Amusing ourselves...

If it does, I'm not entertained by it.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

If it does, I'm not entertained by it.

are you better informed from a written sources than a news channel?

0 Replies

The book is called "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business"

http://books.google.com/books?id=KEzKAAAACAAJ&dq=Neil+Postman&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Neil+Postman&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=author-navigational

0 Replies

stevewonder wrote:

Ragman wrote:
If it does, I'm not entertained by it.

are you better informed from a written sources than a news channel?

Of course, most TV news is about sound bytes and impact/sensationalism - not depth. Unless you watch PBS news. Witness the "All-Spitzer" 24 hr channel that is attempting to air on cable TV.

0 Replies

Do I agree?

Absolutely.

Which is why I'm generally not interested in TV, unless I'm tired but not tired enough to sleep (yet).

0 Replies

In 1956, we got a television. There was one channel, which broadcast 14 hours a day, six days a week . . . and there was nothing on.

Now we get 500+ channels, which are beamed to us by satellite, 24 hours a day, seven days a week . . .

. . . but there's still nothing on.

0 Replies

Oy... are you saying you don't like Masterpiece Theatre, Frontiers of Construction, How It's Made, The Secret World of Gardens, and things like that? I'd think you'd be right into them.

0 Replies

Re: Amusing ourselves...

stevewonder wrote:

I read a book by Neil Postman, the gist of the book is that TV is not so great and even TV news reporting is now entertainment compared to newspapers.
He says Tv turns everything into drama and entertainment......

do you agree??

No.
The medium is not the message.
What is written into a newspaper
can be put into a TV script.

That 's like contrasting the informational value
of typewriters v. ball point pens.

David

0 Replies

There are a series of problems inherent with getting info from TV news as a medium:

- the news can be too easily misheard. If the information is not clearly edited for word choice and clearly heard (broadcast interference and auditory interference at listener where it's received) it can be misconstrued.

- budgetary constraints contribute to poor accuracy and scope of coverage. Cutbacks for LOCAL TV news stations (vs Cable news stations like CNN) are the norm. In the last few years, local TV news station budgets have been slashed. Local station's news dept's cannot compete with cable news. Many smaller cities, other than say the topmost (10 largest) populous centers, are in a severe (TV news dep't) budget cutback mode. Errors of ommision and improper research are rampant.

- Print media by its nature can be more clearly understood. If you don't understand something that is printed, you can go back and reread it. With TV news, unless you're TiVo-ing it or recording (who goes to that much bother?), it's correct interpretation is lost and the error goes unchecked

Warning: this next one is just my opinion based on personal observation

- properly run print media's editorial departments catch more of their mistakes and are more motivated to fix them. they seems to be taken more seriously. Once something is written down, it tends to have more impact on the reader. TV news has more of a throw-away nature to it.

As an addendum...CNN due to their peculiar brand of coverage, has tried to force this US Presidential race into a 2-person race...prematurely. How's that for unbiased coverage and circumventing the democratic process?

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Oy... are you saying you don't like Masterpiece Theatre, Frontiers of Construction,
How It's Made, The Secret World of Gardens, and things like that?
I'd think you'd be right into them.

Sounding off against TV has a certain pseudo-elite snob appeal.

I must admit that sometimes, even with all of those channels,
there is nothing of interest on, but generally I love the Science Channel HD,
National Geographic Channel HD, the Military Channel HD, the Discovery Channel HD,
the History Channel HD sometimes the public TV Channel 13 HD, HD Net,
plus access to a lot of movies, some of which have appeal.

U can learn a lot from them, as u can from other media.
I 'm still waiting for the Fonetic Spelling Channel HD.

David

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

There are a series of problems inherent with getting info from TV news as a medium:

- the news can be too easily misheard. If the information is not clearly edited for word choice and clearly heard (broadcast interference and auditory interference at listener where it's received) it can be misconstrued.

- budgetary constraints contribute to poor accuracy and scope of coverage. Cutbacks for LOCAL TV news stations (vs Cable news stations like CNN) are the norm. In the last few years, local TV news station budgets have been slashed. Local station's news dept's cannot compete with cable news. Many smaller cities, other than say the topmost (10 largest) populous centers, are in a severe (TV news dep't) budget cutback mode. Errors of ommision and improper research are rampant.

- Print media by its nature can be more clearly understood. If you don't understand something that is printed, you can go back and reread it. With TV news, unless you're TiVo-ing it or recording (who goes to that much bother?), it's correct interpretation is lost and the error goes unchecked

Warning: this next one is just my opinion based on personal observation

- properly run print media's editorial departments catch more of their mistakes and are more motivated to fix them. they seems to be taken more seriously. Once something is written down, it tends to have more impact on the reader. TV news has more of a throw-away nature to it.

As an addendum...CNN due to their peculiar brand of coverage, has tried to force this US Presidential race into a 2-person race...prematurely. How's that for unbiased coverage and circumventing the democratic process?

Print media injects it's own problems into the whole issue so I'd disagree that it is any clearer - by it's nature or otherwise.

The Boston Globe is but one example of newsprint getting slammed in recent years for inter-mixing "news" with "columns" with no apparent distinction. Readers regularly assumed that "columnists" were reporting news but in fact they were presenting opinion on the news. The Globe had repeatedly attempted "fixes" to correct for reader complaints but they've failed miserably.

And I don't see how the cutbacks in the print media are any less harmful to their ability to report accurately than it is for TV media. (And the NY Times, LA Times and Boston Globe, etc... have all undergone recent cutbacks.)

While a properly run editorial dept might catch more errors in the print media (I don't know why we shouldn't assume that a "properly run" editorial dept in visual media is capable of the same thing but...) that doesn't necessarily translate into readers being informed of the changes. TV Media has the ability to correct their errors and make listeners aware of the correction within minutes. Print media relies on readers finding a "Corrections" section in the paper the next day or week.

0 Replies

You make some valid points ... but let's cut to the chase here because I'm no apologist for print media and its deficits and excesses, of which there are plenty.

On the whole, which media do you hold in higher esteem...or better put..which media are you more likely to believe and give credibility?

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

There are a series of problems inherent with getting info from TV news as a medium:

- the news can be too easily misheard. If the information is not clearly edited for word choice and clearly heard (broadcast interference and auditory interference at listener where it's received) it can be misconstrued.

- budgetary constraints contribute to poor accuracy and scope of coverage. Cutbacks for LOCAL TV news stations (vs Cable news stations like CNN) are the norm. In the last few years, local TV news station budgets have been slashed. Local station's news dept's cannot compete with cable news. Many smaller cities, other than say the topmost (10 largest) populous centers, are in a severe (TV news dep't) budget cutback mode. Errors of ommision and improper research are rampant.

- Print media by its nature can be more clearly understood.

U remind me of my reading the newspaper report of a Nixon rally in NYC
that I attended in 1960 ( Pat Nixon gave me his pre-signed autograph,
which said " The Vice-President of the United States ".... I was thrilled. )
The report mis-quoted Nixon.
That newspaper report put words into Nixon 's mouth that I knew he did not say.
I clearly remembered that he did not say
what that newspaper reporter attributed to him.

Well BEFORE that time I had adopted the filosofy of not trusting anyone
and of distrusting everyone, but this incident, for the first time,
brought home to my mind, the specific need to distrust the news media.

I saw -- right in front of me -- that thay were rong.

I saw, right in front of me, that the newspapers did not earn
the respect, nor -- even less-- the confidence of the American electorate,
nor of the public who read that newspaper report.

Quote:

If you don't understand something that is printed, you can go back and reread it.
With TV news, unless you're TiVo-ing it or recording
(who goes to that much bother?),

ME. (If I feel like it.)
I have done it.
I 've set my videotape recorder to automaticly record the news.
It facilitates the daily ingestion of the news.
Uninteresting news can be fast forwarded thru
and news of special and particular concern can be played back and preserved.

Quote:

it's correct interpretation is lost and the error goes unchecked

Warning: this next one is just my opinion based on personal observation

I think that 's the most that we can expect.

Quote:

- properly run print media's editorial departments catch more
of their mistakes and are more motivated to fix them.

Really ?
What test have u applied to ascertain either success in catching
" more of their mistakes " or to ascertain how motivated
one medium is, as distinct from the other ??
Will u tell us that ?

Quote:

they seems to be taken more seriously.

By whom ?
How did u discover this ?

Quote:

Once something is written down,
it tends to have more impact on the reader.

How much more " impact " ?
How is this additional impact manifested ?
How is it measured ?
How is it manifested ?

Quote:

TV news has more of a throw-away nature to it.

U have evidence of this ?

Quote:

As an addendum...CNN due to their peculiar brand of coverage,
has tried to force this US Presidential race into a 2-person race...prematurely.
How's that for unbiased coverage and circumventing the democratic process?

The same thing can be said in print.

Anyway, regardless of the medium,
any citizen has the right of free press
to represent the news of the day however he dam pleases
for political purposes.

David

0 Replies

Heh. "None of the above"? Razz

I've taken to cross-checking any news story I come across on at least 5 or 6 different WWW sites before I trust any of it. Maybe it's just me getting into middle age but I've become a news cynic. News delivery used to be a serious public service (both print and broadcast). Now it's all just another way to make money.

0 Replies

Generally, I flip on the boob tube when I'm too tired to do something real.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

You make some valid points ...
but let's cut to the chase

I guess the chase is probably good, right ?

Quote:

here because I'm no apologist
for print media and its deficits and excesses, of which there are plenty.

On the whole, which media do you hold in higher esteem...or better put..
which media are you more likely to believe and give credibility?

U know, Rag, if u stop to think about it:
what matters is the integrity n honesty
of either the author of the TV script for the anchor to read
or
the author of the printed description.

THE MEDIUM IS NOT THE MESSAGE.
THE MEDIUM IS NOT the criterion by which we shud judge
the veracity, nor the value, of the message.

David

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Heh. "None of the above"?

I've taken to cross-checking any news story I come across on at least
5 or 6 different WWW sites before I trust any of it. Maybe it's just me
getting into middle age but I've become a news cynic.

The 2 kinds of people in the world
r cynics n fools.

Quote:

News delivery used to be a serious public service
(both print and broadcast).
Now it's all just another way to make money.

"Serious public service" = the propagation of the author 's values & opinion.

Everything of which the human mind can conceive
is a way of making $$;
a fact only avoided by the hopelessly naive & detached from reality.

David

0 Replies

Amusing ourselves...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know