Scan barcode
A review by adambroud
Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman
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.