How TV has trivialized our culture and politics – VOX


Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death was written in 1985, but it reads like prophecy nowadays. On the first page, just a few paragraphs in, is the following passage:

What George Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Aldous Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture … As Huxley remarked in courageous current World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to catch into account man’s nearly infinite appetite for distraction.”

This 30-year-dilapidated book, written by a relatively unknown media critic who died in 2003, captures our cultural and political moment with terrifying precision, and helps account for how we ended up with a reality TV charlatan as president.

“We’re a culture whose information, ideas and epistemology,” Postman wrote, “are now given form by TV, not by the printed word.” everything of reality is a demonstrate, in other words, and has to be seen and experienced as such. This is particularly genuine of politics, which, in the age of TV, is nearly entirely approximately optics and entertainment.

The questions Postman raises in Amusing Ourselves to Death are jarring. The Atlantic’s Megan Garber addresses some of them in a superb essay approximately the social and political costs we’ve paid for prizing entertainment above everything else. Our entire culture, she notes, is built on cosmetics and performance, as the internal logic of television demands.

Garber’s piece sums up Postman’s thesis fairly well, but I wanted to dive a tiny deeper into the media theory behind it. How, precisely, has television transformed American life, and how has the shift from a print-based culture to an image-based culture changed the nature of our minds?

To accumulate some answers to these and other questions, I reached out to Lance Strate, a professor of communications at Fordham University and perhaps the main media ecologist in the country.

The author of fantastic Ourselves to Death: Neil Postman’s courageous current World, Strate has written extensively approximately Postman’s legacy, and approximately the cultural impact of television. He argues that our desire for entertainment has become “positively toxic” and in this current world defined by TV, the power of the image has overwhelmed our capacity to judge and reason carefully.

In this interview, I inquire of Strate what Postman meant when he wrote that our culture had “descended into a huge triviality.” I also inquire of him whether TV has trivialized our politics and made us everything dumber as a result.


Sean Illing

What precisely did Postman mean by the phrase “amusing ourselves to death”?

Lance Strate

He meant that we’re having a very helpful time, surrounded in every moment by distractions and entertainment, and that while that could normally be considered a helpful thing, something we’d like to acquire in our lives, we were starting to overdose on it. We had reached the point where the impulse for entertainment had become positively toxic.

Sean Illing

What, precisely, was Postman’s argument? Why was the shift from a text-based culture to an image-based culture so consequential?

Lance Strate

His argument rested on two main issues. One is image culture. Television, being image-based, is not conducive to rationality or really any kind of logical discourse. It’s helpful for evoking emotional responses but not for deep thought and reflection.

One of the reasons people thought that digital media and computers were different was that so much of it was actually text-based. But what we see is that as the technology has evolved and progressed increasingly, we acquire the graphical user interface, we acquire the consume of icons, emojis, and of course a tremendous amount of video that now dominates the web. So everything of that really indicates that contemporary technologies acquire amplified the image orientation that was present with television.

The other portion of it was the immediacy. everything forms of electronic communication lumber very quickly. We acquire instantaneous communication which gives us a kind of telegraphic discourse. And Twitter is just the latest form of this telegraphic discourse.

To the extent that we consume language, we consume it in this very abbreviated way, and that again is not conducive to logical or extended discourse. It’s very helpful for slogans and jokes, and for trivial things. But it feeds this tendency to turn things over quickly. We don’t stay on a subject for very long. Like, say, the news cycle itself, we just shift mindlessly from one anecdote or subject to another.

Ultimately, we’ve overwhelmed with a flood of information and imagery. There is no time for reflection, for careful thought, for serious study.


Media theorist Neil Postman.
Getty Images

Sean Illing

Like Marshall McLuhan, Postman is convinced that the surest way to see to the core of a culture is to peek at its tools of conversation. Why is this the defining feature of a culture?

Lance Strate

What is a culture apart from for its conversation or its consume of language? I mean, without that we’re kind of on the level of primates, really. What sets us apart from any other species is our consume of language and symbols. And what is it that sets us apart from the kind of tribal cultures that were the only form of culture for something on the order of 100,000 years or more? As compared to the civilizations that only started to pop up somewhere between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago.

And that’s writing. That’s what we see in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, later in India and China, and of course in Greece and ancient Israel. You know we see the writing systems pop up that gain everything of those extraordinary cultures that possible, that’s the greatest revolution in human history, and as we progress forward what is it that build an terminate to the medieval world and brought us into the contemporary world? And, along the same lines, what is it that made the West preeminent because it wasn’t preeminent in the middle ages? And that was the printing press.

Sean Illing

But the age of the printing press is over now. This is the point that Postman drives domestic. Our communication is now electronic and image-based, and that has had profound consequences.

Lance Strate

That’s right. This was Marshall McLuhan’s point as well. We’ve had what he called an alphabetic civilization for more than 2 millennia. Well over 2 millennia. And we’ve reach to the terminate of that road. It’s over. And it was over in his time, and he kind of sensed that. And that is the electronic media. And it’s really with television that it fully came into its own as a dominant medium.

And then digital media, the internet and everything of that, that’s really further development, further progression. But everything of the characteristics we associate with digital media were pretty much there in the 19th century with the telegraph and the telephone.

Sean Illing

I’m trying to associate, to build through (telephone) everything of this to politics. The world that TV has built is precisely the world in which someone like Donald Trump can become president. When Postman writes, “We may acquire reached the point where cosmetics has replaced ideology as the field of expertise over which a politician must acquire competent control,” it’s tough not to see how depressingly accurate he was. Is there any doubt politics is now approximately the artifice of display and not the content of ideas?

Lance Strate

Well, you can lumber back to Reagan, who was elected a few years before Postman wrote this book, and the shocking event of an actor being elected president. In that case, you can see that there was, like, one foot in the dilapidated world and one in the current world. Reagan at least had some prior political experience, but his acting experience is what got him elected.

Postman was trying to gain sense of the fact that whether you peek at what was going on at that time, the early ’80s, everything the opinion polls were showing that Reagan had huge, immense approved appeal. And yet when people were asked approximately the issues, their views on the issues, they were diametrically opposed to them. And yet they voted for him besides.

And this is the major disconnect between political issues and ideology. And really even whether you peek at the word ideology, you’ll see that it’s a system of ideas, which is what party platforms argue approximately. That made a lot of sense when print was the dominant medium, but it means nothing nowadays.

nowadays, it’s everything approximately the power of the image, of entertainment, of spectacle.


Ronald Reagan Turns 92

Former US President Ronald Reagan wears a hat and a black suede vest over a white shirt in a 1966 still from the television series Death Valley Days.
Getty Images

Sean Illing

Let’s talk approximately the medium of TV and why it things so much. For Postman, there was a clear relationship between a medium and the level of ideas it can sustain or communicate. TV, by advantage of what it is, seems to reduce everything to entertainment.

Lance Strate

Well, I judge we can qualify that. I don’t judge you can say it can only be a form of entertainment. But in his time he wrote approximately PBS News Hour, which, compared to network news, was more in depth, spent more time on a anecdote. And he actually said, the words were, “Their audience is minuscule.”

So let’s snappily forward to nowadays. And you can acquire CSPAN. And you can actually watch Congress at work. But how many people are watching?

Sean Illing

virtually no one.

Lance Strate

I judge the word minuscule applies even more so in that instance. And why? whether you judge approximately television news, and really at the time that Postman wrote this, people were saying, “Well, we only acquire half an hour, and that’s with commercials, to finish the news. whether we had more time we could lumber in-depth.”

But now we’ve got three major cable news networks, and where’s the depth? It’s not there. Why? Because it doesn’t peek helpful on television. It doesn’t play well, it’s not entertaining. Television exists to demonstrate us compelling images in a dramatic format — that’s it. And this is what we everything reach to expect the more we watch it.

CNN has everything this time on their hands. What finish they finish? They demonstrate us the music of the ’60s. And Anthony Bourdain eating in exotic places. TLC used to be the learning channel and now it’s the Honey Boo Boo channel. You see a similar trajectory with nearly every network — it’s always from more to less depth.

This is what we mean when we talk approximately the bias of the medium. And we mean bias not in the sense of prejudice, but bias as in tendency. The tendency for things to roll down a hill rather than up a hill. And downhill on TV is toward exciting images, dramatic performance, compelling personalities, and triviality.

Sean Illing

Has TV made us dumb? Has it permanently trivialized our politics?

Lance Strate

Well, it short-circuits our ability to judge clearly and in depth. It’s a fixed stream of distractions that interfere with any kind of rational response to the world. I’ve been thinking approximately this because Daniel Boorstin wrote a wonderful book called The Image that Amusing Ourselves to Death draws on along with Marshall McLuhan. And I’ve been thinking approximately this regarding Trump because Boorstin coined the term “pseudo-events.”

He coined this term to characterize how Joseph McCarthy was incredibly skillful at manipulating the press. For example, how he would call a press conference in the morning to announce that he would hold a press conference in the afternoon with current revelations approximately communists and government. And then whether he actually did call the press conference in the afternoon or not didn’t matter. The aim was to dominate the newspapers, which, at that time, came out in multiple editions a day.

This was an early example of how the image-based media transformed our politics, and in nearly universally unproductive ways.

Sean Illing

One of the more moving aspects of the book is approximately how TV has altered our epistemology, how we know things. We respond to images, not words, and that leaves us more open to manipulation.

Lance Strate

Epistemology is how we know the world, how we learn approximately aspects of our environment. In large portion, what we catch in from our environment is mediated. I’ve never been Russia. I’ve never met Putin. I acquire to rely on information I accumulate through the media that is available to me. But their biases also color the way I understand the world.

In an earlier age, someone like Putin would just be a name I read. Now there’s a face and a voice and I gain a judgment based on how that person looks and sounds. And this is genuine of nearly everything and everyone these days: We gain judgments based on imagery, not the printed word.

I judge this means we’re much more emotionally connected to the rest of the world. That can be helpful in times, but it also means that we’re much more open to being manipulated.


Sean Illing

Can we draw a straight line between TV and post-factuality? Surely it’s no accident that facts acquire become less essential as increasingly of reality gets reduced to a TV demonstrate.

Lance Strate

Facts are the magic matter of rational discourse. A fact is a statement, it’s language. People consume the word in different ways, but it really takes a statement to gain a fact. And in technical terms, a fact is something that you can check out.

So whether I declare you it’s raining external right now, then it’s something that you can check out and determine whether it’s genuine or improper. And technically a statement of fact can be improper. But the point is that you can see that it’s improper, you can check it out.

Reagan was famed, renowned for improper facts. Many of them turned out to be things he saw in movies. But they were statements that could be checked out. Where we’ve gone beyond that is the fact that it doesn’t seem to matter anymore when people point out that statements are improper, or that whole thing of alternate facts and post-truth. It’s like genuine and improper really doesn’t matter. And it’s sort of moving how they consume the word “believe” now.

I hear people say, “Well, Trump believes this to be genuine.” That belief is the source of truth does sign a reversal of a literate, typographic epistemology in which you gain a clearly defined statement that we can lumber and test in the world, and that’s the basis of science, as opposed to an older epistemology, like the oral tradition, where we believe to be genuine what we sing in our songs, what we’ve passed on from generations.

But now belief is approximately feeling, emotion — it’s approximately the person. It’s no longer whether you believe that the world is round or flat, which is a belief that can be checked out. It’s now: finish you believe in Trump? Or, finish you believe in Hillary Clinton? Or, finish you believe in whoever. But that’s a different kind of belief. It’s everything approximately the person, and how we feel approximately the person is shaped by TV.

Sean Illing

How finish we course-right? Because there is no going back. For better or worse, the written word will always be secondary. So is it a matter of media literacy or what?

Lance Strate

Well, I judge Postman held out mighty hope for education as a way of addressing these problems. Which also means really emphasizing the enlightenment tradition of rational discourse and just plain literacy and not giving in to the latest and trying to gain a school compete with television or the internet. So that is certainly portion of the solution.

I judge we acquire to talk and to read. It may well be that the only way we ever accumulate things done is locally, and through personal connections and trying to work that way. I just don’t see any top down solution to this. But I judge that we can certainly try to improve things. whether everyone did that or whether enough people did that on a personal level, that’s one way that this could be countered.



Source link