Scan barcode
strategineer's review against another edition
5.0
Amusing Ourselves to Death is a book about the corrosive effects of television on our politics and public discourse. Now, with television joined by more sophisticated electronic media—from the Internet to cell phones to DVDs— it's more relevant than ever.
Despite being published in the 80s, this was a great read.
The Internet is the "new" technology that's accelerated us on a path we've been put on by TV initially, many years ago, and ever since then, the way public discourse happens has changed drastically, and not for the better.
The people who get elected today aren't well spoken orators who can reason about the tough societal issues we're faced with, they're Twitter trolls.
This didn't just happen over night and for no good reason. Neil Postman believes that TV (and if he was alive, he would be pointing the finger at the big tech companies I'm sure) is in part to blame for this and through his words he convinced me of this as well.
TV and the Internet are here to stay. The question is: what can we do to stop it from helping bad faith actors from getting and retaining power and ruining things for the rest of us?
Despite being published in the 80s, this was a great read.
The Internet is the "new" technology that's accelerated us on a path we've been put on by TV initially, many years ago, and ever since then, the way public discourse happens has changed drastically, and not for the better.
The people who get elected today aren't well spoken orators who can reason about the tough societal issues we're faced with, they're Twitter trolls.
This didn't just happen over night and for no good reason. Neil Postman believes that TV (and if he was alive, he would be pointing the finger at the big tech companies I'm sure) is in part to blame for this and through his words he convinced me of this as well.
TV and the Internet are here to stay. The question is: what can we do to stop it from helping bad faith actors from getting and retaining power and ruining things for the rest of us?
thevecht's review against another edition
4.0
A book about books being great and tv being pure entertainment.
acciohannah's review against another edition
5.0
One of those books that everyone should read. Fascinating and both comforting and concerning, Postman does a great job highlighting historical and contemporary examples of how American culture is truly built on entertainment and how human greed has taken advantage of this fact for centuries, especially now.
deschatjes's review against another edition
4.0
One of those books that stay with you after reading and make you think and reconsider your world view. Yes written in 1985 and yes very American centric but in 200 pages explains a lot on how public debate & discourse / education & information was disrupted initially in the TV age and it’s easy to extrapolate to now the internet age. I am in awe with the writing of for example the 14 year old Anne Frank compared to what the average 14 year old is now capable of & books like this go a long way in explaining what’s happened .
arockinsamsara's review against another edition
3.0
Nearly forty years after its writing, there is a lot of insight in this short text. Postman could never have conceived of the current media/entertainment landscape. Even his son's foreword written for the 20th anniversary edition could not begin to conceive the different modes of media consumption we have today and how it affects all aspects of our lives.
That said, postman was looking in the right direction. The book has a *strong* "Back in my day..." / "Not in my backyard!" kind of vibe, a rose-tinted look backward at imagined halcyon days. However, as dated as its understanding of technology's further invasion into every moment of our lives may be, and as cantankerous or ornery as it may sound at times, the central thesis holds up and really, really demands attention.
In short, the medium controls the message, or form affects function. The argument is that the transition to television as the primary epistemology of understanding reality (as opposed to an epistemology based in typography) has emphasized what television, as a medium, has as its defining characteristics, and he argues only purpose, which is to entertain. Through the medium of television everything needs to be couched in entertainment, whether it be the news, religion, or education, they all demand to be presented and understand through and as entertainment. The problem then, has become that we shift our ways of understanding reality outside of the television screen to be similarly one of entertainment. What is expected of *all* politics, religion, advertising, education, etc., is that it will entertain us. As a result, our entire mode of engaging in reality, both sociologically and existentially, has shifted as a result of the employ of television as a primary means of communication.
In the four decades since this book was written there has been a huge growth of media studies, and work in this arena done by psychologists, sociologists, activists, and others deeply committed to recognizing how we as peoples exist in the world. A consequence of his own time and place Postman has a lot of blind spots regarding some of the interstitial explorations this type of study offers. And his position in time also lacks the sufficient data to analyze what benefits may have emerged from the exponential growth of television/entertainment based media consumption.
Deficiencies aside, he still forces us to ask how the way we consume media delimits the types of narrative modalities that media can offer, and more importantly, as a result of that incessant exposure how our means of engaging and understanding reality are transformed as a result of the predominant forms of media consumption.
That said, postman was looking in the right direction. The book has a *strong* "Back in my day..." / "Not in my backyard!" kind of vibe, a rose-tinted look backward at imagined halcyon days. However, as dated as its understanding of technology's further invasion into every moment of our lives may be, and as cantankerous or ornery as it may sound at times, the central thesis holds up and really, really demands attention.
In short, the medium controls the message, or form affects function. The argument is that the transition to television as the primary epistemology of understanding reality (as opposed to an epistemology based in typography) has emphasized what television, as a medium, has as its defining characteristics, and he argues only purpose, which is to entertain. Through the medium of television everything needs to be couched in entertainment, whether it be the news, religion, or education, they all demand to be presented and understand through and as entertainment. The problem then, has become that we shift our ways of understanding reality outside of the television screen to be similarly one of entertainment. What is expected of *all* politics, religion, advertising, education, etc., is that it will entertain us. As a result, our entire mode of engaging in reality, both sociologically and existentially, has shifted as a result of the employ of television as a primary means of communication.
In the four decades since this book was written there has been a huge growth of media studies, and work in this arena done by psychologists, sociologists, activists, and others deeply committed to recognizing how we as peoples exist in the world. A consequence of his own time and place Postman has a lot of blind spots regarding some of the interstitial explorations this type of study offers. And his position in time also lacks the sufficient data to analyze what benefits may have emerged from the exponential growth of television/entertainment based media consumption.
Deficiencies aside, he still forces us to ask how the way we consume media delimits the types of narrative modalities that media can offer, and more importantly, as a result of that incessant exposure how our means of engaging and understanding reality are transformed as a result of the predominant forms of media consumption.
krichardson's review against another edition
3.5
He definitely has a point but it was said in the most curmudgeonly old man way that it was hard to agree with.