Abstract: flexibility and power of the new cable format has been used to transform the depth of the coverage of and financial news. In addition to breaking news in the markets, analysis of public policy from leaders in business, government and the academy are often conceived live on TV, bringing insight into the issues and forces at work. In my view, this new capability in the context of the economic and financial crisis has had a major impact on our general understanding of the issues and challenges. --Michael Spence, 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Stanford University Professor Emeritus In the year 2010, and beyond, can television support a higher level of public discourse in America? In the spirit of Legacies of Hope and Meaning, I am hopeful about the future. I believe TV can deliver on that meaning. However, in 1984, Neil Postman did not share that sentiment within the pages of his landmark work, Amusing Ourselves to Death. A show, to put it plainly, is a format for entertainment, not for education, reflection, or catharsis, (p. 87-88) I am not here to refute the core of much of Postman's work. As a television producer for the last seventeen years, I can surely attest to the relevance of many of his conclusions. However, I also believe it is consequential to reopen the discussion in some context based primarily on new evidence within the cable and broadcast space that can demonstrate some contemporary attributes of the medium of television that were not observable to Postman twenty-five years ago. In short, I believe the method of the medium of television and production is in motion. Within this evolution lies proof of this new dynamic. My goal is not to tear down what Postman built, but rather to build and expand on his conclusions in an attempt to prove that in 2010, and beyond, there is hope for a higher form of public discourse in the age of electronics. Interviews with thought leaders, policy makers, journalists, and academics (like Michael Spence, above), all can help corroborate my view. However, real life examples are needed to substantiate my claim. But, to get to real life and present day, our path has to flow through the television signals and tubes of the past. In Amusing, Postman told us: Television serves us most usefully when presenting junk-entertainment; it serves us most ill when it co-opts serious modes of discourse--news, politics, science, education, commerce, religion--and turns them into entertainment packages. We would all be better off if television got worse, not better. The A-Team and Cheers are no threat to our public health. Minutes, Eye-Witness News, and Sesame Street are. (p. 159) That was 1984. There were three national networks plus a local PBS. 60 Minutes was a one-of-a-kind. TV consisted primarily of a morning program (like Today Show), a thirty-minute local broadcast in the early evening, followed by a thirty-minute national network show (like ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings). That was it. CNN was not even a factor for another six years, when it exploded into American culture during the first Gulf War. Postman's sample size was too small, and taken too prematurely, to accurately measure the full potential of the medium. Twenty-five years later, in simple volume terms alone, the TV space has exploded with content. Just take the sub-category of TV business news alone. Right now, there are three active full-time networks (CNBC, Bloomberg, and the Fox Business Network) in the United States, and more than a dozen other English-speaking networks overseas. general network examples are even greater in number. However, more does not necessarily mean better and, undoubtedly, there is more junk out there on television than ever before. …
Publication Year: 2010
Publication Date: 2010-07-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot