In the last paragraph on page 7 of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman writes, “The information, the content, or, if you will, the “stuff” that makes up what is called “the news of the day” did not exist-could not exist-in a world that lacked the media to give it expression.”
I agree with his statement 100%. There are so many things that go on in our world that our escalated due to the media. A great example of this media escalation I speak of is the death of Michael Jackson. Yes, Micheal Jackson was the "King of Pop", but his death was ridiculously escalated. Every music or news channel was talking about him. There are people on the news that are crying and they have never even met the guy. People sitting on his Hollywood Star crying. What Postman states is true. How many of these Michael Jackson fans would be crying if there was no media to get his death out there? There would be few, if any, that would've known of Michael Jackson's death without the media. There would be few, if any that knew things presently on the news if there actually was no news. Another thing that is "Flying" around the news is the swine flu. How many people would even know of the swine flu if it wasn't being talked about on every news channel? I know i wouldn't know what it was. It just greatly intrigues me what gets attention nowadays and what doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with Erik. The media spreads news around so far and so fast that it is almost like a virus. Sure, Michael Jackson made a great impact on the world with his music and humanitarian work, but does literally every channel on television have to talk about him and his life for the whole weekend? Do I need to see the music video for Beat It hundreds of times on television in order to get closure for the death of a man that I did not even know? The obvious answer is no. There are so many other examples, besides of Michael Jackson, of how the media escalates a 'nothing' to a 'something'.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that media coverage today, whether it be about a celebrity's death or a pandemic disease, has escalated from the time when Postman wrote this book. When Postman was writing, there were no internet or cell phones to speak of. Computers were new and most people did not own one, even less the multiple computers that we have in our homes today. Oh, if Postman could see what has become of us.
Well first off, of course the public eye—meaning the people that cried for Michael—on his Hollywood star and all that wouldn’t cry if the media hadn’t made a big fuss over it all over the television, simply because the wouldn’t know about it. Eventually the word would have spread around saying that Michael Jackson had died though. Leaving it up to the people to decided whether or not what they heard was true. Which I think would be a bigger incident in itself. Think of it like this; Rumor has it that Michael Jackson is dead… is he or is he not? The news would inevitably find its way into this situation as quick as possible through such ways of hounding the Jackson family down until they forcibly release an answer pertaining to Michael’s mysterious death. It’s just the way our media works.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erik's opinion about how mass media might become escalated over time, but i also think that mass media can also be beneficial. There are pros and cons to everything the media does, but i think that without the reports and use of the media, we wouldn't have the knowledge of half of events that are happening throughout the world. Take IREPORTS for example. They publicize and escalate the war in Iraq, and I think people feel more protected because they are more aware. Also, the media is based on what the people want to hear. If the people want to hear about Michael Jackson, the media is going to cover Michael Jackson, but only because they KNOW people will watch because we all know that media reports are based on ratings. So I do not disagree about what Erik has stated, because I believe that media coverage can be both irresponsible and biased, but at the same time, the use of the media can help.
ReplyDelete-Matt Edwards
I can somewhat agree with you Erik. When i read this section of the book I too thought of the Michael Jackson versus Swine flu posted on the web on all over the news. I can't completely agree with Huxley because what's goin on is spread by the news, however it isn't created by the news channel. How can these "news of the day facts" be apart of "technological imagination" when these events really happened? Yes, he states things such as fires etc. we would have no concern of, but think of how many lives were saved do to the awarence of swine flu?
ReplyDelete-kaylah wade
I agree on Erik's take on how the media can blow many things out of proportion. But i can somewhat disagree on the pessimistic view of the media. True, things like a death of a famous person will get people worked up. But if people weren't able to receive news about the death of one, then how will they be able to get news of something that could endanger many? Sure if some people didn't get the news of one person dying, no one would get hurt. But what if the same people didn't get the news of something like a disease like swine flu? That disease could have easily spread throughout many countries killing thousands, maybe even millions. This doesn't point away from the fact that the media is corrupt in what they put out. But in my opinion, its better to overreact, than to not react if it is for the best of the health and the safety of people as a whole.
ReplyDeleteSure the media is EXTREMELY helpful is spreading news, but that's what its supposed to do. Throughout history, people's communication systems have improved to spread news quicker, more efficiently and accurately. The media talking about swine flu is a good thing, but the media airs events like MJ's death so much that they make other news events appear less important because MJ's death got more airtime.
ReplyDeleteI see where Matt comes from when he says "If the people want to hear about Michael Jackson, the media is going to cover Michael Jackson, but only because they KNOW people will watch because we all know that media reports are based on ratings." I think it would be much better if the media took a step back and aired events that were globally-affecting and important instead of what will get the ratings higher. I know certain channels that are more global do air these events, but they're boring! It would make the public more aware if channels like 4 and 11 aired these events too and mixed it in with more 'interesting' news.
Haha I think the swine flu is some hoax or conspiracy, whatever really. You know, it's one of those things to get some green hunger satisfied. But whatever, it's just me seeing things in a non-apocalyptic way.
ReplyDeleteMedia, like everything else in this world, can be good or bad depending on how people use it or take it. Michael Jackson is a huge influence on millions of people. He was just so great as a musician and a lot of people are feeling this shocking loss. I agree with Matt; it's what people want to know. It's what people are paying their electric bills for. It's what's making the pay checks at NBC News. It always ends up depending on THE PEOPLE. We just let the media take advantage of us when we're supposed to be the one taking advantage of it. If we choose to be more interested in the more important stuff, then I'm sure Katie Couric would allow that.
The truth is most important but it's not always what we want to hear. I wish the local news stuff would show the true crimes of the city; the blood and the despair. It wouldn't be nice but it's a step forward.
I like how Mika pointed out everything depends on THE PEOPLE. The media shows us what we want, right? Does this mean the media is working for us, showing us want we want? Why don't we tell the media what we'd like to see - the real brutal truth. That would make sense, but maybe we have just gotten used to valuing subjects that are not important.
ReplyDeleteIn Brave New World, they are conditioned into their thoughts because they really do not know any better. We have more of a choice than the characters in the book. We just do not voice our opinions enough.