https://www.tau.ac.il/education/muse/maslool/boidem/170forew...

...taken from "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

[1]: http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-v...

https://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-pu...

The underlying criticism of news media is rather older.

http://www.powells.com/s?author=Neil%20Postman

On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins

The Process of Education by Jerome Bruner

Talking points from this great book: "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman, from 1985: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_ourselves_to_death

Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television

Niel Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly.

Gill Scott-Heron: "The Revolution Will Not be Televised"

Postman wrote this 25 years ago. If anything, his observation is even more true today.

http://zorzap.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/huxley-orwell.gif

By Neil Postman’s thesis in Amusing Ourselves To Death, audio-visual content consumption on social media is actually worse than TV. He would be aghast at say, TV being replaced by TikTok.

http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Busi...

* The miracle of mindfulness - Thich Nhat Hanh

* Letters from a stoic - Seneca

* Amusing ourselves to death (Neil Postman) (combined with 1984 by Orwell and Brave New World by Huxley)

* Zen mind, beginner's mind - Shunryu Suzuki

* Walden - Henry David Thoreau

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

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

http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Busi...

Angus, have you read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death?" I have a feeling you would enjoy it, and would love to hear your comments on it. Keep up the good work.

I've got this question after reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman.

The Internet is perhaps the invention that most closely parallels the invention of the printing press. But, unfortunately the Internet appears to be working paradoxically to the development of knowledge.

Is the age of the internet the harbinger of an age of disinformation, alternative facts, and ignorance?

Is it possible that the Internet could cause our cognitive devolution as a species?

https://jimdroberts.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/the-information...

The Internet is perhaps the invention that most closely parallels the invention of the printing press. But, unfortunately the Internet appears to be working paradoxically to the development of knowledge.

Is the age of the internet the harbinger of an age of disinformation, alternative facts, and ignorance?

Is it possible that the Internet could cause our cognitive devolution as a species?

https://jimdroberts.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/the-information...

TV and visual information mediums are very effective at promoting emotions, but make it very difficult to convey rational arguments and thoughts. Notice how easily you can be distracted by the appearance of the messenger and not pay attention to the message itself.

There is a very good book on this called "Amusing ourselves to death", by Neil Postman. He wrote this in 1985 and he was far ahead of his time.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina...

(Mander was himself an ad executive.)

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly

http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-pub...

http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu...

Adam Curtis, The Century of the Self

http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

While we're at it, A Thousand Clowns

http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU

You're referring to Stuart McMillen's comic-style adaptation of a part of Neil Postman's book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Though McMillen has removed his poster at the request of Postman's estate [1], you can still find the comic on the internet [2].

1 = http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...

2 = http://www.juxtapoz.com/current/huxley-vs-orwell-in-graphic-...

Some excerpts from the book:

> “Dr. Ruth Westheimer is a psychologist who has a popular radio program and a nightclub act in which she informs her audiences about sex in all of its infinite variety and in language once reserved for the bedroom and street corners. She is almost as entertaining as the Reverend Billy Graham, and has been quoted as saying, “I don’t start out to be funny. But if it comes out that way, I use it. If they call me an entertainer, I say that’s great. When a professor teaches with a sense of humor, people walk away remembering.” She did not say what they remember or of what use their remembering is. But she has a point: It’s great to be an entertainer. Indeed, in America God favors all those who possess both a talent and a format to amuse, whether they be preachers, athletes, entrepreneurs, politicians, teachers or journalists. In America, the least amusing people are its professional entertainers.”

...

> “We may surmise that the ninety million Americans who watch television every night also think so. But what I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. ... The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining...”

...

> “Books, it would appear, have now become an audio-visual aid; the principal carrier of the content of education is the television show, and its principal claim for a preeminent place in the curriculum is that it is entertaining.”

http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-v...

It's a pity the comic had to be removed from its original site citing copyright reasons. imho, it could have been considered as fair use. Sad.

The internet, though, is kind of a different beast than radio or TV because it is so interactive. It's not just 1-way, 2-way, or many-to-many; it's all those things simultaneously. I'd love any recommendations on books/authors that pick up the torch from McLuhan and Postman, and try to cast some light on what "the medium is the message(/metaphor)" means in the hyper-connected age.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

edit: Just a thought, it's not only the interactivity that makes the internet unique, it's also its infinite flexibility: it can emulate print, radio, TV; but it can also invent its own versions of those media (podcasts, youtube, twitch, etc). It can invent entirely new kinds of media too: VR, AR, etc. So maybe the internet is a kind of "meta-media", which makes the analysis much more difficult; but promises some real gems of insight - if any can be found.

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

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

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourse...

...but was apparently taken down due at the copyright holders' request. More on the book:

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

It's a good book, is what I'm saying.

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourse...

It's a shame that recombinantrecords.net has removed that from his site, even though it's original work, because lawyers sued him for using the title of a (good) book "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Then, 9GAG & other sites have no problems copying the content. It just goes to show you that you can't stop information flow. All you can do it stop legitimate players from controlling it.

It misleads, is irrelevant, has no explanatory power, is toxic, increases cognitive errors, and inhibits thinking. It distracts and disrupts.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...

Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death is also highly recommended:

http://neilpostman.org/#what-did-he-say

"I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed."

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business"

Marshall McLuhan anticipated the change when he said the medium is the message. What he meant is that the UI and dynamics of each media format determines what kind of dialogs are possible.

Typographical media encouraged history, background, and timeless reflection. Television changed that by chopping news into 30 second pieces, with no background understanding required, infrequent depth, and a change of topic after every 3 stories for a message from our sponsor, after which you'd return to something completely different.

Neil Postman explains it in his classic 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death. News has become entertainment. Entertainment has become trivia and indulgences.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/5/8/15440292/donald-t...

Marshal McLuhan was the first to clue in to the effects of media types, with his famous quote "The medium is the message". He wrote extensively about media. A book that you are likely to identify strongly with is "Amusing Ourselves to Death". It basically argues that we are becoming a trivial culture because of our dependence on visual media.

It can easily seem like you get dumber the more videos you watch, but I suspect that's because it's far more common to have Facebook autoplay some retarded video of a fluffy animal your 'friend' shared than it is for someone to write out a thoughtful essay or email to you.

I've read some of his books - Amusing ourselves to death and Technopoly - which I would recommend to anyone.

The first is regarding the effect different mediums of communication have on the messages we transmit in them. How do the messages you transmit with say smoke-signal, writing and tv differ?

The second talks about technology for technology sake, rather than a means to an end. Increasingly relevant today.

(I'm guessing that the subtlety of the comic's original Postman mention – at the very bottom – compared to the top line "AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH by Stuart McMillen" may have started the attribution discussion off on the wrong foot.)

Another good reading on this topic is the work of Guy Debord especially "The Society of the Spectacle" where is explaining the degradation of social life due to the spectacular media.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.

The comic doesn't address the ways to leave the system, however. Brave New World, as mentioned above, has its islands, and (not having read anything of 1984 beyond the Goldstein chapters: is there anything I don't already have from pop culture in the rest of the book, or are those chapters just the "fast-forward"?) it seems that Oceanic refuseniks who didn't wish to toe the party line could be ignored by joining the proletariat (which might imply material and intellectual poverty, but freedom's just another word...)

My own view is there is some truth to what he says but overall he is too cynical. TV didn't have the damage on our society that he expected. I suspect people who talk about the damage social media and cellphones are doing to us today are also too cynical. We are incredibly adaptive creatures and while initially struggle with new technology we eventually learn healthy ways to use it.

From the point of view that criticism of your own enemy is often far easier to swallow than criticism of yourself, it isn't quite so surprising that 1984 is the more popular and better-known work.

Both are tremendously prescient.

As noted elsewhere in comments, Neil Postman, particularly Amusing Ourselves to Death, continues Huxley's critique. Postman himself is very strongly influenced by (and studied under) Marshall McLuhan. You'll also find this theme in Jason Benlevi's Too Much Magic, and other more recent works.

I read the introduction to the former when I was in college in the eighties, and it has stuck with me. They argue that the role of education (especially in a democracy) is to imbue students with "foolproof crap detectors".

  Increasingly we lose this sense of surprise, so that we are no longer overly
  amazed at anything and, ultimately, find satisfaction in everything—this is 
  what is called historical sensibility, historical cultivation. Stated 
  noneuphemistically: the massive influx of impressions is so great; surprising, 
  barbaric, and violent things press so overpoweringly—'balled up into hideous 
  clumps'—in on the youthful soul; that it can save itself only by taking 
  recourse in premeditated stupidity.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.’ In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman — Among lots of other ideas, he defends the thesis that /writing/ is still humankind’s greatest invention, and that our thoughtless eagerness to replace it with newer forms of media, such as television and computers—just because they're newer—is dumb and dangerous.

For the record, though, "Amusing Ourselves to Death" was quite a good read. :-)

The two books differ in how they describe the source of the dystopia. It's been a while so please excuse any inaccuracies - in 1984 the world is controlled by authoritarian governments through fear, misinformation, and endless distractions, whereas in Brave New World the world is controlled by an authoritarian government through mind-numbing pleasure and shallow entertainment. The governments in these books both rely on citizens being reduced to their lowest common denominator. I think people during the cold war could most easily imagine, and thus be most afraid of, a world that resembled 1984. The book I mentioned in the beginning of this post argues the view that we should have actually been more worried about a world more closely resembling Brave New World.

Today we are constantly fed a mind-numbing amount (mis)information that we also simultaneously look for because it makes us feel better. Unfortunately, this media barrage also robs us of our attention and ability to critically think about important issues affecting our society. If anyone is interested in reading a book written before the age of social media (published 1985) and exploring these ideas, I highly recommend this one.

"Amusing Ourselves to Death" seems like a good book, I have a copy but have yet to read it.

I have a couple of friends that are trolls(they call themselves that). They frequent Facebook and they make silly comments are try to rile people up, because....well i guess they're bored. They take pride in being banned from Facebook so shock humor. They are pretty funny.

Why is this relevant? What I have learned from them is that high-speed internet is conducive to trolling at all levels.
Facebook users want comments and reactions, so their post do just that.
Large sites want clicks and attention, so their content does just that.

A deep multifaceted conversation is boring and difficult to do. And above all else does not give you the same satisfaction as emotional content. The internet is an emotional medium, not a rational one. I treat it that way. To learn more on this check out neil portman, specifically his book "amusing ourselves to death".

I try to remind myself that things on the internet could very well have been produced by an angry techsavvy teenager, rather than to attribute any authority to it.

The last book I read that was written well was Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse In the Age of Show Business.
(I've read Gladwell before and have mixed feeling about his writing)

- Orwell feared the truth would be actively concealed. Check.

- Huxley feared distractions would be so great that no one (or very few people) would care to seek the truth. Check.

- Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Check.

- Huxley feared we would become obsessed with consumerism and preoccupied with distraction. Check.

- Orwell assumed we would be controlled by inflicting pain. Check (foreign policy).

- Huxley assumed we would be controlled by inflicting pleasure. Check (domestic news cycle, reality TV, lack of education.)

Both had valid points and we're seeing both approaches being used. So where we end up, I have no idea... where we are isn't great.

Talking points from this great comic strip: "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Stuart McMillen, from 2009: http://flycl.ps/SXHdFP

Edit: formatting.

Neil Postman was very far-sighted; "Amusing Ourselves to Death" still stands up extraordinarily well. He was heavily influenced by Marshall McLuhan but is much less opaque.

Personal anecdote...

I started reading books again about 2 years ago, after many years of not reading much. At that time it was a revelation for me, and I grew to despise (some forms of) blog style writing and videos (which was also related to the first two books I read being about modern media and advertising; The Attention Merchants and Amusing Ourselves To Death).

After a couple of months of very slow reading, and learning how to read (actively engaging with the material, etc.), my ability to focus and to process information in this mode notably increased.

Nowadays I quite like watching videos (mostly of lectures) and reading well-written online content, and engage with it in just the way you describe. But I think before this period where reading books again taught me the necessary skills for this type of engagement it was not possible for me to process online content in this way. Too many ubiquitous distractions.

Rather than get distracted by news trivia, learn something from these books that have stood the test of time.

Also, not trying to be on a high horse here (hey, I'm posting this on HN...) you might find that the people are merely offered the drugs and brain-computer devices and they make their own decisions about the two.

There's a fantastic comic (no link, sorry) comparing Orwell's future to Huxley's future that's remarkably relevant.

EDIT: link - https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwel...

I forgot, but it gets even better when, at the bottom, you notice the book is also from an even more prescient book, Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman. I believe it came out around the "golden era" of TV, but again I don't think all that much has changed. We're still the same humans with the same flaws. I should stop there; I'll start giving out spoilers. Read the books. :)

    We watched the tragedy unfold
    We did as we were told, bought and sold
    It was the greatest show on Earth
    But then it was over
    We oohed and ahhed
    We drove our racing cars
    We ate our last few jars of caviar
    And somewhere out there in the stars
    A keen eyed lookout spied a flickering light
    (Our last hurrah)
    Our last hurrah
    And when they found our shadows
    Grouped ’round the TV sets
    They ran down every lead
    They repeated every test
    They checked out all the data on their list
    And then
    The alien anthropologists
    Admitted they were still perplexed
    But on eliminating every other reason for our sad demise
    They logged the only explanation left
    This species has amused itself to death

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

On the topic of the album, it is in my opinion Waters’ finest non-Floyd album and very much worth a listen this Sunday. In terms of music, lyrical themes, and playfulness when it comes to the soundscape, it truly is an excellent example of great Progressive Rock.

I'm sorry, there is nothing to respond to here if you're going to make that kind of equivocation. Reread my post and respond in a non-disingenuous manner.

I know it's hard for tech people -- who generally have no kind of appreciable liberal education -- to appreciate social systems (even though people on "hacker" news should definitely be intimately knowledgeable and interested in how these systems act). Asimov was right, technology is moving faster than our social practices and wisdom know how to handle.

> that you read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death.

I have, and your post makes no use of your superficial use of this source. Your entire post is basically responding to a straw man. Try something substantive.

This reminded me of a line from Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death:

>Imagine what you would think of me, and this book, if I were to pause here...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 you.

"Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images."

I think Postman's comments are extremely relevant today (30 years after 1985) except that now they would apply to the Facebook news feed. (The quote about 'exchanging images' is now literally true.) The role of "news as entertainment" does a lot to explain the Trump's emergence as a candidate in the first place (he got a lot of coverage early on because of his outlandishness).

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism."

"Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with [indulgences]."

"As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists, who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

"In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”

-- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan [0] is where the phrase is first seen, but it's a dense book and tough to read at times. It's quite theoretical, kinda like he's developing an information theory of communication mediums.

Amusing ourselves to death by Neil Postman[1] is more specific to written text and tv, but is a much easier read and very eye-opening.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

As for mine,

Science Fiction (I like these authors so I'd recommend most of their books -- listing which ones I think are a good 'starter novel' for them):

  Charles Stross: Halting State
  Vernor Vinge: A Fire Upon The Deep
  Iain M. Banks: Culture novels, start with Player of Games
  David Louis Edelman: Jump 225 Trilogy
  Daniel Suarez: Daemon and Freedom(tm)
  John Scalzi: Old Man's War series
  Dan Simmons: Hyperion

  The Talent Code
  Seeking Wisdom: From Darwin to Munger
  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

  Amusing Ourselves To Death (highly recommended)
  The Science of Fear
  The Black Swan
  Tokyo Vice
  Racing The Beam (Atari history, very cool)
  books by Daniel Pink
  Guns, Germs, and Steel
  The Prize by Daniel Yergin

Anything by Gaiman or China Mieville, pretty much.

EDIT: links to previews (legally) available online

Charles Stross's Accelerando (entire book): http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera...

David Louis Edelman's Infoquake (1st 7 chapters): http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/jump225/infoquake/

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists, who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”

-- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)

"""

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another — slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

"""

It's a fascinating line of thought--though I obviously don't support the actions taken by its author.

To clarify a little further, Bill Joy in this essay refers to Kurzweil who refers to Marvin Minsky's "Society of Mind." I became a technological utopian until reading Naomi Klein's "No Logo" later that year, as well as the book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman.

This ultimately led me on a sort of existential quest that led to the book "Waking Up in Time" by Peter Russell and then I began to have a much more spiritual orientation towards life and reality and now try to be as practical as possible while working towards a positive technological future.

The less I read the news and the more I read books, the happy and more informed I've felt. Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death talks about "news without context," how the Queen of England having a cold does not in any way impact my life and there is nothing I can do about it.

In a way the news lately seems more exciting and terrible, and I definitely don't make light of it, but ultimately I can't really do anything directly to affect it other than voting and donating to causes I believe in. And so I try to do that and feel that that is enough. Humans are not capable of handling a world's worth of information.

Nassim Taleb argues in the book Fooled by Randomness that day to day, the behavior of things like the news and stock market prices are almost completely random. Only when you look at it from a monthly or yearly view do you actually see signal in the noise.

I remember that right after the Columbine mass-shooting in 1999 my best friend and I were sitting in his bedroom. We were late teenagers (18), expatriates living in Italy, getting our “international” news from the very first online news sources such as cnn.com and the bbc website. George W. Bush was clearly on track to become the Republican candidate and was equally clearly under the thumb of the NRA. I remember muttering that if the Democrats had any sense they'd deploy against him with a candidate with mass-market appeal... “Oprah Winfrey or Jerry Springer, and sod the consequences”. My friend, wise beyond his years, presciently remarked “Jerry Springer I shan't deign with a response, but Oprah Winfrey and the touchy-feely feel-good stuff of folks like Robin Williams is all that is bad about what is good about America... the day a party will nominate one of those to run as their candidate you'll know it's all over, the experiment of the Founding Fathers will have gone down the drain, it'll be the end of everything because the system will have the means but no incentive to recover”. Those words have haunted me ever since. I reminded him of that grim pronouncement of his just the other day (coincidentally the day Oprah gave that speech was also the exact same day he became a father) and he just looked at me with tired eyes that glasses over with sadness.

In "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Neil Postman argued the opposite: In the 1800s, people would watch hours-long political debates for amusement and were much more politically literate (the book is more about the negative effects of telecommunication - most people know it as the inspiration for the famous Orwell vs. Huxley infographic).

I think it is fair to say the clarion call of "Fake News" has been around longer than some people think and spans across the political spectrum. In fact, when I hear people insist that CNN or some other mass-media outlets are the cure for alt-right and/or Donald Trump, I wonder if they remember the time not so long ago where they were considered the prime enemies of the left.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

Zooming out just a little, Guy Debord's "Society Of The Spectacle" talks about this same stuff on a higher level.

> "But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another--slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

> "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley re marked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

https://quote.ucsd.edu/childhood/files/2013/05/postman-amusi...

I'd also recommend reading Sharyl Attkisson's
The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote
and
Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington

That random in their bedroom is the fourth estate now.

McKibben's book, just like Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, is even more relevant to the internet age than the television age.

There is something insidious about "information" that's doled out like slot tokens at a casino. Something dangerous about "facts" that are carefully designed to fit with what we want to believe. Something manipulative about "teaching" that is designed to fit through the gaps in our mental defenses for the benefit of the "teacher".

This week I've met otherwise "normal" people who are flat-earthers, anti-vaccers, and who believe Hillary is a Satanist and Trump is the "Bringer of Light".

But ultimately who cares if your hairdresser is an anti-vaccer, or your tennis partner is a flat-earther? Does it really matter if that cute girl at the check-out is an anti-Semite? Does it harm anyone if the guy building your deck believes in zero-point energy?

So long as people fulfill their economic roles quietly and efficiently, does it really matter what's in their hearts and minds? It's all relative isn't it?

However, the real point I'd like to make is this: you are right when you mention that the author was actually discussing the perils of everything being entertaining. He'd do well to read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death. It is downright chilling to read when you realize it was written in the eighties as the cultural impact of pervasive television was beginning to become apparent.

You will realize that Social Media is designed in such a way intentionally to draw toxicity from society.

No technology is neutral. Technology gives and technology takes away. Medium is the message. Communication evolved because of the medium. For every evolution, it gives something and it takes away something. From oral communication to the printing press to telegraph to TV to the internet to social media. Every evolution gives birth to something and destroys something.

For example, TV makes everyone reachable (what it gives), but makes everything into entertainment (what it takes), even important topic such as politics, religion, war, poverty, pestilence, etc science becomes pure entertainment, juxtaposed between endless drama, reality show, and ads, coupled with background music and personas that manipulate the minds. The more "entertainer" you are, the better, regardless whether you are a dumb scientist or a dumb lawmaker that will affect many people's lives using your policy.

Social media such as twitter, for example, everyone now has a voice (what it gives), but with its char limit (what it takes) doesn't give critical thinking and rational debate a highlight, therefore it spirals down into madness. The more outrageous you are, the better, because it will go viral and people will react in such a predictable way.

A good example of a person who knows exactly how TV audience and social media audience will behave in a predictable way, and took advantage of that, is President Trump.

You want to design a medium/platform in such a way so that the pros outweigh the cons. But I think the hard part is knowing how will people use the platform. Those social media giants started out with good intentions, and only later and later down the road, and here we are right now, that we discover its true effects.

If they left the comic up but clarified what it was inspired by it would definitely help the Postman estate.

The conversion rate of "Do yourself a favour and read Neil Postman's words in full. Purchase a copy of Amusing Ourselves to Death new/used (aff)" must be a rounding error on 0.

The start of a better way is similar to the entry point of science "The world is not as it seems". Here, it's "As a human being I'm a collection of traits and behaviors, many of which are atavistic and even detrimental to my progress". Getting aware of how useful cravings for salt, fat, sugar, caffeine, etc., turn into a problem when these are abundant and consumer companies can load foods with them....

And, Neil points out -- in books like "Amusing Ourselves To Death" and "The End Of Childhood" -- we have cravings for "news" and "novelty" and "surprise" and even "blinking", etc. which consumer companies have loaded communications channels with ...

Many of these ideas trace back to McLuhan, Innis, Ong, etc.

Bottom line: children need to learn how to use the 21st century, or there's a good chance they will lose the 21st century.

The start of a better way is similar to the entry point of science "The world is not as it seems". Here, it's "As a human being I'm a collection of traits and behaviors, many of which are atavistic and even detrimental to my progress". Getting aware of how useful cravings for salt, fat, sugar, caffeine, etc., turn into a problem when these are abundant and consumer companies can load foods with them....

And, Neil points out -- in books like "Amusing Ourselves To Death" and "The End Of Childhood" -- we have cravings for "news" and "novelty" and "surprise" and even "blinking", etc. which consumer companies have loaded communications channels with ...

Many of these ideas trace back to McLuhan, Innis, Ong, etc.

Bottom line: children need to learn how to use the 21st century, or there's a good chance they will lose the 21st century.

"... between 1640 and 1700, the literacy rate for men in Massachusetts and Connecticut was somewhere between 89 percent and 95 percent, quite probably the highest concentration of literate males to be found anywhere in the world at that time. The literacy rate for women in those colonies is estimated to have run as high as 62 percent in the years 1681-1697.

"... Since the male literacy rate in seventeenth-century England did not exceed 40 percent, we may assume, first of all, that the migrants to New England came from more literate areas of England or from more literate segments of the population, or both. In other words, they came here as readers and were certain to believe that reading was as important in the New World as it was in the Old. Second, from 1650 onwards almost all New England towns passed laws requiring the maintenance of a "reading and writing" school, the large communities being required to maintain a grammar school as well."

-- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Side note: the types of conversation that take place on HN are not surprising when you take into account the lack of photos and emoji as opposed to say FB that has "like" features.

For anyone interested in media commentary I recommend Niel Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death. Published in 1986 it is a eerie and lucid look into media and its measurable effects on society. I find it more relevant today than when it was published.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Medium_Is_the_Massage

"Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman seems appropriate here.

We live in dangerous times; civic engagement and an educated, vibrant population is more important than ever. But our political and cultural discourse has fallen to its lowest point in as long as anyone can remember. If I were not already politically engaged, I might become so if I watched Edward Murrow at night -- but watching CNN these days seems to be no different from watching the Jersey Shore.

The Unexotic Underclass: http://miter.mit.edu/the-unexotic-underclass/

Silicon Valley's Unchecked Arrogance: https://thedevelopmentset.com/silicon-valley-s-unchecked-arr...

And someone less related, another Guardian article about the son of Neil Postman who wrote Amusing Ourselves To Death, although this one covers the political side moreso than the market's trend towars pursuing triviality:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing-oursel...

Obviously, Kascinzki (sp?) was crazy in how he responded to this tension, but I think we should be thinking a lot harder about the challenges he raises, rather than simply accepting the forward march of technology.

Kelly makes some good points about decent alternatives being hard to find. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking hard about them.

For further good reading along those lines, I'd recommend any of Wendell Berry's commentaries (his novels are good reading, too) and Neil Postman's (Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly, etc.)

- It explores a contemporary topic of significance. Relevance will depend on your interests. I do think it's an essential perspective for analysing the impact of media on society, and since the impact has been huge and is still increasing, it's relevant to all kinds of public and policy decisions.

- I haven't read any other works that discusses the topic in a similar perspective and in comparable or greater detail. I've come across few works on this topic. * Postman's later books and essays aren't anywhere close to this either.

- It is dated, and talks about last century's media - however, it is even more applicable to this century's computers, games, and internet, which are much more "addictive".

"The medium shapes the message" is was it all comes down to. Modern news is show business. It needs to be packaged as show business or nobody will watch/read/listen to it.

As long as the incentive is to generate ad clicks and ad views, news media will prioritize sensational topics and optimize the format for ad delivery instead of optimizing for knowledge retention.

Given that you're bring up lectures and MOOCS, it's definitely worth being more clear about what Postman understands as constituting the medium of TV. It's not merely the transmission of audio-visual content, it's is the whole technology, taking the concept of "technology" in the broad sense. For example, the usage of music in TV is part of the technology, and it is usually conspicuously absent from MOOC lectures.

Postman would not consider a digital textbook as TV, but if such a textbook were borrow from TV, for example using conventional drama narrative as a device then he would be against that.

Does this more or less resolve the problem? TV != digital textbooks or MOOC lectures.

In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman claimed that Huxley was correct and Orwell was wrong: we're being oppressed by being drowned in irrelevant, trivial entertainment, not through censorship, explicit control and regulation. For the internet age, this idea is out of date. Today's form of control isn't making us passive, instead, it makes us active in ways that further the interests of power. We're told our creativity is subversive, even radical and revolutionary and therefore deeply significant, and yet nothing really changes. What's most interesting about all this supposedly disruptive change is how in the end, it's purpose is for the exact opposite: the smooth functioning of global capitalism.

Perhaps you can argue that this is a good thing, but it's impossible to argue that anything truly revolutionary is happening. Steve Jobs and Apple are not necessarily good, but they are a kind of progress because they demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes - the supposed revolutionary, world-changing potential of technology is a sham, it's the same old capitalism as usual.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that all media has a "selection algorithm" that distorts reality - TV and the news are great examples of this.

Information is wrong, irrelevant, intentionally aggrevating, or all of the above. Sometimes more so, sometimes less, but very nearly always.

I'd started buring out on a noncommercial radio news habit by the late 2010s. Yes, that corresponded with an increased use of social media -- mostly Google+ and Reddit, and not Facebook or Twitter. My social life was entirely offline, I've long had the view that the Internet is for acquiring and discussing information, but not personal details.

I began reading more books and articles. And finding that what was revealed through those was that much of what is encountered through news, journalism, and broadcast ... just misses massive amounts of relevant information. You spend so much time caught up in the malinformed focus on the present that you lose any sense of connection with earlier periods and thought, much of which informs the now.

And the notion isn't new, it's an age-old criticism of the press. Neil Postman wrote of this in Amusing Ourselves to Death (1987) (https://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death/oc...). I.F. Stone and George Seldes both made a life's work of this, from the 1920s through the 1980s. There's an excellent Stone interview online: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g

And a trailer for "Tell the Truth and Run", about George Seldes: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=xBJ7hDVvAI0

The book Commercialism and Journalism details the problem. In 1909. It's one of those great "things really haven't changed all that much" insights: https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holt

There are exceptions; there always are. But they are the exception, and the bulk of news really isn't worth bothering about. The stuff that is worth bothering about ... generally doesn't make the news.

"Yes, Americans watch more TV, but is this really why they bowl together less? Yes, news media is reducing everything to five-second sound bites, but is this why we have the political gridlock?"

Media scholar, NYU professor Neil Postman examined the cultural impact of television in his 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death.

America was the most literate nation in the world in the 17th century. Between 1640 and 1700, the literacy rate for men in Massachusetts and Connecticut was somewhere between 89 percent and 95 percent, quite probably the highest concentration of literate males to be found anywhere in the world at that time [1]. The male literacy rate in England did not exceed 40 percent.

For 250 years, books, town hall meetings, leaflets, and then newspapers, were how Americans exchanged civic ideas and conducted public discourse. When Lincoln debated Douglas in 1858, they took turns speaking for one hour each, then were each allowed an hour and a half to reply. Newspapers reported every point in detail.

From the 1950's onwards, the American news business moved from the typographical domain of newspapers, to the ephemeral world of television, with profound consequences. Marshal McLuhan cut to the chase with his aphorism, "the medium is the message". What he meant is that the UI and information dynamics of each media type determine what sorts of conversations and discourse can be communicated, and what is excluded.

Typographical media encouraged history, background, and timeless reflection of countervailing arguments and analyses.

Television changed that by chopping news into 30 second pieces, with no background understanding required, infrequent depth, and a change of topic after every 3 stories for a message from our sponsor, after which you'd return to something completely different.

News has become entertainment. Entertainment has become trivia and indulgences.

Because TV news omits historical background, precludes detailed argument, and butchers context, it changes the nature of public discourse, which determines the public officials we elect, the policies they enact, and the corporate consequences of the flow of money from consumer advertising, which is what television (and now online "news") exists to serve.

- - -

[1] Hart, James D. The Popular Book: A History of America's Literary Taste. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950.

In my former life I was a graduate student in Historical Theology so this was my silo of "expertise" AKA I can be a critics easier then most.

Only one HUGE logical problem. C.S. Lewis wasn't a Evangelical Christian he was Anglican. Evangelicals at the time hated them with equal venom to Roman Catholics C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity by JR Tolkien (Yes the one who wrote Lord of the Rings) who was Roman Catholic.

SOOOOO What is written about Postman's lectures are also true of Lewis. They both came from outside of Evangelicaldom and were respected for their thoughts.

Also they stated that George Whitefield (1714-1770) was Anglican BUT he co-founded the Methodist Church with John and Charles Wesley which was the founding of Evangelical Christianity of today. They were the Martin Luther of the Anglican Church.

Also Postman was not an evangelical, but a Jewish humanist. For some unknown reason Modern Atheist have hijacked the term Humanist which was actually found by the Reformation Founders. I have read Postman and his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" especially Chapter 8 "Shuffle Off to Bethlehem" show that Postman had some positive views of religion and was at best a Agnostic with positive feelings towards religion. I believe Postman would also share in my declaration Humanism historically and fundamentally doesn't mean Atheist. Atheist is a good term why leave it to take over another term and all its historical foundations? Humanism was founded by Christians and not some academia but the leaders of the Reformation Movement of Calvin and Luther.

I agree with claims that Postman predicted Trump's rise back in 1985:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing-oursel...

The book is written about television, but the main ideas are still applicable to online newsfeeds and social media.

The book unpacks the phrase: "the ideas that are convenient to express become the content of a culture". If the most convenient form of communication is long-form writing in newspapers or pamphlets, people will get their information from (long-form writing in) newspapers or pamphlets. If it's television, they will get information from (visual, snappy, "entertaining") video. If it's Twitter, people will end up talking about ideas that can be conveniently expressed in 140 characters or less.

Back in 1850s, Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debated with three hours speeches each. It wouldn't sit well with the attention span of modern audience.

I'll choose Daniel Kahneman - Thinking, Fast and Slow (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman-ebo...).

The way it changed my life was to make me actually think more about the way my mind operates, the decisions I make and the way these decisions affect my life. As a consequence, there were a few books I read later that were loosely related to this one in the way that they all refer to the way people think.

Barry Schwartz - The Paradox of Choice

Steven Pinker - How the Mind Works

Nassim Taleb - The Black Swan; and Fooled by Randomness

Leonard Mlodinov - The Drunkard's Walk (quite similar to Fooled by Randomness)

Carol Dweck - Mindset: The New Psychology of Success

Neil Postman / Andrew Postman - Amusing Ourselves to Death

Rolf Dobelli - The Art of Thinking Clearly (just started)

On my reading list now:

Quiet by Susan Cain - mentioned already

The Better Angels of Our Nature - Steven Pinker

Jared Diamond - Guns, Germs and Steel

Neal Stephenson - Snow Crash

Jared Diamond - The World Until Yesterday

Also, did not quite change my life, but very recommended:

Neal Stephenson - Anathem.

You may have to struggle through the beginning, but as soon as I understood the way the world he devised operates, I was thrilled completely.

I do agree with Postman's observation that much of our society is moving more towards a BNW distopia vs. 1984. However, I really have a hard time coming to the same conclusions regarding the cause of the problem, and solutions that he seems to present. Overall Postman ends up coming across as a whiny evangelical who seem to conclude that the prudish victorian era was the height of society, discourse, and learning, that we should all strive to recreate. I feel that for someone who claims to have drawn on the ideas of McLuhan, he rather seems to have missed McLuhan's main points. If Postman had observed McLuhan's message more closely he might have seen that the only way around the issues with TV and modern media are to embrace it and actively take time out in public education to demonstrate exactly what it is, why it captivates us so much, and what tricks are used in the media to try to deceive us. I still believe that is our only hope for overcoming the issues American society faces with satiating itself with media and gossip.

Instead, these situations are almost always instances of the peanut gallery instinct run amok. We've come to naturally jeer a lot of the things we see on television (which is why MST3K was a success), and it doesn't take much to go from jeering a bad TV show to jeering the content of the news. Hence, we get the Darwin Awards, which nobody in their right mind could mistake as a coping measure. Instead, it's the death of real people used for our entertainment.

I strongly recommend reading Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business to get a handle on how warped our sense of reality has become in the age of television.

I'm not about to persecute tdavis for his original comment, but I also think a lot of the counter-reaction here oversteps the mark. If one is going to react to events like these at all, so soon after the event itself, they should do so with a measure of respect. Tragic events like death are considered tragic for a reason, and any attempt to sidestep that fact makes us a little less human. We've seen what happened to Rome, after all.

The apology was appropriate, and that's about all that needs to be said.