In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman mainly discusses the negative effects of television and our addiction to entertainment. He does mention some support of “print”; however, he touches on its benefits rather briefly. That is why I am interested in elaborating on the advantages of “print”. Why does Postman believe that the “epistemology created by television is inferior to a print-based epistemology”?
Print media engages a person’s critical faculty at the most fundamental level as it is the oldest form of media and therefore the most deeply rooted and high evolved of all media forms. When a person reads, the brain must actively assimilate and process information at a rapid rate
Furthermore, the brain has no distractions when reading print – no sounds, images, or physical interactivity of any kind (such as those available on television) – only words. As a result, an individual reading is forced to extract as much as possible from the words in order to evaluate their meaning, context, relevance, and value. This encourages the development of critical thinking skills. As opposed to television (which is a passive activity as it does not require any form of action), reading is an active activity and therefore develops mental activity.
Another reason that print media (reading) is better than television in terms of epistemology is because the participant (reader) is in control of the delivery, or pacing, of the content. If one does not understand something after initially reading it, one can pause and scrutinize it before continuing (as we all probably did while reading Postman). This controlled rate of assimilation is much different than television, where the content is streamed at the viewer in real time, which the viewer cannot change. If a television viewer does not quite understand the full scope of the dialogue she just heard, there isn’t enough time to reflect on it, for new dialog and develops are already occurring (For example, in chapter 7 of Amusing Ourselves to Death, “Now… this” – Postman mentions the speed of electronic media “the newscaster means that you have thought long enough on the previous matter that you must not be morbidly preoccupied with it, and that you must now give your attention to another fragment of news or a commercial”). Yes, it is possible to record the television show and then rewind it several times, but this is an inconvenience beyond what most people are willing to go through. Just a few minutes of analytical thinking along a single train of thought, such as a sentence in a novel, can yield important internal discoveries for a reader (as we’ve all probably discovered throughout our reading adventures).
With this is mind, do you agree with Postman that the “epistemology created by television is inferior to a print-based epistemology”?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Reading is so much more active than watching television, which is such a passive activity. Granted, sometimes we need to just be "fed" and we don't care if it's junk or not. Reading requires the reader to meet the writer on the page. There is so much going on when someone is reading and engaged. It is so much more than eyes passing over print. Meaning is being constructed between writer and reader.
I can see why Postman considers printing over television. Reading challenges the mind and expands the mind's imagination. However, even though reading has so many benefits to the mind, many people still dislike reading. I think it is because reading consumes so much brainpower and time while sitting on the couch and flipping the channels is so much easier on the brain. The benefits of reading overpowers television (this is on television commercials, which I find ironic) yet as Postman says, television simply overpowers reading.
Willy, why does the hawk see so well? Why does the hawk fly so fast? BECAUSE THE MOUSE IT WANTS TO EAT IS QUICK. If the mouse was slow and stupid, all the hawk would have to do is lay around on the ground, open its beak, and wait for a stupid mouse to walk in. The struggle is what makes us strong, and clever and beautiful.
Post a Comment