The Problem with "NEWS"...

[Bonobo]

News is what happened recently. It's new, so it's "important".

By contrast, yesterday's news is actually a direct metaphor for something "not important".

So, a post about 9/11 or about a taser incident that happened years ago is relegated to the category of "ho hum".

Unfortunately, this is a pretty bad way to think of things. What happened yesterday is, in fact, directly related to what is happening today.

Too bad we don't read anymore. You can always turn back to the previous page of a newspaper. Not so with TV "news".

If you have time and interest, please read this book to see how badly our political process and society and has been damaged by TV "news" and other TV entertainment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

[Jim__]

1. I haven't read the book, but ...

I have a hard time accepting this assertion contained in the article you referenced:

The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Rational argument, an integral component of print typography, cannot be conveyed through the medium of television because "its form excludes the content." Because of this shortcoming, politics and religion get diluted, and "news of the day" is turned into a commodity. The presentation most often de-emphasizes quality; all data becomes burdened to the far-reaching need for entertainment. ...

I think CSpan2 does an excellent job of conveying rational argument over television. The failure of television to present rational argument seems to be due more to choices made by broadcasters than the nature of the medium itself.

[Bonobo]

2. I take it you disagree with Marshall McLuhan then.

"The medium is the message".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

[Jim__]

6. Well, just based on these 2 snippets, McLuhan is saying something different.

For instance:

He pointed to the light bulb as a clear demonstration of this concept. A light bulb does not have content in the way that a newspaper has articles or a television has programs, yet it is a medium that has a social effect; that is, a light bulb enables people to create spaces during nighttime that would otherwise be enveloped by darkness. He describes the light bulb as a medium without any content. McLuhan states that "a light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence."<2> Likewise, the message of a newscast about a heinous crime may be less the individual news story itself — the content — and more the change in public attitude towards crime that the newscast engenders by the fact that such crimes are in effect being brought into the home to watch over dinner.<3>

Here, McLuhan is clearly talking about the social effects of the medium. I agree with the argument that different media will have different social effects.

Postman explicitly states that rational argument can't be conveyed on television. I disagree with that because I've watched television that conveys rational argument. Like I said, I haven't read Postman's book, so it's possible that he clarifies his point. But, just based on the article that you referenced, I disagree soemwhat with what Postman is saying.

[Bonobo]

8. In any case, I highly recommend the book.

Get it at the library. Maybe we will agree more than you think.

[Union Thug]

3. The problem isn't with the medium, it's with the 'market.'

News can be delivered effectively on television, but news must not be subjected to so called 'market forces.' It's the corporatization and news-as-entertainment transformation of journalism that has ruined it.

[Jim__]

4. I agree.

[Bonobo]

5. Partially agree. But the medium of TV is almost fatally flawed.

It simply cannot deliver as much info in text as it does in visuals. It is a bad choice for informing people for that reason.

[Popol Vuh]

7. Is its not news

Its all propaganda or distraction.