Part one is a brilliant exposition of the history of our media mediums. From print, and the early phenomenal strength of The American literary tradition, to our anti-intellectual rise starting with the “news” snippet culture of the telegraph ( “To the telegraph, intelligence meant knowing OF lots of things, not knowing ABOUT them.” P 70) and the contextless photographic image which culminates (in this book written in 1985) in the age of the television. Well, the thesis has been proven. We are a thoroughly unserious nation in 2022. Worse yet, we long for the days of 1985 television in which at least there was a shared cultural experience. Today in the computer age we are all separate disjointed individuated info consumers, whether that info be true or false matters not. It only matters how we feel about any factum. Huxley was the more prescient dystopian view and we are living in it.

I don't use the term "life changing" very much at all but this book opened my eyes. I highly recommend it to anyone. ( )

I can't believe this was published almost 40 years ago. The introduction said it better than I could: "This is a 21st-century book published in the 20th century." Amusing Ourselves to Death is a clarion call to the inherent civic dangers when the written word is no longer the primary medium of expression. Postman argues that when we turn towards the segmented and corporate television set, not only is our society's conversational and debate ability suffer, it changes the literal makeup of thought. It's eerily prescient in a day of all-consuming social media and a sizable amount of the country addicted to TikTok, somehow an even more dystopian iteration of the moving image.

I didn't think this book would be as good as it was: it's coherently structured, based on strong historical reasoning, and generally very well-written. Not only that, but it's comfortable to read. While a bit dense, it feels like eating your grandmother's kitchen-sink stew: not always easy to get down, but so, so good for you. ( )

Postman scrive nel 1984, e partendo da Orwell si muove a dimostrare che la profezia più calzante è in realtà stata quella di Huxley. Su questa tesi si basa l'intero libro e la sua critica della TV come medium in grado di costruire un'epistemologia basata sull'apprendimento capace di influenzare l'intera società. Testo forse un po' "attempato", utile leggerlo oggi insieme a Televisione di Freccero, che ne rappresenta un aggiornamento e un adattamento allo specifico italiano. ( )

Great book, amazingly prescient for its time (written in the mid-1980s).

Touches on lots of different ideas and themes around public discourse. My favorite is how the age of the telegraph and beyond basically created what we call "news"... information that doesn't affect our daily lives and that we have nothing we can do about it/with it, but is delivered to us anyways because that's what the medium does.

It's basically a more in-depth version of "Society of the Spectacle".

My one complaint is that the first part of the book is devoted to a mythologized "age of reason" which was during the height of the printing press, just pre-telegraph. Back then, public discourse was based on the written word rather than on image, and the author argues this makes for better public discourse.

I disagree. This was the height of colonialism, with elaborate-reasoned justifications around the world for mass-scale atrocities. Having well-reasoned arguments does not make them better than, say, compelling visual arguments. You can create a well-reasoned document justifying the Vietnam war, and can counter with 3 minutes of real-life war footage and have the latter be better than the former. I think the only difference is that we've been taught the ins-and-outs of reasoned discourse in school, so we can understand, critique and deconstruct it better. We generally haven't been taught the ins-and-outs of visual media (like TV), so we can't talk about it in the same way.

In the end, the best way to deal with new media (TV, Twitter, YouTube) is with better media literacy, which is actually the exact thing the author advocates ( )

Essentially a redux of Marshall McLuhan’s The Media is the Message, it’s an argument that the dominant communications media powerfully affect reasoning (Postman’s preferred term is epistemology, which is probably more accurate and to the point), and that we were a lot better off as individuals and as a body politic when that effect came primarily from print rather than TV and other visual media. He makes a pretty strong case. Although he’s not happy about things, he’s not a ranting old crank like some Yale literary critics. He maintains a sense of humor, he’s a good writer, and he’s down to earth, straightforward and concise (while McLuhan can be otherwise). Well worth the read. ( )

Good book on the lack of seriousness in America. ( )

This book, originally published in 1985, warns against the proliferation of television media replacing printed texts. Much of Postman’s case comes across as a tome against television and cites renowned authors like Aldous Huxley and Marshall McLuhan in support of his thesis. However, 35-40 years after its original publishing, it’s easy to see how digital media (i.e., the computer and the Internet) have continued to revolutionize America’s information intake. Our goal now is simply to keep up with the “fire hydrant” of information output instead of merely choosing one technology over another. Yes, the goal is simply to learn and retain from all media instead of to privilege one over the other. In this sense, the book falls sorely short of anticipating future conundrums.

Postman rightly observes how television media tends to put us to sleep instead of making us engaged learners. That’s why I am still a passionate advocate of book learning. His emphasis on understanding the forms of media is likewise appreciated. However, Postman idealizes a past age (in the 1800s) when books and newspapers were the main/only form of educational technology. He sees this as a golden age that we need to return to. He forgets how much rote memorization was required then in education and how social inequities like slavery, discrimination, and a lack of women’s suffrage persisted in that age. Technology also has its benefits – say, speeding up social economies, which produces greater wealth.

Postman’s basic premise is that television is bad and traditional reading is good. This is a false dichotomy, I suggest. While I wholeheartedly support becoming aware of pro’s and con’s of various forms of media, the challenge becomes to learn to learn from all forms of media. When learning itself becomes a passion, it ultimately selects between forms of media appropriately. A “culture war” against one form of media – which is what Postman seems to suggest – distracts from the point. I’m not sure how his thesis would have been received in 1985, but in 2022, “the age of show business” has become the “information age.” New challenges of a hyper-connected world confront us. This book, for all its timeliness in the 1980s, does not predict these future challenges. I still suggest reading McLuhan (an author Postman relies upon) instead of this work for a more universal paradigm of media. ( )

It's difficult to find a book about technology written 40 years ago that nails our present moment so well. It's prophetic as hell and will convict you on every page. ( )

This book challenges the idea of what consumes our time and why we should spend more time off devices and entertainment and onto the world in front of us and what we posses now. A Great Resource on the Effects of Television on the American Mind

The first half was really good. It is a sort of summary of the intellectual history of reading and literacy of the United States. It tells the story from the Colonial period up until the age of telegraphy and photography (that is, sometime in the middle to the late nineteenth century).

Second half felt kind of just a rehash of the arguments already made in the first part.

I am unconvinced of the examples about how television is not a good medium for education, at least in early or lower-level education. I do not think that education being entertaining is problematic at this level. Of course, for deeper thought, at the level of higher education, you'd have to read books and journal articles, etc.

That part about religion is interesting. Postman says that it is not possible for television to be a sacral space because of the 'peek-a-boo' quality, and the memory of people of the 'peek-a-boo'-ness or the 'now-this'-ness of television. But what if it is possible? A new version of sacrality, a new techno-religious-ness shall we say. I don't know.

Overall this has been an enlightening read. I plan on re-reading the first part sometime because I really liked it. ( )

I was a little surprised at how much I enjoyed this book.

Originally published in 1985, the author gives a deep dive into how TV has changed and shaped modern education, political campaigns, news and religion. He gives a very understandable argument that the overall effect of TV as a medium has been negative. Information provided in a largely visual format, mood controlled by music, information delivered only by telegenic good-looking people has influenced every aspect of our lives.

And this was long before 24-7 cable news, social media and twitter. Not to mention how we are now all glued to our smart phones. I looked to see if he had written a more recent book with these 21st century inventions, but sadly he passed away in 2003. I would love to see if someone has picked up and continued his work. I think he would have a field day with smart phones! ( )

This book makes two good points: the media used to communicate affects the nature of the communication, and much of modern communication on serious matters is frivolous.

That covers the first part of the book. The rest is a tiresome rant about how TV is ruining us all. The details of the rant are not worth covering, but I do think that Postman misses some important points. First, he never looks to see if there is any good in a visual based communication style. It is true, as he states, that a medium such as television emphasizes emotional impact over rational argument, but emotion can be a powerful motivator. An image of the damage from an earthquake or a hurricane can inspire someone to help when a description of the damage may not. Even on a rational level, a picture can be worth a thousand words as anyone who has ever tried to learn knitting can tell you.

Postman only gives the slightest of nods to the fact that textual communication can also be banal. See your favorite social network for more details.

A better approach than Postman's, which declares that TV is bad and text is good, is to realize that different communication mediums have different strengths and weaknesses. Television is excellent at providing entertainment, but that is not the only thing it is good for. No media should be the only mode of discourse. Ideally, they should be used to support and reinforce each other. ( )

Basically, this book warns against consuming knowledge through the medium of television, because TV by nature presents knowledge as entertaining, fragmented, simple, and out of context. The author thinks TV offers excellent entertainment, but when TV offers knowledge, people who consume this knowledge are harmed because they become accustomed to processing knowledge that is entertaining and out of context. Their field of knowledge become restrained to those that can be presented through TV format.

The author thinks this danger of TV-format knowledge can be appeased through the audience being self aware of what danger they put themselves in when they consume television. I hope this is true.

I appreciate the author's discussion on how the speed of information transmission resulted in providing people a lot of information that appear important but are actually irrelevant to their lives. I agree with him that's why after we read/watch the news, the news stories we consume rarely prompt us to take any action or make any changes in our lives. It is dangerous to consume news as if it is entertainment.

This book is not very easy to read. It's not exactly scholarly but you do need to pay extra attention in order to comprehend what the author has to say. ( )

This book was written in 198 bemoaning the lack of intelligent discourse in society. Neil Postman lays the blame on television. If he were alive today he would lay the blame on the internet; specifically the 'social' media aspects. It is a cautionary tale when it was published and was sadly ignored.

And why didn't I read this in graduate school? This is a brilliant, almost prophetic, study of the death of discourse. Thoughtful, academic, and worth your time. ( )

Postman brings a tremendous amount of insight and awareness to how technology has shaped us at a human level. I wish he were still alive to share his take on the technological trends of today. Much of what he says, though extremely pertinent then, is even more applicable now. ( )

It's half brilliant and prescient, and half naively idealistic and curmudgeonly. ( )

A very interesting read. It amazes me that it is still relevant almost 30 years after it was written. ( )

Very entertaining read, ironically. Very much agree with the fact that most of the educational programs they make are isolated, simplistic and don't go into detail, that is they are mostly entertainment than education. Even more relevant is the fact that the large amount of information people are consuming is so irrelevant that they have to make up things to put it to use, like crosswards or quizzes, a problem not seen before in human history, as education was mostly undertaken for a more practicle purpose or as an end in itself. The trivialisation of news is worse than ever.
I liked reading about the 18th-19th century, the typographic America, when people had such attention spans that they could listen to two political speakers debating for 6 hours continuously. That is in such contrast to the "debates" they have on tv, where more often than not its just personal attacks for debates.
The biggest impact of things outlined in this book that I have felt personally is that I have been guilty of expecting education to be more or less entertaining. This book made me think about this bias that I didn't even notice I had. I have been guilty of branding more or less average professors as "boring", well maybe I will keep in mind that education isn't supposed be entertainment to begin with, it is something that requieres conquering of the desire to be constantly entertained.
I am glad I read BNW earlier, I have read so many books lately that I was able to understand much better because of that book.

This book I realize now after reading it again has been a significant influence in how I see the world, and it deserves fuller exploration. I book-marked many places. Here are my bookmarks from the first half of the book:

---

"We are all... great abbreviators, meaning that none of us has the wit to know the whole truth, the time to tell it if we believed we did, or an audience so gullible so as to accept it."

"The clearest way to see through a culture is to attend to its tools for conversation."

"The God of the Jews was to exist in the word and through the word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking. Iconography thus became blasphemy, so that a new kind of god could enter a culture. People like ourselves who are in the process of converting their culture from word-centered to image-centered might profit by reflecting on this Mosaic conjunction. But even if I am wrong in these conjectures, it is a wise and particularly relevant supposition that the media of communication available to a culture are a dominate influence on the formation of the culture's intellectual and social preoccupations."

The best things on television are it's junk.... We do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities, but by what it claims as significant.

The River Metaphor
"I find it useful to think of the situation in this way. Changes in the symbolic environment are like changes in the natural environment: they are both gradual and additive at first, and then all at once, a critical mass is achieved... a river that has slowly been polluted, suddenly becomes toxic. Most of the fish perish. Swimming becomes a danger to health. But even then the river may look the same and one may still take a boat ride on it. In other words, even when life has been taken from it, the river does not disappear, nor do all of its uses, but its value has been seriously diminished, and its degraded condition will have harmful effects through the landscape. It is this way with our symbolic environment. We have reached I believe a critical mass in that electronic media have decisively and irreversibly changed the character of our symbolic environment. We are now a culture whose information, ideas, and epistemology are given form by the television, not by the printed word....
In the analogy I have drawn above, the river refers largely to what we call 'public discourse,' our political, religious, informational, and commercial forms of conversation. I am arguing that a television based epistemology pollutes public communication and its surrounding landscape, not that it pollutes everything...." This resonates as truth for me. Today, the more people "swim" in the river of media and in particular politics, often the less healthy they mentally become.

"The telegraph made a three-pronged attack on typography's definition of discourse, introducing on a large scale irrelevence, impotence, and incoherence."

At the end of chapter five Postman lays out a summary of the rest of the book:
"It is my object in the rest of this book to make the epistemology of television visible again. I will try to demonstrate by concrete example that television's way of knowing is uncompromisingly hostile to typography's way of knowing, that television's conversations promote incoherence and triviality, that the phrase 'serious television' is a contradiction in terms and that television speaks in only one persistent voice, the voice of entertainment. Beyond that I will try to demonstrate that to enter the great television conversation, one great American cultural institution after another is learning to speak its terms. Television in other words is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show-business. It is entirely possible of course that in the end we shall find that delightful and decide we like it just fine. That is exactly what Aldous Huxley feared was coming, 50 years ago."

This book was written in 1985. His prophetic message has been fulfilled in 2020. Not sure what that means for the future... ( )

If you watch TV, and care at all about how public discourse is important to a democracy, then this book is for you. Every bit as relevant in 2015 as it was when it was first published in 1985. Actually, this may be even more relevant today with social media than it was originally when focusing only on TV. ( )

I’ve never really been a TV addict. Oh, I’ve watched plenty of television fare in my time, but I’ve always been more interested in comics and books, I think, because of their permanence. TV, until the advent of the videocassette recorder, had been extremely ephemeral.

The ephemeral nature of TV, which continues even today because of its incredible volume and prevalence in society, is the basic tenet of Postman’s argument here. By its very nature, Postman says, TV is incapable of presenting true public discourse, which relies on arguments that don’t necessarily have the entertainment quotient necessary for the medium. The rest of the book expounds on this, looking at the past history of public discourse in America up to the time this book was written, which was ten years ago. In the last ten years, TV’s influence on public policy has even increased, and it would be interesting to see what Postman has to say about it now.

Bailed at 22%.

Written in the mid 80's 'Amusing Our Selves to Death' remains a damning indictment of what a runaway entertainment mindset has done to American culture. Things are not better, if anything, things are worse. Celebrity culture has taken over the web and the websites of most major newspapers. What to do? Kill your TV. There are tools now so that you can pick and choose what you want to see. Also limit your time online. Read, listen to music, go to a concert, get outside, Join a book club. Don't let Hollywood rent space in your head.
( )