Thread: Media and its effects on culture/Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

This is the opening for a paper I'm writing on media's effects on culture, as well as thoughts on Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Thoughts?

The layout of American living rooms is an indication of the cultural evolution that media, especially television, has created. When once, our couches faced each other, they now address the television; instead of intellectual discourse between family and friends, we stare blankly at a flashing screen, and reside in our private reality. Communication of the verbal persuasion becomes an “anachronism” – “news, politics, science, education, commerce, [and] religion” become hallow words, or “disinformation”. Thus, power is in the hands of the one thing we depend on most: the media.

Postman’s thesis that television, as a medium, has made entertainment the “natural format for the representation of all experience”, and that “all subject matter is presented as entertaining” is the quintessential representation of postmodern thought, in that entertainment draws from reality to create its own, culturally grotesque version. A culture fades, through this metamorphosis, in one of tow ways: “in the first” Postman says, through the Orwellian – culture becomes a prison. In the second, the Huxley – culture becomes a burlesque”. Television, in America, has produced the Huxley culture, but because in a Huxley culture the enemy (television) is so cleverly disguised that even we, who prefer the visual to the verbal, can not see what sits just before our eyes, television becomes indomitable. The only hope, Postman says, is “our schools”.

Yet even the media has scandalously disturbed the scholarly atmosphere of the schoolyard. In 1996, a school district in Colorado Springs allowed a company to place ads in school hallways, newspapers, football stadiums, and public-address system during football games, all for the sake of revenue. Adolescents are the most easily persuaded demographic in the country, stated time and again by studies that prove “that young children often [can] not tell the difference between television programming and television advertising” (Schlosser 46). Company mascots, for example, smooth the transition from one’s favorite show to a commercial, presented as the friendly face of a company. In Progressive commercials, the viewer is confronted by Flo, an upbeat cashier who offers the best insurance rates with a smile and a joke; viewers associate Progressive with warm-hearted, one-on-one service – a rarity in a country driven by mass production and the loss of the individual. Even though adolescents might be unconcerned with insurance policies, “market research has found that children often recognize a brand logo before they can recognize their own name” (Schlosser 43), creating brand loyalty through childhood nostalgia.

By targeting youth, the media urges the rest of the population to remain young, so that the prime time slot of vulnerability during youth becomes a twenty-four hour, life long and continuous ad. Toddlers in Tiaras exploits young girls who sometimes forcibly participate in beauty pageants by their nostalgic mothers, often those who participated in beauty pageants themselves. One contestant, whose mother insisted on having the girl’s eyelashes dyed, said: “I got my eyelashes dyed because everyone really wanted me too…I don’t really like them…they don’t look like my eyelashes” (Toddlers in Tiaras). In another episode, a mother dressed her daughter as the character Vivian, a prostitute, from Pretty Woman. These images of “very young girls in highly sexual situations and poses [imply] that they are classic ‘Lolitas’ – knowledgeable, wanton, and seductive” – they send messages “to adults that little girls should be viewed as sexy” (Durham 121). As a result, youth and beauty coincide, highlighting outer beauty and dismissing the aging process – a burden that plastic surgeons are eager to relieve. The makers of Barbie further distort the image of beauty. A life sized Barbie doll, for example, adheres to scientifically improbable proportions: a thirty-nine inch bust, an eighteen inch waist, thirty-three inch hips, and a size three shoe (Durham 96). A woman with these measurements would not be able to menstruate, much less stand up straight.

Though women are generally the favorite subject for objectification, men don’t always escape the media’s critique. Men are sometimes portrayed as subservient to women, for the sake of the product’s appeal to women. 1^st For Women produced a commercial in which a group of men accidently drive off a low cliff; at the end of the ad, the words “Why we only insure women.” flashed across the screen. In the same respect, a Spontex commercial featured a woman who claimed that men were useless in the kitchen, and proved her point by comparing the Spontex sponge’s cleaning ability to the cleaning ability of the man’s face. Obviously, the literal comparison is ridiculous, but the implication of traditional gender roles, and more importantly, the idea that certain skills, like cooking, are inherently feminine and completely forbidden to men, enforces the idea that one gender must be superior to the other. Using this tactic superficially convinces the consumer that the company promotes progressive gender ideals, which instills a false sense of, in these two cases, women empowerment; as a result, the consumer buys the product and prides herself on purchasing from a company that respects her gender.

This is the result of advertising in schools: a social structure similar to that of the 1950’s, masquerading as a seemingly modern and socially satisfied society. Instead of forming opinions in the one place where thought should be encouraged, advertisers strive to think for students instead.

When a country evolves from an “empire of production” to an “empire of consumption” (qtd. in Hedges 150), it can no longer sustain itself and compels its own destruction. Great empires have all fallen, not by threat of a foreign country, but by their own doing and in this way, from the inside out. With the media’s persuasive power at its peak – that is, having access to a plethora of corruptible mediums – commerce has consumed society. Whereas consumption once implied an illness, it now describes a way in which to forward the economy: advertisers suggest a product, and consumers trot off to the store to fulfill their “meaningless, consumer-driven lives” (10 Things I Hate About You), which is in itself, perhaps, an illness. Those who do not consume mass amounts attempt to counterbalance active consumption. From this, advertisers have found that “’the organization cannot trust the individual; the individual must trust the organization’” (Schlosser 5). However, that doesn’t stop the media from marketing products toward the non-conformist. Miracle Whip’s polarized “mayo or no mayo” campaign features consumers who literally confess their love for Miracle Whip, and those who express their adamant detestation of it. To the viewer, the ad proves Miracle Whip’s unbiased representation of itself; finally, thinks the self-proclaimed nonconformist, an advertisement that accepts my wish to be unfettered by product bias – perhaps I’ll invest in it. Thus, regardless of the efforts we make to disregard the media’s persuasion, at the end of the day, we are all “weapons of massive consumption” (Allen).

In The Republic, Socrates describes a group of men who live in a cave, chained permanently to the rear of the den since childhood, and enveloped in complete darkness. A fire is lit and casts shadows on the cave wall; as a result, they see “the truth [as] literally nothing but the shadows of the images” (Plato). Socrates’ description bears a striking resemblance to the influence of television on society’s beliefs. For example, Rick Perry recently claimed that Social Security is Ponzi scheme; a Fox News poll claimed that 75% of its nearly 100,000 voters expressed their agreement with Perry’s statement. Though he stated in Fed Up!, his book published just last year, that Social Security is a failure, it was not until the televised Republican debates, on September 7^th of this year, that the media highly publicized his claim. Not only does the change in thought on Social Security emphasize the number of viewers television receives, but the dramatic difference between those who read, and those watch television, not to mention the coverage of one over the other. While the Fox News poll surveyed only a small percentage of Americans, the image that Perry presented still proves to further Socrates’ allegory: if only one image is presented, there can be no alternative. We become “enslaved by illusion” (Hedges 182), and because submitting to the illusion is cognitively easier than thinking of an alternative, we relinquish power to the media’s grossly biased view of the world. The presidential election becomes a game show: viewer appeal, not candidate eligibility, determines the winner, as if selecting a president were as easy as nominating an American Idol winner. In fact, in 2006, American Idol received more votes during its season finale than any presidential election in history (Sweney). Still, we deceive ourselves, and though we live in the age of information, we remain so poorly informed.

Instead of consulting a professional for help, society has begun to consult the television instead; the information obtained, however, is usually ill informed. Shows like The Doctors, Dr. Phil, and even Opera loosely advise audiences on serious issues, with a small disclaimer that the advice should not act as a substitute for that of a professional. If that is so, there can be no other reason to televise patients with legitimate issues than to entertain the audience. Furthermore, no major psychological or medical issue can be resolved in a forty-five minute time span. The advice and apparently miraculous recovery of some guest patients, then, convince the audience that any problem is ameliorable, and devoid of the burden that is time. All things become a stand-up comedy routine, and television spares no expense to utilize medical patients as the brunt of its jokes.

Television has entirely replaced religion, demanding that it must be idolized instead of one’s chosen orthodox god. It is a ritual, like prayer, in which viewers dedicate themselves body and mind. The content guides them in a counterfeit version of the Ten Commandments: a strict interpretation of “how one ought to live one’s life” (Postman 135). As for television’s depiction of religion, it certainly denotes faith negatively. According to a poll conducted in 2010 by Gary Lawrence, four out of five voters believe that Mormons still practice polygamy, though the Mormon Church banned the practice, and excommunicates any member caught practicing it. Sister Wives (TLC’s reality show about one man and his three wives, all sisters) promotes the image of plural marriage among the Mormon community, which not only breeds intolerance of the Mormon faith throughout America, but also allows discrimination to adulterate important decisions, like electing the president. Mitt Romney, for example, faces discrimination because voters base their opinion of his faith on the image that television has provided. Additionally, 19 Kids and Counting features the Duggar family of nineteen children, whose parents still want more. Regardless of the Christian values the Duggar family incorporates into their parenting technique, and their hope to inspire other parents through the show, viewers watch because the Duggar family is unusual, even freakish. Viewers soon associate the radical methods of the Duggars with Christianity, which hardly helps the faith’s reputation. These ideas, presented through the medium of reality TV, are only furthered by the news.

When America sits down to watch the news, the facts presented are accepted at face value. No one questions the validity of CNN or Fox News – the familiarity of the name instills a sense of trustworthiness (i.e. brand loyalty). That is not to say that the sources are inaccurate, but that every source has its bias: facts can be omitted, embellished, or trivialized. The content of news is not always newsworthy, either. Guests like professional chefs, beauty specialists, and even celebrity gossips cover the lighter news stories, because world news like the Middle East riots and the Eurozone crisis inspire reflection, which actually requires thought. Instead of believing in the “capability to shape the future” and “transcend the present” (Friedan 312), America perceives the world through the eye of a cynic, hoping to condemn other cultures to the same fruitless fate.

Finally, the media controls the image presented to the viewer, which corrupts the viewer’s opinion, if one exists, and controls the bias. While the Orwellian culture can be easily perceived and thereby demolished, it is more difficult to conquer the Huxley culture, in which no perceivable enemy exists. Indeed, our enemy is the entertainment we rely on to fulfill our lives. The images complete us, the pseudo-intellectual discourse convinces us that we are informed, and the rest simply leaves us unarmed and entertained. We are unaware of our uselessness and profligate habits; television has made us numb to them. In short, we have ”fed the heart on fantasy, [and] the heart’s grown brutal from the fare” (13-14).

Hello Rosie,
I gonna have to leave it to others to comment on this one. I think my English is letting me down;plus I don't know Postman's thesis.
Sorry, I hope others can help.
Take care,
Cricri

.

Quote: 'The only hope is in our schools' - maybe - if we oldies encourage them to read the history books and to ask questions.

We should teach them to stand up against the flow, to form a personal opinion and to be prepared to defend politely their position.

They must judge what is right and what is wrong.

They must stand out in the crowd, be prepared to accept criticism and to move on.

They must read, they must think, they must write, they must travel, they must look, they must watch, they must see, they must ask.

They must work out what they want to do with their lives and then they must consider how they are going to achieve their aims and objectives.

They must accept: "only do what you would to others as you would have done to yourself".

We oldies have left to them what they have now got and it ain't perfect - so now they must work out why it needs improving and do something about it.

The Internet gives them the power to gain the knowledge they need to acquire, it remains for them to be selective in what they believe - as always.

The amount of knowledge youngsters need to acquire to make something of themselves in this modern world is phenomenal but the prize for success is
also way beyond the imagination of my Father's generation. But it will only work if they remember to leave a crumb or two on the plate for the less capable.

For an intelligent native speaker and writer of the English language, the world is his/her oyster. Dreams won't do it but aspirations might.

Until the chip is fitted in the back of the neck, Orwell's fears have not come true.

DV

NB I am not sure I would want to be born again into this era. It looks daunting to me but the scope is there and many of the barriers which have stood in front of my generation during my lifetime have been removed. What today's youngsters have to come to terms with is that this Earth is filling up with people.

I've added quite a bit more. Check it out if you'd like.

Overpopulation is a huge problem. If it's any consolation we have peaked on energy production and with the finite amount of Hydrogen in our universe our survival as a species as we understand it comes to question, let alone colonization of other worlds or space. The good news is whenever some sort of catastrophe befalls our tenacious race (e.g. The Black Plague) when the dust settles we typically come back stronger (e.g. The Renaissance). It almost seems cyclical.

Divus, I think that reading history books could only give us insight into the idea of history those publishers had envisioned, because the winner always writes history.. I agree that we have the unique advantage of living not in the age of bronze, but the information age. All we have to do is cast a discerning eye at this information so amply available and weed through the malarkey, and most importantly ACT on that information. "All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.", right?

(I like the word aspiration - wasn't it Aurelius that said, "Ambition is a mean man's attempt to aspire."? something like that, I'm probably paraphrasing)

I like the OP. Very thought provoking.

Thank you, everyone, for all your thoughtful comments. I've finally finished the beast, and have posted it in it's entirety.