Amusing Ourselves to Death, Open Thread: Ch. 6-8
Television is a medium of entertainment. But what I really wonder is what sort of a medium computers, iPhones, Blackberries and the like are. They are not passive as television and books are (books less so, but they are compared to computers), so are they merely technologies or do they have inherent biases as separate mediums? They can be used for entertainment, but is everything they present entertainment? They can be used in all sorts of ways, but do they spin everything they present? Perhaps they carry the bias for the immediate and pithy. Blogs are out; Twitter is in. Emails are out; Facebook is in. Complete sentences are out; acronyms are in. Correct spelling is out; minimum keystrokes are in. As in the quote by MacNeil, so it is primarily true in the online communication of the general populace, “Verbal precision is an anachronism.”
Was Postman trying to illustrate his point with his style? He complains of the fragmentation of television, and then has almost a whole chapter of examples of the entertainment mindset infringing upon serious matters — each example begun with no connection to the previous, thoroughly disconnected and not introduced or concluded. He simply begins at the start of a new paragraph and ends when the narrative is done, which is signaled buy starting a new paragraph. It was poor and seemingly hasty writing. And then, humorously, he begins a new chapter complaining about “Now….this,” when that’s practically what his previous chapter was. You don’t NEED pictures to have that sort of fragmentation, although it is easier, prettier, and more fitting on television than in a book. And, just to make it clear, yes, I am fragmenting my own thoughts and responses here and of that I am well aware.
I completely agree about the presidential debates. I watched most of the Vice Presidential “debate,” and it was all a joke. It was totally irrelevant, and the most irrelevant parts were the questions and answers. It was no debate, but a “who will come off looking good and funny and put together?” reality tv show.
Postman’s presentations of television news as slick production, presented and met with apathy as a form of entertainment, carries even more weight than his complaints about its irrelevance. So, one might suggest that if you do care about news, television would be the worst source for it. Commercial television does provide a way of seeing the world that is incoherent and inauthentic. Of course, today’s indifference, imprecision of thought and communication, and irrational, illogical thinking (or complete lack of thinking) is not all television’s fault. However, television is one primary medium that reinforces this mindset. Government ineducation (and private and home education that mimics it) is another. The lack of a Story/Myth/Narrative to give meaning to life and random scraps of information is another, as David Hicks posits in Norms and Nobility. The primary Story of today is Evolution, which is a Story that denies the possibility of meaning and cohesion. So, all these things come together, get stirred up over the course of a few generations, and you get Today. Though television is pervasive, I think the other elements I’ve mentioned are more foundational to the societal problem of imprecision and apathy. You can’t lay all that at television’s feet. Television is just icing on the cake. Still, though we are pursuing real education, and though we have not only a Myth but The True Myth made central in our lives and learning, we’ll continue to stay away from television. I would rather my children enjoy reading, and I don’t want to cultivate in them the habit of staring at a screen (even a computer one); I would rather they be able to entertain themselves outside for a couple hours at a time than pine because they long for cheap, effortless entertainment. Television does promote a bad habit, but it’s not the chief problem, and I am not bothered by people who make television decisions different from our own, especially if it’s a conscious and conscientious decision. I think there are good reasons to refrain, but I don’t really want to be an anti-television advocate or evangelist myself.
Chapter 8 bashes television evangelists, which we all hope is as easy for Christians to do as Postman. Here we see that Christians are not immune to and even aiding in the downward cultural spiral. We are not working to counter it with meaningful, exuberant life, but just want to make sure we stay relevant with all the current irrelevance and just as fragmented and meaningless as the latest news show. Blah. So, if Graham and Robertson in their day extolled television as the New Media to spread church and the gospel, were they correct? Postman says religion isn’t televisible. Is it twitterable? Podcastable? How do these mediums affect the message?
Hmm. A lot to reply to here, but I don’t think I will – largely as I have little to add.
I think Postman’s main concern is not that debates, religion, education, and serious subjects are reduced to a jumbled mess by a television screen, but rather that, as television has become pervasive that jumbled mess has become all there is to debates, etc. He’s afraid that religion, reduced to entertainment on television, will eventually be changed in its very nature so that people expect their religion to be entertainment in every venue. “There’s No Business BUT Show Business.” I guess that could be scary, but I live in a tiny subculture where things aren’t the same as they are in the great Outside. Everybody at our church would laugh at the thought of watching the church service from the comfort of your own home – so televangelists don’t scare me. The presidential debates more so – but idiotic Americans voting for people based on charisma and good looks is hardly a new thought for us – and I still don’t know what can be done about it!
I personally don’t remember “Now…This.” I was racking my brains trying to figure out what he was saying for a while. I don’t watch the news, and I wasn’t sure if he was leaving words out in the elipse… :-) I totally agree about the deadening nature of tv news, though. When I was a kid we learned the song, “They’re Rioting in Africa,” which juxtoposes a song about the world’s tragedies with an upbeat, whistled tune. I thought at the time that the joke was merely that incongruity, but as an adult I’ve finally realized that there’s more: it’s true – there is ALWAYS rioting in Africa, Hurricanes in Florida, drouts in some part of the US and problems in Iran (or substitute some other Middle-Eastern country). And after a while, you grow very calous to the fact, and it’s easy to watch an eight minute segment about genocide somewhere, think, “that’s terrible!” and go on with your life. Part of the problem is what he mentioned earlier – the concept of “daily news” introduces factoids into our life that ultimately affect us very little – and are consequently forgotten or ignored. The other part of it is the News as Entertainment paradign – you’re not watching the news so that you can be really drawn into other people’s troubles – you’re just tickling your ears. And the habit sticks – and I wonder how much it affects our reaction to the troubles of the real people in our very own lives?
I believe Postman said earlier that the junk entertainment on television is not the problem he’s attacking, it’s more what happens when television tries to be serious. I agree – there are various qualities of television programming or movies and some are better or worse than some books or other activities. And television is best engaged in at certain times – not on beautiful fall afternoons or during what should be school time, but nice on a Friday evening as a family “activity” or on Saturday mornings to keep the kids quiet while the parents sleep it.
Related to this, but not necessarily relevant – what’s the deal with people not liking it when other people talk during movies?!! I mean, if you want to watch a movie in silence – go watch it by yourself! If you want to watch it WITH somebody, then interact with that somebody else while you’re watching it – otherwise you might as well be by yourself. When my family watches a movie we make comments throughout. We try not to talk when the characters are talking so that we don’t miss the plot, but we have a great time and it’s much more interactive than if we just sat like lumps on a log watching then went off to bed. Hmmm. That’s a tangent, I know. And one that’s likely to be unpopular! :-)
I wish I had read this book more recently. But I had forgotten that: “religion isn’t televisible.” Important thing to remember, I think.
What is the effect of downloading a sermon, she wonders to herself?
:)
In other news, I thint some of this goes back to the concept of technology we were discussing in regard to birth control over on that other blog. When we overwhelmingly adopt a technology, ANY technology, there will be consequences that are unforseen. Though it does seem to me that keeping technology in its place (rather than, say, being Amish and rejecting it outright) helps mitigate the consequences a little. For instance, having a cell phone does NOT mean you have to be rude and text message during dinner at my house.
Yes. That really happened last week.
It’s funny how “little to add” looks so long in a comment. It happens to me all the time, too. :) Right, Elly, television can have a function; we just need to recognize what it is (what its nature is, right, Brandy?) and use it appropriately. And that’s a great point about how the habit of television gossip (which the news often is, as you point out, tickling our ears) does then affect our attitudes and responses in our real lives with real people. Hm.
At least a downloaded sermon is still a sermon. The context you listen to it in is different, but the context it was delivered in was “natural.” :) Whereas, as Elly pointed out, the problem with having show-business “church” on television is we start expecting church to be entertaining.
I had to read Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People for college (my score at CBC: a no-speaking-required speech class), and the main thing I remember was his quadrants of importance and urgency. The phone [et al, these days] is urgent but not (or, rarely) important. We should not give in to urgency that is not important; although I have an easy time ignoring the phone, I do admit I come a little too quickly to the computer when I hear the little “ding” of a message in the inbox. :) I really need to unsubscribe to freecycle. :)