Scan barcode
A review by paladintodd
Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman
1.0
Really hating this book - it's solidly in "old man declares new technology is bad, bad I say!". Most disgusting, it's all dressed up as a scholarly book while being devoid of any reason at all.
First off, as in all old man bitches, we have to start with "the good ole days". In this case, Portman gives us a full chapter on his ideal time: The Lincoln-Douglas debates and the days when "boys would read Emerson while plowing the fields" (to paraphrase). The latter I'm guessing is bullshit, but let's pretend the former is true.
Portman then turns his attention to TV and makes his declaration that "information without action" is worthless and that his complaint about TV and modern "news" - it doesn't actually change anything for the consumer of it. He throws in that voting is a worthless action as well - that voting alone is not a worthy enough use of information.
OK, the folks listening to the Lincoln-Douglas debate in your imaginary Utopia took what ACTION? Oh, that's right, they took no action at all. Maybe it affected how they voted, but that was it. His good ole days fails the very criteria he puts on modern technology.
Portman's premise is bullshit and his conclusion is equally bullshit. Yeah, we have new technology available to us. Technology is a tool. Sure some people use the new tools poorly while others use it to further themselves.
-----------------------------
And really, how are we supposed to take seriously a book that drapes itself in scholarly robes yet declares that gaining knowledge you don't act on is worthless? Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is worthless? Knowledge is just "an amusing bit of trivia"? This guy I should take seriously? No.
-----------------------------
Soldiering on, Part 2 would be more enlightening when he turns his attention to what he calls the Age of Show Business. He tells us that television is "a beautiful spectacle, a visual delight" and "exquisitely crafted". From that, he then immediately draws the conclusion that television "is devoted entirely to supplying its audience with entertainment".
Huh? How the hell did you reach that conclusion because you gave absolutely no evidence to support it. What a load of bullshit.
First off, as in all old man bitches, we have to start with "the good ole days". In this case, Portman gives us a full chapter on his ideal time: The Lincoln-Douglas debates and the days when "boys would read Emerson while plowing the fields" (to paraphrase). The latter I'm guessing is bullshit, but let's pretend the former is true.
Portman then turns his attention to TV and makes his declaration that "information without action" is worthless and that his complaint about TV and modern "news" - it doesn't actually change anything for the consumer of it. He throws in that voting is a worthless action as well - that voting alone is not a worthy enough use of information.
OK, the folks listening to the Lincoln-Douglas debate in your imaginary Utopia took what ACTION? Oh, that's right, they took no action at all. Maybe it affected how they voted, but that was it. His good ole days fails the very criteria he puts on modern technology.
Portman's premise is bullshit and his conclusion is equally bullshit. Yeah, we have new technology available to us. Technology is a tool. Sure some people use the new tools poorly while others use it to further themselves.
-----------------------------
And really, how are we supposed to take seriously a book that drapes itself in scholarly robes yet declares that gaining knowledge you don't act on is worthless? Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is worthless? Knowledge is just "an amusing bit of trivia"? This guy I should take seriously? No.
-----------------------------
Soldiering on, Part 2 would be more enlightening when he turns his attention to what he calls the Age of Show Business. He tells us that television is "a beautiful spectacle, a visual delight" and "exquisitely crafted". From that, he then immediately draws the conclusion that television "is devoted entirely to supplying its audience with entertainment".
Huh? How the hell did you reach that conclusion because you gave absolutely no evidence to support it. What a load of bullshit.