(Another installment from my Instructional Technologies class blog, this one a reaction to Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death.)
I do not see plays, because I can nap at home for free. And I don’t see movies ’cause they’re trash, and they got nothin’ but naked people in ‘em! And I don’t read books, ’cause if they’re any good, they’re gonna make ‘em into a miniseries.” — Ouiser Boudreaux (Shirley MacLaine), Steel Magnolias
I have many friends who are part of the “no TV” movement – people who finally pulled the plug on their television. For many, the reasons on giving up TV were purely financial – they could not afford the time or the money to keep cable television in their household. Others were just dissatisfied with the content of television in 2010 – shows of quality losing out to cheap reality television. If Postman were alive today, he would be part of this latter camp, perhaps even angrier, decrying that television – from reality to soap opera to comedy to drama – is evil.
But are we moving from one death knell – television – to another, the Internet? Are we, like cranky Ouiser (quoted above) giving up on intelligent culture because we know it does nothing but lead us down the road of perdition? As City of Glass, I ask the question – how would this book be rewritten in 2010, the digital age? Can you just substitute “television” for “Internet” and get the same result, or is this 25 year old tome meant to be read like City of Glass, a relic of another era?
On one hand, yes. Television in 2010 is still having some effect on our information consumption and interpretation, not as much as it did back in the 1980s and 1990s, but some effect. The conventions Postman details are still there in 2010 broadcasting. (In the spirit of this book, I had my television on as I blogged, hoping to see if I could pick up hints of Postman’s arguments.)
My favorite chapter, and the one I felt had the most relevance to the current entertainment landscape was the discussion on the concept of televangelist programming. All you have to do is substitute “weather” for “televangelist” and you have The Weather Channel in 2010. Here is a network with humble origins in news and information that has turned tabloid. With a snowstorm working its way up to the Northeast and my part of NJ in the thick of it (last I checked, we’re due to get close to 12 inches), the Weather Channel has been on in my household for most of the day. In between weather reports, I see ads for “When Weather Changed History,” “Storm Stories,” “Cantore Stories,” and “It Could Happen Tomorrow.” The “Local on the 8s” forecast is slick with pretty colors and graphics, traffic reports and advertisements! (For comparison: Weather Channel local forecast in 1989 and Weather Channel local forecast in 2010.) I will concede that some of this evolution is from evolution in television production, but advertisements for Orlando RV and traffic reports? The channel whose origins are in news and informations is just too commercial! (For the record, I found the most accurate information on the impending snowstorm on my local news!)
Another extension of the televangelist chapter can be boiled down to a woman many call a saint: Saint Oprah. Tongue in cheek, but very true. It seems anything Oprah touches turns to gold – books, doctors plucked from obscurity (see Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz), DVDs, recipes. And people lap it up, making her Book Club books bestsellers and following her proteges to their own ventures (again, Dr. Phil, Rachael Ray, and Dr. Oz) believing that if Oprah endorses it, it is worthwhile and it will make my life so much more enriching and meaningful. One woman believed this so much she devoted herself to living her life The Oprah Way for one whole year – and wrote a book about it! Celebrity from celebrity!
If there was any one chapter that I felt lacked relevance upon reading it in 2010, it was Chapter 9 and the lengthy discussion on television commercials. Here is where you see the effect of the Internet on television consumption. In the DVR and Hulu era, when commercials can be eliminated with the click of a mouse or a remote, is the television commercial becoming obsolete? Does the commercial have the same power in 2010 as it did 25 years ago when Postman wrote this book? Are advertisers realizing this and moving to other means to promoting products that do not rely on Postman’s traditional commercial conventions (“buy my product and your life will be better, faster, stronger, prettier – more wonderful!”)? Product placement, popular in the early days of television, might be making a return thanks to the DVR, and this might not be so bad. When a major soft drink company (Pepsi) decides not to advertise during the Super Bowl, concentrating instead on social marketing campaigns, is the death of the television commercial underway? Does this mean people might actually show up for the game and not for the commercials? (At least not this year, given the entire Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family fracas.)
Outside of the “is this book relevant in 2010″ questions, there are other thoughts that came to mind.
I was surprised Postman did not bring up the famous Kennedy – Nixon television debate from 1960, the first presidential debate aired on television, and one where the new medium of television played into perceptions of who “won.” Whereas radio listeners who only heard prose concluded that Nixon won the debate, those who watched a tanned and rested Kennedy debate a sickly and tired Nixon believed Kennedy had won – probably not because of content but because of Kennedy’s look. Image was everything in those early days of TV.
On the subject of politicians and their image campaigns, the introductory chapters made the assertion that fat people were “effectively excluded from public office.” I beg to differ! A recent study from the University of Missouri showed that heavier male politicians were considered more reliable and trustworthy. My state’s new governor, Chris Christie, is quite rotund. Even though his weight was the subject of jokes from pundits and his opponents, he still won, quite the feat for a Republican candidate in heavily Democratic New Jersey. Is image still everything?
The inclusion of references to The Day After proved intriguing, and I expected Postman to hold a few more positive opinions on this powerful television movie (so powerful, that after watching it as an adult, I didn’t sleep for three days). It didn’t use the “now…this” convention, particularly in the second half of the movie (no commercial interruptions). The Day After is one of those rare times television had positive effect on world events, influencing emotions and opinions. In a 20 year anniversary retrospective, director Nicholas Meyer recalls receiving a telegram from President Reagan after signing the Intermediate Range Weapons Agreement that read “Don’t think your movie didn’t have any part of this, because it did.” (Reference) There has never been another movie like The Day After and there probably never will be; the made-for-television movie seems to have found exile on cable. It is a shame, for when done right, the power to influence hearts and minds can be endless.
And television shalt not have prerequisites, only being a “complete package in itself?” Or “television shall induce no perplexity?” What would Mr. Postman think of Lost and 24, shows that build on previous episodes and cannot effectively be viewed in a vacuum? (This is why I’m not a fan – I don’t have the time!)
I wonder how my 18 month old niece will grow up in the era of the “anxious age of agitated amnesiacs,” made more so by the use of iTunes, social networking and Google. How are her information seeking, retrieval and interpretation behaviors going to grow and evolve in a time of digital soundbytes? How will this affect our roles as librarians and instructors? If television or the Internet is displacing books and their relevance, how do we teach them?
By the way, I read Amusing Ourselves to Death on a Kindle, and I know I wasn’t the only one opting for the e-book over the print book. I wonder what Mr. Postman would think of that…
Posted by librariankate7578 
