Scan barcode
jessjohnnson's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
Postman offers a great analysis of how media shapes culture and discourse. In a print-based society exposition was commonplace as well as critically approaching topics of discussion. In the advent of television as the prevailing media much of the context and nuance has been stripped from subjects (religion, politics, news, commerce, etc.) in lieu of image, visual appeal, and provoking an emotional reaction.
ehunsy's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.5
The author had very interesting premises, however was looking on such a large scale that it seemed to ignore the individual's role in communicating through and engaging with mediums.
Additionally there were certain views of historical events that were more from his personal experience than what the records, statistics, and studies I've seen would indicate.
Additionally there were certain views of historical events that were more from his personal experience than what the records, statistics, and studies I've seen would indicate.
capshaw's review against another edition
5.0
Amusing Ourselves to Death asserts that as technologies are inseparable from the message they deliver; because of this, as one technology pushes another out, we should be concerned with how it affects our perception of truth and the world around us: “the concept of truth is intimately linked to the biases of forms of expression” (22).
As an overarching theme of the book, Postman asserts we’re living in a Huxleyesque world (well the United States in 1985 is): “Television does not ban books, it simply displaces them” (141). The medium of television, he says, is choppy and favors contextless sound-bites over the long-form discourse that one can get from books and essays. With this constant stream of out-of-context, irrelevant, stories, “the public has adjusted to incoherence and been amused into indifference” (110-111).
The big weakness of this book is its age, as television has quickly been eclipsed by the internet. I laughed when Postman writes that “the computer to be a vastly overrated technology” (161). However, the now-outdated focus on television doesn’t diminish the underlying message. I’d love to see a modern take on these ideas now that we have pervasive internet access and social media.
I highly recommend this book. It’s no surprise that this book was written when Ronald Reagan was president. Now that Donald Trump is president, it is probably as relevant as ever.
As an overarching theme of the book, Postman asserts we’re living in a Huxleyesque world (well the United States in 1985 is): “Television does not ban books, it simply displaces them” (141). The medium of television, he says, is choppy and favors contextless sound-bites over the long-form discourse that one can get from books and essays. With this constant stream of out-of-context, irrelevant, stories, “the public has adjusted to incoherence and been amused into indifference” (110-111).
The big weakness of this book is its age, as television has quickly been eclipsed by the internet. I laughed when Postman writes that “the computer to be a vastly overrated technology” (161). However, the now-outdated focus on television doesn’t diminish the underlying message. I’d love to see a modern take on these ideas now that we have pervasive internet access and social media.
I highly recommend this book. It’s no surprise that this book was written when Ronald Reagan was president. Now that Donald Trump is president, it is probably as relevant as ever.
zetsurin's review against another edition
2.0
I wanted to like this so much. I'm a big fan of Roger Waters amused to death, and Huxley. I found the arguments wanting, especially the linguistic ones.
The premise still seems quite good and interesting, I just didn't find the arguments convincing.
The premise still seems quite good and interesting, I just didn't find the arguments convincing.
malikp's review against another edition
5.0
Neil Postman's principal claim in -Amusing Ourselves to Death- is that television and American television culture, has dramatically changed the ways in which we consume and discuss knowledge in a negative way. Amusing Ourselves to Death is a digestible form of of medium/media criticism that offers a critique on television culture from the point of promoting anti-intellectualism.
On page 28 Postman says, "I am arguing that a television-based epistemology pollutes public communication and its surrounding landscape..." A shift from the print based information culture of the American enlightenment days, Postman throughout the book makes the point that upon the introduction of the telegraph, it "made a three-pronged attack on typography's definition of discourse, introducing on a large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence." (65) This, along with the photograph being used in order to substantialize non-news, gave way to the television culture we find ourselves in today.
"Television gave the epistemological biases of the telegraph and photograph their most potent expression, raising the interplay of image and instancy to an exquisite and dangerous perfection." (78)
Postman says, "The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining..." He continues, "No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that [all discourse] is there for our amusement and pleasure." (87)
This becomes an issue when television's entertainment focused ideology reaches into parts in our lives that are not necessarily supposed to be entertaining for entertainment's sake, such as education and politics. "If on television, credibility replaces reality as the decisive test of truth-telling, political leaders need not trouble themselves.. with reality provided that their performances consistently generate a sense of verisimilitude." (102) In other words, if something looks too good to be true, so what?
Ending on this quote, "Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world." (106)
I recommend this book.
On page 28 Postman says, "I am arguing that a television-based epistemology pollutes public communication and its surrounding landscape..." A shift from the print based information culture of the American enlightenment days, Postman throughout the book makes the point that upon the introduction of the telegraph, it "made a three-pronged attack on typography's definition of discourse, introducing on a large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence." (65) This, along with the photograph being used in order to substantialize non-news, gave way to the television culture we find ourselves in today.
"Television gave the epistemological biases of the telegraph and photograph their most potent expression, raising the interplay of image and instancy to an exquisite and dangerous perfection." (78)
Postman says, "The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining..." He continues, "No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that [all discourse] is there for our amusement and pleasure." (87)
This becomes an issue when television's entertainment focused ideology reaches into parts in our lives that are not necessarily supposed to be entertaining for entertainment's sake, such as education and politics. "If on television, credibility replaces reality as the decisive test of truth-telling, political leaders need not trouble themselves.. with reality provided that their performances consistently generate a sense of verisimilitude." (102) In other words, if something looks too good to be true, so what?
Ending on this quote, "Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world." (106)
I recommend this book.
lapingveno's review against another edition
5.0
Since I re-read both 1984 and Brave New World this year before reading this, I think the book packed an even more potent punch since it leaned upon both novels heavily for analogy.
This book should be required reading for every man, woman, and child in the United States of America.
Even though its polemic against television is dated, its assertions about the aforementioned medium can easily be applied to television's modern analogs/descendants: social media, video games, streaming, YouTube, etc.
As a teacher, I must say that the chapter discussing the inherent assumption of students to be 'entertained' particularly resonated with me!
This book should be required reading for every man, woman, and child in the United States of America.
Even though its polemic against television is dated, its assertions about the aforementioned medium can easily be applied to television's modern analogs/descendants: social media, video games, streaming, YouTube, etc.
As a teacher, I must say that the chapter discussing the inherent assumption of students to be 'entertained' particularly resonated with me!
adambroud's review against another edition
3.0
This is the second time I've read this book. The first time was when I was a teenager and my thinking was a lot more black and white. Now that I'm a little older and see the world in a lot more grays, it's a little harder to stomach this book.
Overall i would say that i agree with the books main argument that the medium in which we communicate shapes how we communicate as well as what we communicate about; however, the author makes his arguments in such an austere manner that it's hard to agree with someone who comes off as such a crotchety old man. The author fails to bend in any way in expressing that television can have some value to society even if it is in merely entertainment. He argues that with multiple forms of media compete and that the more relevant one will inherently shape the country's thought process seemingly regardless of the pervasiveness if the other medium. This all or nothing attitude seems too rash, especially in a world now dominated by computers which in many ways melds television and the written word.
The other main issue i take with this book is that there seems to be little talk of an individual's ability to moderate themselves. Within the last week I've read over 1000 pages easily. That being said, I also enjoy a good movie or tv show here and there. Though this may seem anecdotal, i believe that it would be foolish to believe that any person who consciously chooses to moderate their media is a loss cause simply because they have a more modern influencer in their lives.
I did enjoy the main theories of the book. I appreciated the comparisons of public discourse in the age of print compared to now, even if some of the assumptions about the culture of the times seemed idealistic. I think this book does the good of encouraging dialogue not only about what we consume but how we consume it. It's important to know your biases.
Overall it's a decent book. With a more reasonable debate style and some acknowledgment towards the complexity of the issue, it could be a great book.
Overall i would say that i agree with the books main argument that the medium in which we communicate shapes how we communicate as well as what we communicate about; however, the author makes his arguments in such an austere manner that it's hard to agree with someone who comes off as such a crotchety old man. The author fails to bend in any way in expressing that television can have some value to society even if it is in merely entertainment. He argues that with multiple forms of media compete and that the more relevant one will inherently shape the country's thought process seemingly regardless of the pervasiveness if the other medium. This all or nothing attitude seems too rash, especially in a world now dominated by computers which in many ways melds television and the written word.
The other main issue i take with this book is that there seems to be little talk of an individual's ability to moderate themselves. Within the last week I've read over 1000 pages easily. That being said, I also enjoy a good movie or tv show here and there. Though this may seem anecdotal, i believe that it would be foolish to believe that any person who consciously chooses to moderate their media is a loss cause simply because they have a more modern influencer in their lives.
I did enjoy the main theories of the book. I appreciated the comparisons of public discourse in the age of print compared to now, even if some of the assumptions about the culture of the times seemed idealistic. I think this book does the good of encouraging dialogue not only about what we consume but how we consume it. It's important to know your biases.
Overall it's a decent book. With a more reasonable debate style and some acknowledgment towards the complexity of the issue, it could be a great book.