Name: Amusing Ourselves to Death
Rating: 3.837837837837838 (74 reviews)
ISBN: 9780143036531

Neil Postman

Examines the ways in which television has transformed public discourse--in politics, education, religion, science, and elsewhere--into a form of entertainment that undermines exposition, explanation and knowledge, in a special anniversary edition of the classic critique of the influence of the mass media on a democratic society. Reprint.

Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Amusing Ourselves to Death

What happens when media and politics become forms of entertainment? As our world begins to look more and more like Orwell's 1984, Neil's Postman's essential guide to the modern media is more relevant than ever. "It's unlikely that Trump has ever read Amusing Ourselves to Death, but his ascent would not have surprised Postman.” -CNN Originally published in 1985, Neil Postman’s groundbreaking polemic about the corrosive effects of television on our politics and public discourse has been hailed as a twenty-first-century book published in the twentieth century. Now, with television joined by more sophisticated electronic media—from the Internet to cell phones to DVDs—it has taken on even greater significance. Amusing Ourselves to Death is a prophetic look at what happens when politics, journalism, education, and even religion become subject to the demands of entertainment. It is also a blueprint for regaining control of our media, so that they can serve our highest goals. “A brilliant, powerful, and important book. This is an indictment that Postman has laid down and, so far as I can see, an irrefutable one.” –Jonathan Yardley, The Washington Post Book World

A book that presents an initally very good argument. Are we headed for an Orwellian or a Huxleyian world. Indeed, I think it is a relatively uncontroversial position to take that Huxley was more on the nose, as the title has clear links to the problems we face today. 

Many of the arguments though simply haven't held water with time. Some of the claims and simply biased and opinionated views didn't hold a candle to the tides of time. Yes, television can be bad, as a culture we're clearly shifting toward visual mediums faster than before. The real question is as truth and reality dissolve around us what explains this shift and what is the true answer to American anti-intellectualism? I'm reminded of the book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. Whether or not this is the answer I couldn't say with any real force.

It's curious to hear about the history of American literacy and just how literate the American populate was, compared to just how literate the American populace now is. The good majority of Americans rarely read anything at all. We also have problems in that our reading is much like our television consumption in that popular works get all the attention. 

Another part of this problem is simply media literacy, but it underlies a more pernicious problem which is how media is used more as propaganda against the population. It is now a tool with metrics and data behind it. Certainly some of the author's cautions and concerns are worth taking a little heed, but many of his concerns seem strange, he claims that people don't remember news articles they've just seen on TV and then at the same time explains most news articles are unworthy of our attention, because they have no actionable consequence. On the other hand, I've heard German media runs in 15 minutes snippets on the hour with more valuable takeaways. Perhaps the medium itself is not to blame, rather the way we use the medium. 

I didn't feel that the author left with any compelling solution to the problem. 

BC Hark

A book that presents an initally very good argument. Are we headed for an Orwellian or a Huxleyian world. Indeed, I think it is a relatively uncontroversial position to take that Huxley was more on the nose, as the title has clear links to the problems we face today. 

Many of the arguments though simply haven't held water with time. Some of the claims and simply biased and opinionated views didn't hold a candle to the tides of time. Yes, television can be bad, as a culture we're clearly shifting toward visual mediums faster than before. The real question is as truth and reality dissolve around us what explains this shift and what is the true answer to American anti-intellectualism? I'm reminded of the book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. Whether or not this is the answer I couldn't say with any real force.

It's curious to hear about the history of American literacy and just how literate the American populate was, compared to just how literate the American populace now is. The good majority of Americans rarely read anything at all. We also have problems in that our reading is much like our television consumption in that popular works get all the attention. 

Another part of this problem is simply media literacy, but it underlies a more pernicious problem which is how media is used more as propaganda against the population. It is now a tool with metrics and data behind it. Certainly some of the author's cautions and concerns are worth taking a little heed, but many of his concerns seem strange, he claims that people don't remember news articles they've just seen on TV and then at the same time explains most news articles are unworthy of our attention, because they have no actionable consequence. On the other hand, I've heard German media runs in 15 minutes snippets on the hour with more valuable takeaways. Perhaps the medium itself is not to blame, rather the way we use the medium. 

I didn't feel that the author left with any compelling solution to the problem. 

Greg Talbot

Let me start by saying, I don't have a problem with the premise. Most television, outside of the sacrosanct series "Breaking Bad, is just awful. We're all better for reading, for having disciplines and complex conversation, and for having a strong educational background. My problem with the book is twofold. 1) the book relies on some alarmist extremes. It's heavy with examples, but light on numbers. For all the evidence used about how moving pictures has eroded serious discussion of religion, politics, education or self-reflection, there is no counter-weights to that argument. And that moves along to my second problem with the book. 2) A lot of what Postman writes about is frankly irrelevant. Postman's comments on arguably laughable now. Consider at one point how he comments on radio being one of the last refugees for serious discussion, with the rise of right-wing reactionaries and bland pop stations. The technological age of personal computers and trinity of self-centered consumption (Iphone/Ipod/IPad) wasn't around. I do think there's a story here. But frankly Postman's own work is his own albatross. It's succeeded as a book, and it's narrative rest largely on the work of two dystropian writers - Huxley and Orwell. Postman did give me a lot to think about in his first chapter, "The medium in the message". In it was a story I was very drawn to, the way in which our perspective is shaped by the very medium. And to this I can only conclude with what Postman omitted. Television arguably changed the public's attitude to the Vietnam War, established the genocide of the Holocaust, and demonstrate how nations can come together every 4 years to celebrate athletics and community. We do live in a baffling time. I am concerned about the collusion of news and entertainment. I am concerned about the American education system. And I am concerned, as a book lover, that reading is something of a dying art. Postman scratches that itch, but ultimately lacks the evidence and confidence in readers to be fantastic.

terrifyingly accurate to the current media landscape; especially to short-form content, filled with sentiments one would be surprised were written in 1985.

Matthew Royal

DeedThesis in chapter 2 is silly

Historical review of the written word in chapter 3 is interesting. 

Discussion in chapter 4 of the "typographic" mind Is built on a sequence of "No true Scotsman"-style critical thinking errors and generalizing from exceptions. This chapter is destroying my trust in the author. He expresses the opinion that psychology and porosity all reasoning are opposed to each other.

Chapter 5 -- he makes up a lot of terms where perfectly good ones exist. E.g. Samuel Morse's " information grid. " it's a network, buddy; not a grid. No one calls it a grid. His arguments again decontexualized information does not support his thesis, as there has always been unactionable information. He complains that the world now lacks coherence and sense. This is a symptom of information overload. Perhaps the author is unable to cope with all the information availability and has lost his ability to support his worldview narrative. Redefined "myth" to mean "biases." Agree with him that people often accept what they see on TV without critical thought. However, I think that the so-called millennial generation is most critical of what they're shown on television and openly critique every aspect of it, including the medium's idioms and tropes.

Part 3.
Disagree completely with his statement that technology has an inherent bias. Particularly because right before he said that, he explained very carefully that the bias came from the social "medium" the technology creates, not the technology itself. 

I don't disagree with him completely. His reasoning is seriously flawed and is coupled with a cocky attitude. In ending the book here on page 84 out of 163, and declaring this book a "recyclable good." (I intentionally left it in the seatback pocket of an airplane.)

Keven Wang

I get the point. But it is not that engaging for me

Examines the ways in which television has transformed public discourse--in politics, education, religion, science, and elsewhere--into a form of entertainment that undermines exposition, explanation and knowledge

Nelson Zagalo

"Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" is a 1985 book, considered a classic of media studies, having served to elevate Neil Postman to the level of McLuhan, both visionaries and media prophets. On that side, I tend to agree, the approach is close, although Postman is more organised and regimented, both tend towards writing that is more of an epic and less of an academic. But if the ability to create good metaphors is important, because it helps a greater number of people to understand the complex, it is not a sufficient condition for analysis and knowledge creation. So it is not surprising that the greatest legacies of both are the titles of their books.

Texto completo, em Português, no blog: 
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...

Brave New World

Todd Luallen

An excellent read that addresses our culture's "need" for entertainment at the expense of just about everything else. Postman does a great job of comparing Orwell and Huxley, and showcases why one was right and the other was wrong (regarding American culture). It was a bit odd to be listening to an audiobook version of a book that describes the dangers of non-printed forms of learning. The most interesting point for me was the discussion about the early American society and how literate and well-read the population was. 

This book was originally written in 1984, but it has been updated a bit. However, I think a book like this could be written now with much more current statistics and examples.

Rick Dobrowolski

Neil Postman writes a thought-provoking book with the timeless principle that we must evaluate how forms of media affect us and our ability to think. This is an old book dealing with the advent of television in every American household yet the discussion applies whatever form of media you are engaging. He is spot on with so many of his observations.

We as a culture have endless opportunities to amuse our brains right our of our heads, and way too many in our culture soak up as many cat videos and Netflix binges as they can. The enemy of our progress isn’t a tyrannical dictator, but the alluring entertainer.

Rjyan C Kidwell

Whoa. 1985 criticism of television's effect on The Discourse is eerie af in the wake of social media. Eerie is actually maybe not nearly strong enough a word. You can read this book quite quickly, and you should, if you look at your phone every day.

Simon Elliott Stegall

This one is a reread. The first time I read it it blew my mind, and though I've since become more acquainted with writers like Postman, I still think it is a great book. I think everyone past 9th grade should read Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Ivaylo Durmonski

Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman is a twenty-first century book published in the twentieth century. The message the author wanted to convey is more true today than it was nearly 40 years ago – when the book hit the shelves.

Entertainment, not desire for knowledge, move the world now. This new dogma forces people who produce content for the television screen and online nowadays, to adapt their message to the media, not the media to the message. Put simply, we’re stripping away the context and making everything look attractive because that’s what people want. This is what sells now.

Unfortunately, this ongoing desire to make things simple and fun has devastating effects on society. The removal of the thinking barrier is making people less and less willing to exercise their thinking abilities. Moreover, since everything is trying to entertain us, we start to believe that we should be amused all the time and nothing else should be considered important. Efforts should not be wasted unless we are extremely delighted in the end.

In great detail, Neil Postman explains how communication changed throughout the years and how we are now deceived by endless forms of entertainment. We are made to believe that we should be happy without any effort. That’s what modern media promotes.

And if you think that this book is outdated, just add social media in the text every time TV is mentioned. The only outdated thing is the prediction the author made about the consequences of watching television. Things are far worse than what Neil Postman described in the book when he first wrote it.

When you watch a show, when you play a game, you imagine that everything should be as easy as doing these things. No brain activity should be used to exist sort to speak. After all, you can enter a prolific state of laughter with just a push of a button, why bother doing something extra? That’s how modern media negatively influences our lives. That’s what the author wanted to warn us about 40 years ago.

The key takeaway:

TV removed all borders in the world but it also did something else – turned society into a trivial culture, preoccupied with irrelevant to our existence stories. By stripping away all the context, and presenting everything in an amusing way, TV discourages us from thinking about, well, everything. We start to live in a world where things are supposed to be fun and laughter should be the default state of our existence.

Full review: 
https://durmonski.com/book-summaries/...

Luca Conti

Even if it was visionary 30 years ago it doesn't mean it's still relevant. It isn't.

Amusing Ourselves to Death Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Reviews

Highlights