Your assignment: Read the linked excerpts from Postman's book and answer the questions below. Post your answers as comments to this blogpost.
But first, some background.
Print media are rational and linear, according to Postman. "To engage the written word means to follow a line of thought, which requires considerable powers of classifying, inference-making and reasoning. It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another." That's how it's been since Gutenberg invented printing in the 1450s, but now electronic media are changing that.
At least in the United States, Postman says, television news "abandons logic, reason, sequence and rules of contradiction. In aesthetics, I believe the name given to this theory is Dadaism; in philosophy, nihilism; in psychiatry, schizophrenia. In the parlance of the theater, it is known as vaudeville."
(Dada was a theory of modern art in the 1920s and 30s. It was kind of like a visual form of punk rock. It wasn't supposed to make sense, and the more shock value it had, the better. And vaudeville was kind of a lowbrow popular theater, more like what you'd hear on an adult comtemporary or easy listening station than punk. But you get the idea. Postman doesn't like TV.)
While Postman concentrates on TV news, he doesn't let the print media off the hook. He says they're getting more like TV in their "superficiality and theatrics." In fact, most media analysts would say the print media -- including newspapers -- have gotten even more TV-like in the last 20 years.
The upshot, according to Postman, is a culture that fed a steady diet of "misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing." He adds:
In saying this, I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed. Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?Like most people with a theory to argue, Postman almost certainly overstates his case. But he's been very influential.
Your assignment: Read the excerpts linked to this blogpost, and answer the questions below:
1. Writing in the 1980s, Postman said Americans had strong opinions about Iran during the "Hostage Crisis" in 1979 and 1980 but very little knowledge of "the tenets of Iranian religious beliefs" or "the main outlines of their political history" because TV news didn't go into that kind of background in enough depth. How would you rate coverage of the Middle East today? How would you rate our knowledge of Middle Eastern religion and history?
2. Postman suggested then-President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s got away with giving "mangled and perhaps misleading accounts of his policies or of current events in general" in part because TV audiences weren't interested in straightening out the facts. Postman said other presidents of the day had similarly misled the American people. Does the nature of the news business in a day of 24-7 reporting allow similar things to happen today?
3. Postman said in 1985, "The result of all this is that Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world." He blamed a steady diet of trivial stories, but also a failure to discriminate between serious stories and fluff ... and a tendency to present serious stories in a fluffy manner. "The problem," he said, "is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining." Do you think the same would hold true today, or have things changed?
26 comments:
Today is exactly the same. No one has engouh information to make informed decisions, because TV news try to play at our emotions, not our rational. They will tell us how many died, and that there is terror all around, but when it comes to uncoveringjust what it is all these sects want, and what the culture is really about the news doesn't cover. Our knowledge of mideast culture varies from person to person but I think in general it is very poor.
2. On our news programs so many things are always happening. You do not have time to look indepth into one story before another begins. Presidents can still get away with this. It is harder for presidents to do now, becuase of the internet. If you see a short story on the news about Bush almost walking off a cliff (which he did almost walk off a cliff) and you want to know more about it the news channel probably has a websight you can use to get more information.
3.) I think that TV is fluff. If it is fluff to get ratings, or fluffy by nature I don't know. I think that in modern times, the individual must take more responsibility for being infromed. You watch the fluff on the TV news, so you know what stories to look for online or in print later. tv is fluffy, but it has its purposse in our multimedia world
1. Personally, I dont think we know nearly enough about the Middle Eastern religion and/or culture. Our soilders are over in Iraq, but no one can really explain why they're over there or why they're dying. But I also think that we, including the President, should educate ourselves about their people and culture. By just going by what we see on t.v. isnt telling people anything about what we really need to know.
2.If Reagan did get away with his misleading accounts, I believe they went unnoticed until now. No one had time to notice anything he was doing because for 1- he's the President, and for two people, for some reason, feed on gossip and entertaining lies, regardless if they're true or not. To me, news reporters have a slightly involved in it, but it's not like it's their fault. If the President constantly toold misleading stories, he knew what he was doing, and where it could possibly lead.
3.I agree that it's still that way today. Most people try to cover up what's real by filling it it with entertainment or following stories. They really dont want people to know the serious and honest truth behind most stories. I believe that's why most news stories get took out of porpotion and to another level. Then basically the rest of the story turns into fiction.
1.) On a scale from one to 10 a biased 4. The only couverage America seems to receive are fragments of the truth or a censored version of the truth that attempt to promote patriotism and support instead of portraying the actual brutality of war.
2.) If president bush attempted to cover up lies and scandals such as Raegan did im sure he would get away with it because it is very easy to bribe people with money, power, political stature, ect...
3.) I believe that a fair amount of the information americans receive are serious subjects but americans have everything sugar coated for them so it would seem that everything in the news is based on entertainment because that is what people demand otherwise it wont sell.
1. I believe that today is about the same situation as the Iranian hostage crisis. People all want to voice their opinions, but nobody wants to go in depth and find out about the iranians or iraqis and their culture. They just want to get the story out about car bombs and guerilla attacks because that is what "sells."
2. Yes. I believe that this happens all the time with news stories and specifically the presidents. Presidents and politicians rarely give clear cut answers on anything. For example, Roberto Gonzales and his famous, "I don't recall" line. They can manipulate how people see the news as well. If you watch MSNBC for an hour and then change it to FOX News, you would think you were on a different planet. The news sounds so much different between those two stations just because of liberal reporting of the news and republican reporting of the news.
3. I believe that TV has been fluff since it came out. You never hear as much about the boring good deeds done in the community as you do about the robberies and thefts in that same community. Sex sells, and so does conflict. Conflict is what adds to the fluff we call television. Most news is sugarcoated to applease a certain group or majority of people. News broadcasts are getting harder and harder to take seriously. You turn on the TV to gain some information on the situation in Iraq and all you hear about is how fat Britney Spears is.
1. I think we have the same situation ad the Iranian hostage. People don't go in depth that how they have find any thing about what really go on over there in the Middle Eastern Religion and History.
2. New programs has many thing going on at the same time. The President can get away wth a lot of things. It goes the president way the people will not like it. The President can lie to the country It bad to lie to the country.
3. I agree it still that way today in the world. The world is not fair wtih alot of stuff. The entertainment and the stories is not telling the whole story. The conflict is bad to say sometime the broadcasts are not seriously about the story.
1. Our knowledge of the war and the culture of the middleeast is very poor. Most people one know the facts that they do from the news and the news is very biased. The only shots we are shown is how many soldiers are killed each day, but do not tell us how the people that are caught in the middle of the war are doing and how they are coping with. i belive people should learn more and not have very low knowledge of he middleeast.
2. Many presidents have gotten away with many things. The news covers only things they belive are vital and not anything that would down the president of the United States. But with Internet and many other tools you can virtually find anything.
3.yes i agree. Everything in the news today is told, but not the whole story. There might be a a story that is serious to the issue but then it is covered with something entertaining or somthing that anericans love watching , gossip.
1. Today is basically the same. We don't have enough information, well atleast not in depth information about their backgrounds. we don't have enough information to make rational decisions. The news only plays to our emotions, what they want is ratings. So they tell us that terrorists are all around us and that so many people were killed in a car bombing this day. All in all i think that knowledge of the mideast culture differs from person to person, but it the whole view the knowledge level is poor.
2. There are so many stories but not enough time to research a particular indepth. Stories are coming from left to right, the news is ever changing. Presidents in my opinion use the media sources as a "smoke screening effect". Meaning they are the ones responesable for our knowledge about the war, or should i say what little knowledge we have through the media. Raising the gas prices every now and then is another way to take our minds off a particular issue. Just think back to all the times there was a gas crisis, was there anything that the gov't was doing and got caught about. Watergate, desert storm and even now they use gas prices to take away part of our interest and attention.
3. I'm not exactly sure about this question. The news reports about how many people are being killed over seas and that is it. What else is going on, its sort of telling us only about death and explosions. The news is fluffy to the max with their stories, but that is what the gov't wants.
In response to question one it seems to be the same situation again. Everyone seems to have their own version of what is going on in Iraq. Whether it be a view of why we are there or what our goal is, or why they do what they do and believe what they do. But the reality is that no one really knows anything. No one knows their religious beliefs or anything. The media tends to withhold information that would properly allow us to formulate an accurate assessment of the situation. As a result Americans tend to have faulty, distorted views of the situation.
Of course today's media allows for misleading and sometimes even inaccurate facts. To believe that everything thing said and reported is the complete and entire truth is ignorant. What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public. At times, it is better for the nation not to know something because it will protect it from itself. Though I wish this wasn't the case, there are people in this country that don't know how to handle hardship, negativism, and turmoil. If America knew everything, it would send the country into an uproar.
Media has not changed. A perfect example of the issue in question three is political cartoons. People take and serious situation and turn it into a joke. Yes, I agree that political cartoons can be a way to get through to the average mind and reader. One of the greatest cartoons in American history was the drawing of the snake divided into 13 pieces. "United we stand, divided we fall." Right? But to use comedic relief as a way to get a message across seems to distort the message more so than it does to help it. In short, the media has not changed and still attempts to use humor and entertainment to try and communicate a serious matter.
1. Coverage of the Middle East today is better than it was during the "Hostage Crisis" in 1979 and 1980 because the media is able to show more coverage of the events that occur each day in the Middle East and gives the American public a better understanding of another culture. I think our knowledge of Middle Eastern religion has improved very little due to our already limited knowledge of the real histoy of the Middle East.
2. In the modern approach, there are less chances of similar things occuring in the news although the possibility is still there. However, in our 24-7 live coverage media, the possibility of a story being "edited" is reduce because the coverage is occuring at the same time as the event.
3. I think that television itself, especially the edited version, has still added some fluff to various programs. However, television has improved its programming by broadcasting an event that is occuring live for the public to view.
Coverage of the Middle East today, is probably better than what it was. We might not be fully informed, but from the 1980's to now, I believe we know more. TV then, Postman said "has no intention of suggesting that any story has any implication, for that would require viewers to continue to think about it when it's done and therefore obstruct their attending to the next story. I believe now especially since we have the internet we can know a little more about anything.
If Reagan did get away with lies, and different suspicious stories. it wouldnt be uncommon to us. We the people have been lie to, trick, and dealt with presidents and politicians messing with out heads since the very beginning.
The information readers recieve, depending on the story is alwasy enough to keep us entertained and wanting to hear more. They pick the stories we want to hear, the bad, juicy ones. If youre wanting to hear about good things and good people youre going to have to read about in the SJR where people themselves have to write in about other people and their good deeds, the reporters dont have time for that.
1. I think that our coverage of the Middle East today is one of negativity. But how could it not be with the turmoil that surrounds that region. I personally do not have any real core knowledge of the Middle East. It has never been a focal point of study for anyone.
2. Of course, nowadays it seems to just be a fact of life, everyone bends the truth. I would say perhaps most of our leaders do also to cover up for themselves, or others. Maybe its a good thing to keep from mayhem breaking out, but people still are very much misled.
3.Yes the same does hold true today. There are so many news stories that come from someone trying to get attention, or a celebrity doing what they do best, making the news, again.
1. I think we don't pay nearly enough attention to the news. In turn we let newspapers, news networks, and columnist decide what is news and what is not news. Our knowledge of the mideast for the most part pertains to oil deposits and Muslim people living there.
2. I think that Reagan got away with it only b/c of the lack of internet being around. If President Bush tried hiding anything like Reagan, he would probably get caught because there are so many places to go for news.
3. I believe that many of the television shows are sugar coated to make us feel better about it. If they gave us the serious news that we should know about, maybe other countries would like us a little more. Most countries don't like us b/c we are so misinformed.
1) I think our coverage of the Middle East could be much better. I think if Americans were better educated on the Middle Eastern religion and history, we could either compromise better with them or at least understand why we are at war with them.
2) Having 24-7 reporting definitely allows for mistakes and misleading accounts. It seems like the media reports stories the minute they happen. By doing this, people do not get the entire stories until after they already have their minds made up from the initial report.
3) "The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining." I love this quote! I think we as Americans have turned every subject matter into entertainment. A friend and I were talking this morning about this same subject. She was reading the newspaper online and saw a story about a school shooting and then she saw a story about Hillary Clinton calling Chaney a name. She said she immediately skipped over the school shooting story and straight to the Clinton story. She said she was so disgusted with herself for doing that. Today we make everything entertainment and are less worried about the important “stuff.”
`We really dont know alot about the middle east, today. People are getting information about the middle east from the news which is horrible. The news is showing and giving out information that has nothing to do with the middle east, and people would like to hear more about. Other than hearing about celebrities. I believe that people need to know more knowledge about the middle east other than hearing and watching from the media.
``People want to believe what is on the news or in the papers. One thing people dont relize is that the news and papers can take a simple story and completely fabricate or exaggerate it into what they think people want to know or hear.
```Television is fluff. All we hear about on todays news is whos getting child custody of B. Spears and K. Ked's kids or about Lindsey Lohans rehab drama. When you turn on the World News you want to hear about the World News as in the war in Iraq or a death toll of soldiers that died defending our country instead of celebrity lives of drama and crime that they lead.
1.) Today's coverage is nearly identical: there is very little information about the culture and belief system of the Middle-East, its history, or the people in general. Our knowledge of the Middle East is basic at best.
2.) Yes. The media is interested in sound bites and attention grabbers. The pacing of broadcast news does not lend itself to in-depth analysis or consideration of facts.
3.) It's the same. Broadcast news is stilled created to be "infotainment." And people need to realize that they have to look for the truth or the facts themselves before believing everything they're told.
1. On a scale from one to ten I would rate the news coverage of the Middle East today a 9, as far as being posted eveywhere.As for in depth coverage about what is really going on a 4(Being least).The news today has too much use of misinformation-Almost everything is misleading or toa certain extent exaggerated. As for our knowledge of the Middle East, I agree that most our society is very ignorant towards the whole situation with the Middle Easts religion,and history. Especially when it has nothing to do with us.It seems the ? is..."Who really cares?"
2. I believe that our news covers alot of many different things, and stories. Sometimes you can't really study the factual information on them, because there is always some story more interesting than the last.That doesn't mean things have changed. Stories and the facts behind them arestill misleading.Who really nows the truth. The point is just as Neil Postman said himself,"Msinformation,and false opinion still exist today.
3. Iagree with the Postmans remark,"Where as TV taught the magazines that news is nothing but entertainment is news. TV programs -Enterainment Tonight-turn informantion about entertainers and celebs into serious cultural content, sothat circle begins to close. Both the information and content of the news equals entertainment." Is that "Holding true to today"All subject matter is presented as enteraining.Who finds what interesting and informing..?
1) I think that coverage of the Middle East still doesn’t provide enough background information about their basic worldviews. Consequently, viewers must either do some research or display what Postman called “emotions” rather than informed opinions.
2) Of course the nature of news business allows the American public to be misled. We have very few professional facts-straightener-outers right now. I hear it doesn’t pray very well.
3) I think the situation is similar today. We’re a pretty shallow society. We expect things to be entertaining. If they’re not, we ignore them. (Take for example, college classes.)
1. There is very lillte coverage on the Middle East religion and history. The media is to busy entertaining people and making money. We don't know enough about the Middle East to judge them.
2. The President is still giving misleading information or none at all about a situation that is way to serious for misleading information. If the Presidnet will not give us the information we want than who will?
3.Televison is not serious as it should be when it comes certain topics. We are being informed with the information that the media want us to know.
1. I think our coverage of the middle east is always negative for the most part. With all of the war events and devastation it is hard to think of it as a positive place. I believe that our knowledge of the middle east is better today than it has been in the past we need more education to fully understand their lives.
2. I feel that Reagan did get away with misleading the people with alot of his speeches and opinions. However it has long been the truth that politicians whether presidents or a local rep are never straight forward, precise and completely honest with what they are saying. News is perhaps the same way. Each reporter puts their own twist on a story to make what they think is more intersting.
3. Yes I feel that the same holds true today. Some may be the truth but we all know that ratings are the most important part of TV today.
I would say that the coverage in the Middle East is not adequate. But I think that we cant possibly know everything because the less we know, the less it can hurt us and if information leaked out to other countries, it could spell out serious problems. And we dont know alot about the Middle Eastern religion or History. We as a society dont care about things that arent right here at home.
2. I think that the news business reporting does still give misleading accounts of policies or of current events. In part because people dont care about serious stuff all that much. They like to ba entertained. Also because audiences dont want to straighten out facts. They like the drama and with confusion comes tons of drama.
3. We do present serious matters in a fluffy way. And when we dont, and we actually present it seriouslly, it gets 2 minutes of airtime... then its on to news coverage of Lindsay Lohan. Almost everything presented to us is sugar coated and spoon fed. News people know that if serious stuff isnt made to be entertaining,we probably wont watch it
The Coverage in the middle east today is either very bad or very good depending on how some people look at it. Some people really want to know what we are fighting for and we want to know more than we already no. Others don't care they just want the troops home. I think the coverage should be a lot better in this situation. I think the american people care more about the war than michael vick, oj, and brittney spears.
2)in the news today nonone really knows what to believe and the media just tries to sell, make money. Regan did lie and got away with it, what president hasn't.
3) Todays media and tv is unreliable and not vey well presented the purpose of todays media is to entertain not to inform.
1. I would low-rate the middle east, because we do not have a ckue of the iran cultures or beliefs. Our information comes directly from media and t.v., and this is the way we conduct opinions. Not that we use statistics or face-to-face action, its all sterotype from t.v.
2. today i do belive similar things has happened because president is able to do anything he wants. i believe that certain issues has improved; however, there are improper decisions being made. for ex: i believe the war ing iraq is misleading because i have actually communicated with someone from there in she has a different perspective. comparison is the proper method because there are two sides to every story.
3. yes, anything that americans think will make money, they use it to entertain. it does not matter the circumstances, it is all about amusing/satisfying themselves and buyers.
1. No one knows their religious beliefs or anything. The media tends to withhold information that would properly allow us to formulate an accurate assessment of the situation. As a result Americans tend to have faulty, distorted views of the situation.
2. I would say perhaps most of our leaders do also to cover up for themselves, or others. Maybe its a good thing to keep from mayhem breaking out, but people still are very much misled.
3.
In short, the media has not changed and still attempts to use humor and entertainment to try and communicate a serious matter.
1. The amount of coverage we receive on the middle east today is less than what we deserve. We are able to see what the media and whoever else is involved with informing us on what's going on allows us to see. I beleive that everything has remained the same as it was about 20 years ago. We know little about their religion and history. Many men fighting in Iraq today will admit that they don't even know why they are there. A good place to go to if it has not been deleted is google and type in bored in Iraq and you can see some things that the media don't talk about.
2. The news channels that we have today are most likely allowing the president to mislead us and give us any information he wants to give us. No matter how many hours of the day the news is working to cover current events the president is allowed to tell us what he wants us to know. I mean if a police officer can do it why can't the president?
3. Once again things are still the same. There is no reason the same amount of time is spent on covering Britney Spears as it is on covering things on Iraq. The same manner is used when covering the two. T.V is another internet to me.
1.I think both our coverage and knowledge of the Middle East is vague. We know just enough to get ourselves satisfied, such as how many people have died and the major details that we find important. We could educate ourselves more and know more about the culture but we don’t.
2.Yes, I think it still happens today but harder to get away with it because of the internet and other resources.
3.I think it is still true we have to be entertained or we just change the channel to something with a lighter sense. We get the information that we want to know and hit all the major points then go to something that is fluff.
Post a Comment