. America just has to make sure they are not overstepping, like in the Middle East. As for other methods,
ReplyDeleteI would say more commercials and ads on helping the poor. I know that this can have little effect, but over a long period of time, it does have a significant impact. After some quick research, I found that over the past century or so, the US and other powerful countries really have impacted foreign countries positively through reduction of poverty and disease through foreign aid. Of course, more aid is still needed, which is why I would say to promote fundrasing for helping foreign countries.
I completely agree with you that there is a sense of “viewer apathy” in consumers, likely due to our easy access to information. I think this sort of response is ultimately inevitable because we do have electronic periodicals in the form of internet magazine journals, articles available on apps such as Buzzfeed or Yahoo News, etc. But, as Postman has touched on in the book, today’s society (having been adulterated by entertainment values and television) sees reading as much more of a burden rather than an intellectual indulgence. All this to say, I think your proposed solution is definitely accessible, but not prioritized because it does not have the allure of entertainment. It is true that television is modified to cater to its audience, but the same thing could be said for many different outlets or mediums. This makes me wonder whether another reason for our indifference about the news could possibly be biases from sources. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI would also like to add that I believe it is our civic duty to know and understand what is going on outside of our own personal bubble. Consider this rather existential, but the world exists outside of our own. So, let’s put it into perspective: the things that go on in my house are different from what goes on in yours. My life, nor yours, exists only in our homes because our actions are interconnected; we have the chance to interact and make decisions that could eventually affect the other person. Going off of what Matthew said previously, I think that countries and their policies are relational (as he had mentioned in his comment). So, please let me know if there is anything in your post I had misinterpreted, or if there is a point in my comment that I need to elaborate on, I would love to discuss further!
I apologize beforehand because this will be a rather lengthy message. I'll begin by responding to Matthew's response and then moving on to Kristi's. If my following message missed any topic or you have questions stemming from this message, feel free to respond again.
ReplyDeleteIn your response, Matthew, you said that Americans should concern themselves with international crises. While I do firmly believe that all humans should help other humans if they are able, I do not agree that the United States should "help" other nations. In the "Now...This" chapter of AOtD, Postman introduces the United States' involvement in Iran and how almost every American had an opinion on the matter. Postman then lists a series of questions about the people, culture, religion, and history of Iran. He makes it clear that the majority of Americans who did have an opinion on Iran would not be able to answer any of his questions. How could we, as Americans, possibly help other nations when we know nothing about them and continually choose to remain ignorant? I am skeptical of the "help" we Americans provide now because of this. When we look at our involvement in the Middle East, we see that we have done little to help. We blindly ravaged the Middle East and attempted to force democracy onto nations that were not ready to develop democracy. Had we taken the time to research and study the cultures and peoples of the Middle East, we might have better relationships with those countries today. Our current American culture is centered around television and does not allow us to help others productively. Americans should help others, but only after we have researched who we are aiming to aid extensively. Televised news, as highlighted by Postman, is not promoting public discourse that is helpful. That brings us to my suggestion of altering how we share information and Kristi's response.
Kristi, you pointed out that Americans are not very interested in reading anything. I agree. I also did not make it clear how shifting back to periodicals would be handled. After finishing AOtD, I can provide a more thorough elaboration. The change back to newspapers would occur piecemeal. The best thing to do first would be incorporating lessons on the effects mediums have on culture into American education for both minors and adults. With this raised awareness, Americans would be more receptive to the shift from televised news to typographic news. Cellular devices would allow for information to be shared easily and quickly. Each digital article would begin with a set of links to reputable sources that would provide exposition on the article's topic. Sent out information would also be analyzed several times to guarantee that it met set standards. Implementing these strategies alongside others would make the United States a country that possessed educated, analytical citizens. With an America such as this, we would be better suited to handle international situations.