Alright, now that I have your attention, I would like to discuss some of the content within chapter five of Amusing Ourselves to Death that I found intriguing.
"Prior to the age of telegraphy,
the information-action ratio was sufficiently close so that most people had a
sense of being able to control some of the contingencies in their lives. What
people knew about had action-value. In the information world created by
telegraphy, this sense of potency was lost, precisely because the whole world
became the context for news. Everything became everyone's business. For the
first time, we were sent information which answered no question we had asked,
and which, in any case, did not permit the right of reply" (69).
I found this really interesting because most of the news today are not news in which we can take action amongst ourselves, which Postman clearly talks about in this chapter. This is not only limited to the radio, but to all forms of media. Great, Kim K. received a nose job, but how will that benefit us? It is merely another form of entertainment. This is not only limited to celebrities and their lifestyles, but to other daily news as well. A fire, an accident in another town, world affairs - what can you do about it, and how will it affect you? Sure, maybe if it is near your area you can take cover, but that usually is not the case. "The news elicits from you a variety of opinions about which you can do nothing except to offer them as more news, about which you can do nothing." All a person can do is voice their opinion, and even then one is still unable to make a difference besides spreading the gossip.
Another point I found interesting was that quantity, not quality, plays a major factor when producing news. Which magazines and newspapers sell the most? What does the public find most interesting? Does 24-hour news really have news that one can apply to themselves, or is it just nonstop irrelevant talking that cannot be applied to one's lifestyle? News companies are more focused on making higher sales rather than the quality of the news. Now I’m not saying that all companies are like that, but it is the truth that many of them are.
I would like to hear others’ opinions on this, so please comment down below.
By the way, Kim never really publicly announced her plastic surgeries, I just wanted to get your attention and start off in a different way rather than saying “hello”. I was also able to apply her to my thread, however she really is selling a book of her selfies haha. Thanks for reading!
I like your post Kristine (: I also like how you used a celebrity-who, by the way, does nothing whatsoever for the greater good of mankind-to get our attention rather than some scientist developing something that'll actually benefit us. I guess that just proves your point that in our world today, this is what we find entertaining. Although, I think most of us on this blog would've actually found a fact on a scientist much more interesting. Anyway, it's really sad what we call "news" these days because, like you pointed out, much of it has nothing to do with us personally; however, I suppose they just like to make us aware of what's going on with the world or even the next town over (which I guess could be a good thing, depending on its relevance).
ReplyDeleteWhat irks me though is the amount of shows that are dedicated to bringing entertainment news. Why we worship celebrities like they found a cure to cancer is beyond me. Honestly, I don't care if Kim Kardashian got plastic surgery or if Beyoncé is getting divorced or whether or not Justin Bieber is back with Selena Gomez, and why should I, or any of us for that matter, when there are so much more going on in the world that actually impacts us? One of the downsides to technology is the arbitrary information being shared because of it's simple-ness. I’m done with my celeb rant now.
Oh, and the point you made on how some newspapers are all about sales, I want to say that that is pretty much true for a lot of things. On The Shallows, Carr brought up the way we’ve begun altering our newspapers and such so that it would better fit into our society, enabling it to stay in business. Another thing is advertisements. UGH. I mean, Pandora plays so much commercials these days, but I really don’t want to pay for a monthly subscription to listen commercial-free. See? It’s all about the money.
Thanks for eschewing the "hello everyone" intro. Enough already.
ReplyDeleteKim Karsashian does not threaten our culture or our intellectual life. She is trivial and everyone knows she's trivial. The fact that there's a market for such things is disturbing, but no one would ever take any of that stuff seriously. Even the most benumbed celebrity junkie could not claim that she matters in any culturally important sense.
Media is dangerous when it pretends to matter, not when it presents dumb stuff for the purpose of entertainment.
Mary, no industry has been harder hit by technology than the music industry. I pay for my Spotify subscription for two reasons: First, I hate the commercials, like you do. But also, I want to support music, and help artists to live a life and buy food and electricity and crazy stuff like that.