Scan barcode
thepaige_turner's review against another edition
3.0
I feel like the most obvious thing to say here is "wow this is still so relevant today!". Well, it's true. I honestly only picked this up originally because it was the inspiration (partly) for Roger Waters' album by the same name, but it's an interesting read even though it sometimes felt like I was back in school for a moment doing some assigned reading for a polisci class.
sam_bizar_wilcox's review against another edition
2.0
I struggle to see how useful this book is. I think Postman is worried about a lack of critical thinking and a loss of media literacy in the general public, and the shallowness of entertainment vis-a-vis the television. But, is this book an anachronism? Is it dated? Is it...stale?
I think where I struggle with this book is how it worries about media consumption, but often ignores the economic systems that surround it. Written in 1985, Postman is worried about how information is passed on, and the speed of information, but these concerns are ultimately not analogous to the way social media is leveraged to spread misinformation; by 2023, it seems Postman's analyses were valuable at one point, but are increasingly less so.
Postman assumes audiences are media illiterate sheeple, that children reared on T.V. will seek the fruitless pleasures of laughter over contemplation, and that T.V. propagates dangerous evangelism and political theatrics. But, it seems to me that the concern about children and education, about media literacy, and about the propagation of dangerous or problematic ideas is not unique to the T.V., and what is unique is the way these systems are conjoined in a positive feedback loop through capitalism -- something Chomsky considers more seriously. I take umbrage with the condescension that Postman seems to have for general audiences, however, which, to me, feels elitist in its dismissiveness. People, according to Postman, mindlessly numb their brains; this is the end.
But do people really lack any agency? Are they suckering themselves into an infantile position? It begs the question: why do people choose entertainment? And his concern ignites other questions. What makes television so popular? What makes politics a spectator sport?
Postman is ungenerous, or ungracious, in his reading of the American public, particularly the youth. He is a stickler, here, for the written word and deep analysis. But he doesn't ever seem to go deep enough (perhaps he wasn't trying to alienate an audience by naming the true detritus in contemporary society: neoliberalism). He draws on references to the dystopia Brave New World, where people enjoyed the sensorial experience but lost their ability to achieve higher pleasures (a very Academic notion, propounded by pesky woman-hater Aristotle), and considers entertainment and enjoyment has distractions. Okay...but distractions from what? How awful present-day life is? How unbearable it is to be alive and to suffer under late-stage capitalism? Are sheeple the problem, or are the mechanisms that force people to abdicate cultural responsibility and choose entertainment the ~actual~ problems?
I think where I struggle with this book is how it worries about media consumption, but often ignores the economic systems that surround it. Written in 1985, Postman is worried about how information is passed on, and the speed of information, but these concerns are ultimately not analogous to the way social media is leveraged to spread misinformation; by 2023, it seems Postman's analyses were valuable at one point, but are increasingly less so.
Postman assumes audiences are media illiterate sheeple, that children reared on T.V. will seek the fruitless pleasures of laughter over contemplation, and that T.V. propagates dangerous evangelism and political theatrics. But, it seems to me that the concern about children and education, about media literacy, and about the propagation of dangerous or problematic ideas is not unique to the T.V., and what is unique is the way these systems are conjoined in a positive feedback loop through capitalism -- something Chomsky considers more seriously. I take umbrage with the condescension that Postman seems to have for general audiences, however, which, to me, feels elitist in its dismissiveness. People, according to Postman, mindlessly numb their brains; this is the end.
But do people really lack any agency? Are they suckering themselves into an infantile position? It begs the question: why do people choose entertainment? And his concern ignites other questions. What makes television so popular? What makes politics a spectator sport?
Postman is ungenerous, or ungracious, in his reading of the American public, particularly the youth. He is a stickler, here, for the written word and deep analysis. But he doesn't ever seem to go deep enough (perhaps he wasn't trying to alienate an audience by naming the true detritus in contemporary society: neoliberalism). He draws on references to the dystopia Brave New World, where people enjoyed the sensorial experience but lost their ability to achieve higher pleasures (a very Academic notion, propounded by pesky woman-hater Aristotle), and considers entertainment and enjoyment has distractions. Okay...but distractions from what? How awful present-day life is? How unbearable it is to be alive and to suffer under late-stage capitalism? Are sheeple the problem, or are the mechanisms that force people to abdicate cultural responsibility and choose entertainment the ~actual~ problems?
creedmk's review against another edition
2.5
This was an interesting treatise on television and its' effect on culture. I couldn't help but think an update would be nice to discuss the computer and internet and their effects... Frightening and timely nonetheless.
hamrickishere's review against another edition
5.0
I was bummed at first that this was published over 40 years ago, but finishing it I'm mostly glad I didn't have to read the updates the internet would have on the ideas within. Always enjoy something that extends the lens as far back as possible to get the biggest picture, and this is one of the best books I've read that practices that. Not (as much) a damnation of screens, more an honest questioning of what screens do and change.
10/10
10/10