“In the ancient world, there was a tradition of banishing or killing the bearer of bad tidings. Does the television news show restore, in a curious form, this tradition? Do we banish those who tell us the news when we do not care for the face of the teller?”
When I read this in Chapter 7 of Amusing Ourselves to Death (it’s seven paragraphs into the beginning, page 101 in my book), one of the first things I thought about was television today - not just the news that Postman is talking about, but virtually every show that’s broadcasted.
Television used to be made up of real talent and entertainment, if you will. Of course, there are still television shows and whole channels where real acting is taking place today, but still, the majority of all television shows are just made up of people with seemingly flawless complexions and nice hair. If a television show’s main characters don’t have good looks, most people base their opinion of the show's quality off of it. Hardly ever do they hesitate when changing the channel after deciding that the character must be boring, since the person portraying him/her has average looks. If you don’t have the perfect nose or a striking appearance, then you’re only good for the background, where you can hardly be seen and you won’t take away from the focus on the main characters. Some shows today don’t even go to any lengths to hide it; in fact, some shows are entirely made up to revolve around ‘how the rich and beautiful’ live. Even award shows are popularity contests, where popularity just translates into good looks. More than often, the pretty people who are the closest to 'perfection' are the ones with the most fans, so it’s not even a matter of who was the ‘Best Male Actor,’ it’s just a matter of who had the most appealing face.
Does this not sound similar to what Postman is saying? Aren’t we doing the same thing as people do with the news by putting those that are pleasing to our eye in front, while the rest are forgotten or put in the back?
When I read this in Chapter 7 of Amusing Ourselves to Death (it’s seven paragraphs into the beginning, page 101 in my book), one of the first things I thought about was television today - not just the news that Postman is talking about, but virtually every show that’s broadcasted.
Television used to be made up of real talent and entertainment, if you will. Of course, there are still television shows and whole channels where real acting is taking place today, but still, the majority of all television shows are just made up of people with seemingly flawless complexions and nice hair. If a television show’s main characters don’t have good looks, most people base their opinion of the show's quality off of it. Hardly ever do they hesitate when changing the channel after deciding that the character must be boring, since the person portraying him/her has average looks. If you don’t have the perfect nose or a striking appearance, then you’re only good for the background, where you can hardly be seen and you won’t take away from the focus on the main characters. Some shows today don’t even go to any lengths to hide it; in fact, some shows are entirely made up to revolve around ‘how the rich and beautiful’ live. Even award shows are popularity contests, where popularity just translates into good looks. More than often, the pretty people who are the closest to 'perfection' are the ones with the most fans, so it’s not even a matter of who was the ‘Best Male Actor,’ it’s just a matter of who had the most appealing face.
Does this not sound similar to what Postman is saying? Aren’t we doing the same thing as people do with the news by putting those that are pleasing to our eye in front, while the rest are forgotten or put in the back?
I agree with you, Melinda. My older sister has this theory of television that in the finale of competitions, like So You Think You Can Dance and American Idol, the prettiest person wins. She hasn't been wrong so far. Also in the last Olympics (2008) I remember this story on the news that in China the girl who sang the closing ceremony song or something like that wasn't even the girl who really sang it. She was lip-syncing. A girl who wasn't so picture perfect sang it. I found that so sad.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good point. I have noticed that when it comes to the public choosing who is the best at something it always seems that the person that looks the best wins. Just take American Idol for example; everyone knows that Sanjaya was not the best singer on the show, but when it came down to the public choosing he was able to stay on the show because of his looks. I'm not saying this happens all the time because really talented people do win the awards. I guess the point is if you look good it obviously helps with how the public views you.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's exactly that. Looks are everything nowadays. The entertainment industry is pretty far if you don't have the looks. Looks are way too important in our society. Entertainment is superficial. We all forgot the saying "don't judge a book by its cover." I mean, good looks aren't everything..........most of the time.
ReplyDeleteYes this is somewhat of like a blog that i posted on looks too. In "Amsuing Ourselves" he talks about that one lady who did go hired and fired a couple months later because her looks were not adequate. That is what our lives are about today good looks.
ReplyDelete