The Age of the Internet

The Peanut Gallery is part and parcel of the larger trend of culture watchers, those who analyze trends in society and comment upon their long term effects. One such culture watcher is Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. In Amusing Ourselves, published in 1985, Postman argues that while other countries may need to heed the warnings of Orwell’s 1984, in America we should be more afraid of Aldous Huxley’s prediction in A Brave New World that society will become controllable by essentially becoming frivolized. (Note: Just to be clear, neither Postman nor I are against entertainment. Postman is saying that TV is best when it's pure fun; only when TV purports to relay serious messages as entertainment does it become problematic.)

Postman’s thesis is premised on the rise of the television and the effects that such mode of communication has on how we, as a society, think, interact, conceptualize. That is, if the primary mode of communication is one that is focused on quick sound bytes, imagery, and simplified messages, then society itself will learn to think in this manner and tune out information that is more thoughtful – information that, ultimately, is not entertainment.

To give you a clearer picture of what Postman is talking about, consider the following excerpts. The first one describes the way news is delivered through the television medium:

“‘Now…this’ is commonly used on radio and television newscasts to indicate that what one has just heard or seen has no relevance to what one is about to hear or see, or possibly to anything one is ever likely to hear or see. The phrase is a means of acknowledging the fact that the world as mapped by the speeded-up electronic media has no order or meaning and not to be taken seriously.” (99)

Not only does the “now…this” format separate different news stories so that they fail to form one unified message, but they trivialize our perception of public information more generally:

“I do not mean that the trivialization of public information is all accomplished on television. I mean that television is the paradigm for our conception of public information. As the printing press did in an earlier time, television has achieved the power to define the form in which news must come, and it has also defined how we shall respond to it. In presenting news to us packaged as vaudeville, television induces other media to do the same, so that the total information environment begins to mirror television.” (111)

If news stories, delivered through the televised medium, can become entertainment, so can topics of more transcendent value, like religion. More than public discourse is at risk; the very nature of our introspection is compromised. No longer are we encouraged to contemplate abstractions; the focus instead is on TV personalities:

“Both the history and the ever-present possibilities of the television screen work against the idea that introspection or spiritual transcendence is desirable in its presence. The television screen wants you to remember that its imagery is always available for your amusement and pleasure.” (120)

Postman’s work is a couple decades old and almost entirely focused on the television; his book thus seems a bit outdated given that much of modern-day discourse occurs through or in connection with the internet. The internet, with news sites, online magazines, and a plethora of blogs, many of which offer meaningful discussion on matters of public concern, is the direct opposite of the TV. That is, the internet seems to encourage reading and people can stay informed about world events with a frequency and depth that before wasn’t as easily possible. The focus seems to be back on words, and not just images. Unlike TV, the internet appears to encourage readers to not only connect the dots but also read beyond a single news story to get a fuller picture and a variety of viewpoints on any given issue or event. Democracy itself is furthered and encapsulated by the internet, which fosters not only access to information but also allows readers to participate in debates. Readers from across the world can debates news and social commentary.

Although the internet appears to ameliorate concerns that American society will turn away from public discourse in favor of pure entertainment, it seems to me that the answer can’t be that simple. The TV continues to play a major role in American society – so how does the news-as-entertainment aspect of TV and the serious, democratic discourse of the internet work together? Is the internet stopping or even slowing down the TV-induced frivolization of public discourse? How does the rise of YouTube and other forms of TV-on-the-Internet affect this relationship and the seriousness of public discourse more generally?

The right answer may (or may not) be that TV has been replaced as the primary means by which people receive information and is merely an accessory to the internet, where people get their real news and engage in real discourse. Maybe the TV points people to the issues they should read about and research on the internet. Or maybe TV does more than that, initially shaping the debate which ultimately gets played out online.