Scan barcode
lisalit's review against another edition
3.0
i really liked and appreciated the point this book is making and i think chronologically it does it quite well. i liked learning about how we came to this television era even though not much was surprising regarding what was being said about television and the cons it has.
however, and that really annoyed me during my reading, i found it could have been said in a much simpler form. i found the writing style to be quite jumpy, going from one argument to the next without much transitions and making me confused at times. it sometimes made me lose track of what i was reading and i would find myself jumping absently whole paragraphs because it was something i had understood already OR something i couldn't understand because it was making references of people from the 80's and prior.
towards the middle of the book i just wanted to be over with it. obviously i learned fun facts but, and much similar to television, what mattered was coated with information that was not necessary and made it all a bit blurry.
i wish it was clearer, better organised, and less flourished with interesting yet useless facts. it is too bad that how it was said took us away from what was being said.
however, and that really annoyed me during my reading, i found it could have been said in a much simpler form. i found the writing style to be quite jumpy, going from one argument to the next without much transitions and making me confused at times. it sometimes made me lose track of what i was reading and i would find myself jumping absently whole paragraphs because it was something i had understood already OR something i couldn't understand because it was making references of people from the 80's and prior.
towards the middle of the book i just wanted to be over with it. obviously i learned fun facts but, and much similar to television, what mattered was coated with information that was not necessary and made it all a bit blurry.
i wish it was clearer, better organised, and less flourished with interesting yet useless facts. it is too bad that how it was said took us away from what was being said.
malachi_oneill's review against another edition
4.0
lots of interesting thoughts to contemplate.
one good one I liked was the concept of the information/action ratio.
with increasingly sophisticated forms of information, there is an increase in information that is directly inactionable. there's nothing we can do with it or about it.
this sense that we must know what's going on on the other side of the planet.
ask, "how does this information directly affect what I need to or can do right now in this moment?"
extremely helpful for filtering information and the ruthless daily curation of The Algorithm feed.
one good one I liked was the concept of the information/action ratio.
with increasingly sophisticated forms of information, there is an increase in information that is directly inactionable. there's nothing we can do with it or about it.
this sense that we must know what's going on on the other side of the planet.
ask, "how does this information directly affect what I need to or can do right now in this moment?"
extremely helpful for filtering information and the ruthless daily curation of The Algorithm feed.
uzzair's review against another edition
challenging
informative
fast-paced
4.0
It is one of those books that can be prevalent in any time
paperportals's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.5
Just finished this today. This book was first published in 1985, and my goodness, so eye-opening and fascinating.
I remember jaw-dropping moments, LOL commentary that's so accurate it's scary, and an absolutely new way of looking life as we know it, but from a very specific timeframe. (I mean, he's only talking about television. The advent of the internet and the proliferation of social media are absolutely nowhere to be found.)
You know how people say, "you never know you're part of a culture until you step out of it"? This book was like a Portkey, it momentarily took me out of a specific culture (which is show business) I swim in everyday. Also, the author has a very clear stance on the matter, but he's scathingly funny. I really thought there was a portion where it was less academic presentation of research and more LOL roast.
For a book that wants to go against show business, it was highly entertaining.
But I'm curious if this book received flack for sounding pundit-y at times! (Not without good reason, imho. Also wondering if this author wrote any other books now.)
I remember jaw-dropping moments, LOL commentary that's so accurate it's scary, and an absolutely new way of looking life as we know it, but from a very specific timeframe. (I mean, he's only talking about television. The advent of the internet and the proliferation of social media are absolutely nowhere to be found.)
You know how people say, "you never know you're part of a culture until you step out of it"? This book was like a Portkey, it momentarily took me out of a specific culture (which is show business) I swim in everyday. Also, the author has a very clear stance on the matter, but he's scathingly funny. I really thought there was a portion where it was less academic presentation of research and more LOL roast.
For a book that wants to go against show business, it was highly entertaining.
But I'm curious if this book received flack for sounding pundit-y at times! (Not without good reason, imho. Also wondering if this author wrote any other books now.)
rujein's review against another edition
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.0
Postman makes the argument that television has brought american into a Huxleyan world, where information is simplistic and devoid of analysis. Analyses form of television - short, focus on visuals etc. Generally agree on his points, though i think sometimes he takes that argument too far (e.g. adding music to news doesn’t really make it less serious??).
He uses anecdotal examples to substantiate his points and there is a niggling feeling that perhaps he is cherry-picking examples (are there really NO television programmes which encourage reflection?). Furthermore, he seems to glorify print and the print age a bit too much (oh everyone was so rational then, and everyone could follow all the political arguments) - again, using anecdotal evidence which is not wholly convincing (for example he just states that audiences were able to follow an hours-long debate between lincoln and another politician, with zero evidence whatsoever). There are benefits to television that Postman entirely ignores (What about those who cannot access print for whatever reason? What about television leaving room for the audiences’ own interpretation and reflection? What do dramas or comedies bring to us?), and he valorises “rationality” a bit much without considering that subjectivity is always involved. What is wrong with transmitting a message or educating while entertaining? For that matter, what is wrong with a world with a bit more levity (considering that Postman’s analysis of the print age draws largely from America’s early years as a nation, it seems likely to me that a high level of engagement with politics and debates was very necessary to the daily lives of its people, unlike today).
In the end, I have the feeling that Postman got to the right answer using the wrong method. Yes, Postman is right that today’s world has been mediatised and politics is more about engagement than ideas, but I’m doubtful that it was really better in the print age, and i’m doubtful that it’s entirely due to television.