Now.........This;
I have a lot of trouble writing. When Michael Simone (our Editorus Primus) asked me to do an article on Niel Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death, the book behind Roger Waters album, "Amused To Death", I sighed inwardly and said "ah, Man." Like I said, writing comes hard for me. Reading comes hard for me. I generally don't like to expend too much effort after a grueling day at work, preferring to just go home, collapse in my comfy chair ("oh no, not 'the comfy chair!'") and veg out to- you guessed it, TELEVISION.
The reason I even read "Amusing Ourselves To Death" is a long story, but summarized it goes something like this;- last September I was given a TV by my roommate at the time, who had an extra one (I, having no TV of my own at the moment). A short time there after we had a fight, and his reaction, since he could not throw me out, was to summarily remove his TV from my room. In the ensuing nights of perceived tedium and boredom, I returned to other forms of entertainment, books, and radio and such. In the midst of reading one huge and extremely boring book about astronomy, I tried thinking of other, more exciting things I could be reading. I suddenly remembered a book some friends had recommended to me which had been written in 1985, called Amusing Ourselves To Death. "Yeah, thanks" I had said at the time, "I'll keep it in mind," and put it on my list of books to read in between commercial breaks of "Cheers" and "Roseanne". It was then Roger Waters released his new album "Amused To Death" and our illustrious editor emeritus told me that the title of the album was taken from a book Roger said he had read called - guess what? "Wow, kismet" I thought. Priding myself on being a "thinking fan" and not simply some lip- synching fool, I decided I wanted to know more, and so I bought the book.
If you thought Roger's album was an incisive and biting commentary on the quality of public discourse today, you should really read the book that sparked Roger to write the album. It is much more shocking, and much more damaging to the media- fed image of truth in the world today than any mere record album can provide. That is not to slight Le Waters Grande at all, but only to say that so expansive a subject as the impact of the visual media on our civilization cannot really be fully digested by any media save the printed word, namely in the form of a book.
One of the impacts of television on modern times is, indeed, our very ability to read at all anymore. Mr. Postman refers to this in his opening chapters. It is quite a tall order for most these days. Quite a tall order for ME, at any rate. And mind you, "Amusing Ourselves To Death," although an intense and concise book, is not a difficult book to read. Anyone with a basic high- school education and a somewhat sparse knowledge of philosophy can get through this book and discover the wonderful overview of what exactly has happened to us as a nation and a civilization over the last fifty years or so, since we gave ourselves over to the tube and allowed public discourse and conversation to become trivial, to become banal, and to become not a journey into the joys of personal exploration and exposition, but a descent into perpetual entertainment.
In my review of "Amused To Death" in our last issue, I went on for some length about that album's being a "real" album, as opposed to the earlier works of Mr. Waters. One of the realities that I noticed is the quasi- quality of thoughtful conversation in today's world. When was the last time any of you out there had a really serious, in- depth conversation with a friend about, say, the Middle East situation? Or the current political scene in your respective countries? Or simply about the nature of life? Ok, now, for those of you who have, let me ask you this; when was the last time you talked about things like this, and not been inspired to mention it by something you and seen on TV? Even so you may ask, so what of it? The thing is, TV is not really a medium well suited to exposition. TV was conceived of , and is, a medium for the conveyance of amusement, or entertainment. TV is a series of programmed visual images and an endless string of pictures. Hence the subtitle of this book, "Public Discourse In The Age of Show Business." Unlike a book, or the printed page, one does not have to really concentrate too long or hard to get the meaning of a picture. A picture is not so much worth a thousand words, more than it renders a thousand words superfluous and useless, although a thousand words would convey far more information and meaning than a single picture.
This is the mechanism by which TV can render any subject, no matter how complex or how simple, to such a low common denominator that it is almost entirely meaningless and trivial. It is entirely possible to "amuse one's self to death", considering that the first thing to go will be one's cognizance and ability to recognize reality and to comment upon it intelligently. And this is why the album "Amused to Death" had the power to inspire me to flights of hyperbole such as I unleashed in our last issue. Truly, we are living the album. We are all slowly amusing ourselves to death. We are entertaining ourselves into an absolute stupor, where anything that happens, no matter how important or crucial, is relegated to the status of a lead- in for "Wheel of Fortune."
Not that "Wheel of Fortune" or any of its ilk is necessarily harmful or bad. Mr. Postman comments;
"....I appreciate junk as much as the next fellow, and I know full well that the printing press has generated enough of it to fill the Grand Canyon to overflowing. Television is not old enough to have matched printing's output of junk.
.....I raise no objection to television's junk. The best things on television are its junk, and no one and nothing is seriously threatened by it. Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant. Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations. The irony here is that this is what intellectuals and critics are constantly urging television to do. The trouble is that people do not take television seriously enough." ("Amusing Ourselves To Death", chapter 2- Media As Epistemology, pp. 16- 17)
For the interest of the readership of this newsletter, we would concentrate on the theme of public discourse as presented by the news media in the form of entertainment. This is one of the central themes, if not the central theme of Roger's new album. Again, from Mr. Postman:
"And the bullets fly,
And the rivers run dry,
And the fat girls sigh,
And the network anchorpersons lie."
("What God Wants Part III")
"Entertainment is the supra- ideology of all discourse on television. No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasure. That is why even on news shows which provide us daily with fragments of tragedy and barbarism, we are urged by the newscasters to "join them tomorrow." What for? One would think that several minutes of murder and mayhem would suffice as material for a month of sleepless nights. We accept the newscasters' invitation because we know that the "news" is not to be taken seriously, that it is all in fun, so to say. Everything about a news show tells us this - - the good looks and amiability of the cast, their pleasant banter, the exciting music that opens and closes the show, the vivid film footage, the attractive commercials- - all these and more suggest that what we have just seen is no cause for weeping. A news show, to put it plainly, is a format for entertainment, not for education, reflection or catharsis. ".... Television is different because it encompasses all forms of discourse. No one goes to a movie to find out about government policy or the latest scientific advances. No one buys a record to find out the baseball scores or the weather or the latest murder. No one turns on radio anymore for soap operas or a presidential address (if a television set is at hand). But everyone goes to television for all these things and more, which is why television resonates so powerfully throughout the culture. Television is our culture's principal mode of knowing about itself. Therefore- and this is the critical point- how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged. It is not merely that on the television screen entertainment is the metaphor for all discourse. It is that off the screen the same metaphor prevails. As typography once dictated the style of conducting politics, religion, business, education, law and other important social matters, television now takes command. In courtrooms, classrooms, operating rooms, board rooms, churches and even airplanes, Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials. For the message of television as metaphor is not only that all the world is a stage but that the stage is located in Las Vegas, Nevada". ("Amusing Ourselves To Death", Pt II, Chapter Six, "The Age Of Show Business", pp. 92- 93)
Roger makes allusions to this, and more, in the song "Amused to Death" with the lines "News hounds sniff the air when Jessica Hahn goes down/ He latches on to that symbol of detachment/ Attracted by the peeling away of feeling/ The celebrity of the abused shell, the belle."
Also we find echoes (get it?) of this in the tracks "Perfect Sense (Pts I & II)" and "Bravery Of Being Out Of Range". Television not only as entertainment, but as a vehicle to make foreign policy as martial domination entertainment ("Hey bartender over here/ two more shots and two more beers/ Sir, turn up the TV sound/ The war has started on the ground.")
You should think. You should question even the most obvious things. And what is more obvious than television? In undeveloped countries, progress in the world community is not marked by infant mortality or the ability of the government to feed and house and clothe its people, but by how many families now own a TV set. Indeed, information on television can be made so entertaining that in some parts of the globe people will forsake all other activity, even to the pursuit of their livelihood, just to sit and watch it all day. (In some countries this backfires much to detriment of the ruling authority. For this reason practically every nation outside of 'the West' closely regulates what is broadcast over their TV networks. China, interestingly enough, permits only how- to shows, very austere news programs, and mindless American Cops- and- robbers shows. "Nightline", "20/20" and even "Nova" are not available. You will have a hard time finding this book. Needless to say, it did not receive very wide exposure from television, and even other media, as if in some sort of warped solidarity with its wounded bastard cousin. In fact it was especially shunned by the news media, both print and television, for obvious reasons. Read it you must though. You must not cheat yourself. You owe yourself that much.
A great deal of an interview Roger did on the Westwood One radio show broadcast throughout North America last year has, I think, a lot to do with the following excerpt, with which I shall close this article.
"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 any relevance to anything one is ever likely to hear or see.
". . . . There is no murder so brutal, no earthquake so devastating, no political blunder so costly- for that matter, no ball score so tantalizing, or weather report so threatening- that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying, "Now . . . . this." The newscaster means that you have thought long enough on the previous matter (approximately forty- five seconds), that you must not be morbidly preoccupied with it (let us say, for ninety seconds), and that you must now give your attention to another fragment of news or a commercial.
" . . . . Television provides a new (or, possibly, restores an old) definition of truth: The credibility of the teller is the ultimate test of the truth of a proposition. "Credibility" here does not refer to the past record of the teller for making statements that have survived the rigors of reality- testing. It refers only to the impression of sincerity, authenticity, vulnerability or attractiveness (choose one or more) conveyed by the actor/reporter.
This a matter of considerable importance, for it goes beyond the question of how truth is perceived on television news shows. If on television, credibility replaces reality as the decisive test of truth- telling, political leaders need not trouble themselves very much with reality provided that their performances consistently generate a sense of verisimilitude. I suspect, for example, that the dishonor that now shrouds Richard Nixon results not from the fact that he lied but that on television he looked like a liar. Which, if true, should bring no comfort to anyone, not even veteran Nixon- haters. For the alternative possibilities are that one may look like a liar but be telling the truth; or even worse, look like a truth- teller but in fact be lying.
". . . .It is also of considerable help in maintaining a high level of unreality that the newscasters do not pause to grimace or shiver when they speak their prefaces or epilogs to . . .film clips. Indeed, many newscasters do not appear to grasp the meaning of what they are saying, and some hold to a fixed and ingratiating enthusiasm as they report on earthquakes, mass killings and other disasters. Viewers would be quite disconcerted by any show of concern or terror on the part of newscasters.
". . . .The viewers also know that no matter how grave any fragment of news may appear. . . .it will shortly be followed by a series of commercials that will, in an instant, defuse the import of the news, in fact render it largely banal. This is a key element in the structure of a news program and all by itself refutes any claim that television news is designed as a serious form of public discourse. Imagine what you would think of me, and this book, if I were to pause here, tell you that I will return to my discussion in a moment, and then proceed to write a few words in behalf of United Airlines or the Chase Manhattan Bank. You would rightly think that I had no respect for the subject. And if I did this not once but several times in each chapter, you would think the whole enterprise unworthy of your attention. Why, then, do we not think a news show similarly unworthy? The reason, I believe, is that whereas we expect books and even other media (such as film) to maintain a consistency of tone and a continuity of content, we have no such expectation of television, and especially television news. We have become so accustomed to its discontinuities that we are no longer struck dumb, as any sane person would, by a newscaster who having just reported that a nuclear war is inevitable goes on to say that he will be right back after this work from "Burger King;" who says, in other words, "Now. . . .this." One can hardly overestimate the damage that such juxtapositions do to our sense of the world as a serious place. The damage is especially massive to youthful viewers who depend so much on television for their clues as to how to respond to the world. In watching television news, they, more than any other segment of the audience, are drawn into an epistemology based on the assumption that all reports of cruelty and death are greatly exaggerated and, in any case, not to be taken seriously or responded to sanely.
I should go so far as to say that embedded in the surrealistic frame of a television news show is a theory of anti- communication, featuring a type of discourse that abandons logic, reason, sequence and rules of contradiction.
". . . .In the parlance of the theater, it is known as vaudeville." ("Amused To Death" Pt. II, Chapter 7, "Now. . . .this." PP 99- 105)
". . . .That's OK, see the children bleed,
It'll look great on the TV."
("Perfect Sense Pt I")
"Amusing Ourselves To Death" by Neil Postman,
Published by Penguin Books 1986
For information, contact Viking Penguin Inc.,
40 West 23rd Street, New York, NY 10010 USA