Scan barcode
ivarw's review against another edition
5.0
4.5
Eloquently written, strikingly relevant (though he severely underestimates the computer and has not yet heard of the mobile phone). I have joked to some friends that he should be glad he died in 2003, for I assume he would not be able to handle the state of our present society.
Eloquently written, strikingly relevant (though he severely underestimates the computer and has not yet heard of the mobile phone). I have joked to some friends that he should be glad he died in 2003, for I assume he would not be able to handle the state of our present society.
jameshaus's review against another edition
4.0
i'm a fan of cranky old scolds and some degree of ludditry, so I was already the target demographic for this book. Written in 1985, it's a pretty interesting take on how technology changes society, how we think, how we talk, and what we talk about. His basic thesis that we've gone from the most literate nation in history (at the dawn of our society) and have slid into entertainment crazed triva-hounds who don't really know anything important is interesting and to some degree persuasive. He has some AWESOME one-liners towards the end of the book that just smack us all around for being TV zombies who can't tell truth from fiction anymore. He has no good solutions of course. I largely agree with him on the problem with a culture so dominated by entertainment, but I'm pretty pessimistic about a solution. He thinks education is the answer, and then immediately laughs and admits even that probably wouldn't work. Short of a world-wide disaster and return to pre-electric levels of technology, I don't think there's any good way to unplug from the grid we've created for ourselves. Anyway, if you're into reading this sort of thing, it's worth a read. His case is compelling. I would really love to have seen his reaction to the internet and twitter. His paragraph on why the telegraph was useless could more or less be said about twitter.
How is twitter like the telegraph? How is it different? Discuss.
How is twitter like the telegraph? How is it different? Discuss.
simazhi's review against another edition
3.0
The main premises of the book are still valid: (1) the nature of the message depends on the medium it is delivered in; (2) currently drifting towards a Huxleyan world, not an Orwellian one. Or maybe we're already there, it's hard to distinguish. The arguments used come across as cherry picking and some have been debunked since its publication in 1985. And I don't know, can't learning be alternatingly fun and strenuous? Not for Postman it seems.
gpettey19's review against another edition
Hard to rate. Important commentary with a timeless message, but also undoubtedly pretentious at times. He's surely rolling over in his grave now that television has been far surpassed by the damage social media has done to our public discourse.
Picked up after listening to Ezra Klein's The Mid-Century Media Theorists Who Saw What Was Coming episode.
Main argument: The medium is the message. How we think, talk, and write is shaped by the medium in which we're expected to communicate information. According to Postman, TV undermined American public discourse because it demanded entertainment above rhetoric, debate, and/or dialogue.
It was interesting to apply this argument to contemporary media, like the reaction buttons, which distill our communication into a simple images of love, laugh, like, or dislike—doesn't leave room for much nuance, explanation, or critical thought.
(Can't help but feel like we're all doomed.)
Picked up after listening to Ezra Klein's The Mid-Century Media Theorists Who Saw What Was Coming episode.
Main argument: The medium is the message. How we think, talk, and write is shaped by the medium in which we're expected to communicate information. According to Postman, TV undermined American public discourse because it demanded entertainment above rhetoric, debate, and/or dialogue.
It was interesting to apply this argument to contemporary media, like the reaction buttons, which distill our communication into a simple images of love, laugh, like, or dislike—doesn't leave room for much nuance, explanation, or critical thought.
(Can't help but feel like we're all doomed.)
doodlesoob's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
sonofatreus's review against another edition
5.0
I wouldn't say that this is a perfect book, but it is effective. First published in 1985, it still retains much of its persuasive power, and I'd even push some of Postman's ideas even further in the Age of the Internet.
Postman's argument is not, as I expected, that TV per se is bad for our brains. Instead, he argues that TV that is meant to be taken seriously (news shows, televised politics, "educational" TV like Sesame Street) is what's bad. "Junk" TV like Cheers or The A-Team, he says, is doing exactly what TV is good at and does no harm to the public discourse. He traces TV's rise, and the decay on public discourse, from the Age of Print — he is a little cursory getting up to the 18th century — before turning to the telegraph and photograph (his predecessors to the TV), then spends the second half of the book on TV proper. He has chapters on televised religion, politics, news, etc. Each chapter goes back to the early 20th century to see how different that sphere of public life has changed since TV became dominant. For Postman, the summation of all of these changes is like Huxley's Brave New World, where we've amused ourselves into a stupid-prison. He is pretty skeptical of the Orwellian fears of tyranny that he says are more apt for other parts of the world.
Again, it's not a perfect book but it's easy to read and his ideas seem to have borne fruit. In the age of Twitter and Facebook, our attentions are like gnats' and we are reaping what we sowed.
Postman's argument is not, as I expected, that TV per se is bad for our brains. Instead, he argues that TV that is meant to be taken seriously (news shows, televised politics, "educational" TV like Sesame Street) is what's bad. "Junk" TV like Cheers or The A-Team, he says, is doing exactly what TV is good at and does no harm to the public discourse. He traces TV's rise, and the decay on public discourse, from the Age of Print — he is a little cursory getting up to the 18th century — before turning to the telegraph and photograph (his predecessors to the TV), then spends the second half of the book on TV proper. He has chapters on televised religion, politics, news, etc. Each chapter goes back to the early 20th century to see how different that sphere of public life has changed since TV became dominant. For Postman, the summation of all of these changes is like Huxley's Brave New World, where we've amused ourselves into a stupid-prison. He is pretty skeptical of the Orwellian fears of tyranny that he says are more apt for other parts of the world.
Again, it's not a perfect book but it's easy to read and his ideas seem to have borne fruit. In the age of Twitter and Facebook, our attentions are like gnats' and we are reaping what we sowed.
lev0001's review against another edition
3.5
Well meaning. He was kinda right for a lot of it. RIP would've hated TikTok. Loved the religious section. a little off the mark for some stuff though
eloise_krabbenhoft's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
1.5