by Neil Postman

In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman argues that television has become an intoxicating "command center" of American culture that has distracted from and trivialized seemingly important aspects of our lives. In journalism, religion, politics and education, Postman prophetically points out the Huxleyan onset of a Brave New World of bite size, touch-and-go media bombardment, happily consumed and rarely questioned, that has invariably impacted our society’s discourse and rationale.

Postman demonstrates that America’s overwhelming "response" to television has developed into a rapid "non-response" culture. Through elaborate mechanisms of example and candid anecdotes, the author presents modern-day dilemmas that point to this erosion of a rational public knowledge base. Using the historical perspective of how new mediums have carried not only their messages but also a pre-defined way of digesting them, Postman places the reader in perspective through the advent of the printing press, telegraphy, and photography. He then points out the introduction of "speed-of-light" communications through the marriage of the latter two devices, ultimately creating television.

Although Postman accurately illustrates many of the (negative) ramifications of television and its core goal of entertainment over inspection, of which I wholeheartedly agree, there are two areas that I would like to explore in more detail, offering my own ad hoc tribulations and perspectives. With the exception of Postman’s using the book as an occasional opportunity to also factor in the imminence of computers as a contributing device to the overall dilemma of television’s attack on cultural behavior and public discourse, I consider it synonymous with my own "TV-drug" philosophy. Specifically, I would like to respond to the idea of television as a fleeting bearer of transient communiqué (presented in Chapter 5) and the notion that television presents a "dog-and-pony" show in aspects of American life it attempts to represent, no matter how serious, tragic or intellectual (explored in Chapters 6 and 7).

Without the ability to assimilate and analyze the meaning of information received, television media offers no real intellectual challenge or call for examination. Unlike typography, which encourages a consumer to read, reflect and respond (e.g. take action), television blasts fragmented "bytes" of typically irrelevant information to be recognized but not ruminated thus preventing reaction. Unfortunately, the latter assault tends to be the prominent one in today’s society. Couch potatoes pay heed.

Postman does an excellent job of bringing this quandary to focus in Chapter 5, aptly titled "The Peek-a-Boo World." The staccato delivery of information as presented by the television convinces a society to be "in the know," deluged with a potpourri of trivial bits of information, flowing without unified coherence. Postman labels this as "pseudo-context" (p.76). He clearly points out that few people are actually effected or, better yet, effect change, as a result of the data received in this manner. He draws the stark contrast between the delivery methods and ultimate output of typographic and telegraphic delivery (although he makes this particular comparison between printed material and the telegraph, his foreshadowing is applicable to the same basic paradox between print and television, p. 68). The printing press, and its main agent, the book, does not present the dilemma of simple one-way digestion. Reading archived information in the form of literature allows thought and examination since the data is static and can be re-referenced. Thus, Postman rightfully argues that it is impossible to "learn" by watching television due to its transience and form of presentation. It is hard to argue his reasoning on page 69:

To illustrate Postman’s point and mine, I present a real-life experience. As an adolescent growing up in a rural Southern community, I remember the late introduction of cable television, rendering our family’s limited choice of the "big three" networks obsolete. Friends in more populated (civilized?) areas were already privy to the captivating entertainment of MTV, CNN and the Disney channel. They always seemed to be "in the know," apprised of important things such as the making of Michael Jackson’s "Thriller" video, televised Rubik’s cube championships and "Fraggle Rock." My difficulty in recollecting these example events ironically proves Postman’s point of how easily such televised trivia "fades from the mental landscape as if it had never been." (p.75). Incidentally, I do recall books read during that same period. It was at an early age that I decided to forgo the Siren’s song of television and opted instead to deduce facts, figures and even entertainment from, among other sources, literature.

As Postman unravels in Chapters 6 and 7, television attempts to persuade "us" by portraying "us." By promoting amusement and pleasure, it appeals to the "good things" we want to be. Even in the act of delivering depressing facts of human tragedy (war, crime, and natural disasters), television succeeds in playing the role of the charming moderator, impervious to the horrors it is presenting. This is made obvious by watching any evening newscast or morning news show. I performed the exercise after reading these two chapters. What I had always thought of as ludicrous and comical, Postman made a point to analyze, exposing the dangers of such behavior. If we are desensitized to the point of joining television news personalities in their nonchalant reaction to events that are devastating and at the same time worthy of broadcast, what is necessary to "shock" us or invoke a call to action? I was always amused at Tom Brokaw’s occasional "walk on the wild side" when he slightly grimaced or provided a faint hint of emotion after a well-polished and sensitive "focus" piece during the evening news. Tom, the rebel that he was, broke the glass barrier of disinterest or the "high level of unreality" as Postman would put it (p. 103).

I was fortunate enough to examine the same potential wonder that television may have delivered to a wide-eyed American culture as it was born decades ago. It was during a visit to Vietnam, residing in the household of a native family, that I soon noticed how small of a role television played in a typical Viet’s daily life. For those affluent enough to own a television set, the marvel rested not in the programming, but in the technology. In fact, the content of programming often seemed entirely irrelevant. Subtitled Chinese soap operas provided a revealing view into a differing, fantastic culture that was observed in bewilderment but not mimicked. Television was not the cultural "command center", as Postman describes it. Family was the definite centerpiece, with evening entertainment consisting not of game shows and sit-coms, but gathering around a small living room table, enjoying drink, story-telling and reading. I believe Postman would have approved of this "third-world" behavior as he points out that "there are many places in the world where television, though the same technology as it is in America, is an entirely different medium from that which we know" (p. 85) and "We (Americans) are no longer fascinated or perplexed by its machinery" (p. 79). The experience furthered my "anti-television" sentiments and restored my faith in a society that, although impoverished, exhibited great intellect and appreciation for the arts.

Although Postman presents a valid positioning on the ill-effects of television and a few recommended calls-to-action that might aid in curbing what appears to be inevitable downward spiral into TV Hell, the descent may not be as rapid as Postman predicts or, more likely, there may exist some enlightened attitudes toward its overbearing presence. Television program quality is arguably in decline and the evidence could be glaring enough to alarm some otherwise "gullible" victims. As he supposes on page 159, "we would all be better off if television got worse, not better," there may be some indication of television leaning in that "worse" direction. With recent self-instituted guidelines against proliferating more "trash TV," the talk shows that litter the highway of channels proposed a move toward more "meaningful" content in their shows. This is the television industry’s practical application of an idiom originating in the computer field: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). It is undoubtedly a result of decreasing ratings that TV executives made this move and conveniently positioned it as a "community service" to better the quality of programming. Perhaps American viewers are catching on and simply turning on, tuning in then dropping out, to distort Dr. Leary’s famous buzz-phrase.

In his efforts to paint a permeating picture of television overload, Postman exhibits a few "apocalyptic" examples of corrosive programming that, to my knowledge, never panned out to a great degree. In the sixth chapter, he speaks of "The Genesis Project," an effort to document the entire bible on film (p.96). Although I generally avoid television, I do stay abreast on media happenings and I do not recall seeing this project or its finalization. In another example that I never heard of, he illustrates the "Voyage of the Mimi," an interactive, multimedia project designed to incorporate television, printed materials and computers to assist students in learning a number of skills by following the adventures of student actors and scientists as they track the behavior of humpback whales (p.149). He quotes a Department of Education representative as saying "We consider it the flagship of what we are doing. It is a model that others will begin to follow" (p. 150). I would venture to say his exorbitant plans for further projects of this nature never made it past brainstorming sessions.

Later in the chapter, Postman postulates that as a result of this project and others like it, books are being shuffled to an auxiliary function simply serving as another audio-visual aid with computers and/or television taking the main stage in education. As an elementary school student during the timeframe he references, I can personally attest to the fact that although television was utilized from time to time in the classroom, it was never overused or presented as a modicum of good learning. In fact, in the rare events that a TV set was wheeled into the classroom, it was usually to show footage of some news event being broadcast during school hours (e.g. one of the many space shuttle launches, footage of the attempted Reagan assassination, etc.) and always in accordance with the expected maturity level of the viewing student body.

Through Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman proposes the study of television namely the effort to examine this media of communication and understand the repercussions on the culture in which they exist. His ideas request that we, as members of today’s media barraged culture, take a closer look at one of the most influential agents in our social, intellectual and spiritual lives. In closing I would like to reiterate an important point that Postman makes in his conclusion of the book: television should not be taken seriously, but at face value as entertainment. He describes that TV serves us most usefully as "junk-entertainment" and quite possibly can remain benign as long as it is recognized as such (p. 159). I think this summarizes both the book’s intent to reveal an atrocity of American culture (now quite possibly the culture itself) as well as a recommended solution to the problem. Perhaps Postman should give credit to a society that, although not fully executing his sage advice of critically analyzing television content, might indeed be more aware of its true face as merely a diversion and not rote fact.

Postman, Neil. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Books.