{"id":39428,"date":"2021-06-18T03:33:39","date_gmt":"2021-06-18T07:33:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=39428"},"modified":"2021-06-25T08:30:55","modified_gmt":"2021-06-25T12:30:55","slug":"are-we-amusing-ourselves-to-death","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/are-we-amusing-ourselves-to-death\/","title":{"rendered":"Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death? The Age of TV"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What were the early hopes for the invention of the television? How did entertainment value slowly replace trustworthiness? Are we amusing ourselves to death?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death<\/em>, Neil Postman discusses the impact that television has had on our society. Postman argues that television directly attacks literacy and suggests that we should judge everything based on entertainment value rather than importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep reading to learn why Postman believes that we are amusing ourselves to death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Entertainment Age<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, <\/em>in television\u2019s early stages, some people hoped it could be used to support and extend literacy. However, it was a false hope representing what McLuhan called \u201crear-view mirror thinking\u201d\u2014viewing new technology as an extension of the old\u2014for instance, thinking of a car as a fast horse or a lightbulb as a stronger candle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Television doesn\u2019t extend literacy, but it directly attacks it. Unlike reading, television offers a constantly changing spectacle that provides emotional gratification without demanding literacy or any particular thinking skills to understand it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s entertaining, which, again, isn\u2019t a problem in itself\u2014but television goes further to suggest that we should naturally judge everything by its entertainment value<\/strong>. And television presents all content or subject matter as entertainment. This is antithetical to print culture\u2019s treatment of information as rational and having a useful purpose\u2014for instance, action or reflection. So are we amusing ourselves to death? Neil Postman thinks so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s the Image That Counts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Unlike good exposition, which is about communicating ideas, good television is about presenting images<\/strong>. On television, attempted conversations about serious topics are fragmented, shallow, and lack context\u2014even documentaries don\u2019t dwell on a point for long or connect it to what comes next. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a speaker to pause and think about a point or express uncertainty isn\u2019t a good image and therefore isn\u2019t good television. Television demands a performance that aims for applause, which is the whole point. Content must give way to the values of show business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Television defines and reflects our culture\u2014we learn what our culture is from television, and we expect life to conform to television<\/strong>. Shakespeare wrote<\/a> that \u201call the world\u2019s a stage,\u201d to which television adds, the stage is Las Vegas. Television thus dictates discourse both on- and off-screen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Business <\/strong>But<\/em><\/strong> Show Business<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As print culture<\/a> once influenced the way we practiced politics, religion, business, and education, television shapes our behavior in those arenas today: <\/p>\n\n\n\n