any readers of this newsletter will be familiar with Marshall McLuhan and his saying “the medium is the message.” This book makes a similar, but different claim; that the media we use shapes the way we think and what counts as truth. The medium itself isn’t the message, but it shapes all the messages it transmits. We live in an Age of Television, which has supplanted the Age of Typography, of print. Images trump the word. Originally published in 1985, this book could do with an update. Unfortunately, Postman, who chaired the Department of Communication Arts at New York University, passed away in 2003.
Television has generally been hailed as an unmixed good, even by educators and by politicians seeking election. People advocate for television but haven’t done the hard work of analysing it carefully, in particular looking for any potential downsides. His book is a profound, clear-headed analysis of the effect of television on our culture, pointing us to features we are reluctant to acknowledge. His argument is strange and foreign to us; television changes us but we don’t notice it. We may be familiar with the idea that television brainwashes us and dulls our critical faculties, but Postman’s argument does not depend on any such claims. Indeed, he is open to the possibility that as-yet-unseen benefits may come from television. The new media (television) changes what is communicated; this can be a mix of good and bad.  
Postman provides a wide-ranging background to his analysis. He announces what he is going to do in relation to television on page 79, but only starts in on that analysis beginning on page 102, more than halfway through the book.

In an age dominated by print and the word, long political speeches were nothing unusual. A serious and rational conversation is natural in such a world. The first of the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas was planned for three hours. Other debates were even longer. People back then had long attention spans and were trained to comprehend complex sentences aurally. Their speeches were modelled on print.

The monopoly of the printed word came to an end in stages. First came the telegraph, invented in 1858. The telegraph annihilated the space between parts of the States. In partnership with the penny press, it enabled the production of a glut of detail devoid of context or practical application. Telegraph uses the language of headlines: sensational, fragmented, impersonal. Telegraphy was followed by the image: first the daguerreotype and then soon after, the photograph, especially the ability to provide many copies of a single negative. Photography is an odd name, since it literally means “writing with light” when images are diametrically opposed to the written word. The picture quickly forced exposition into the background, as you can see from magazines like Life.

But it was television that really gave the image its potency and finally supplanted the world of print. Television is the unquestioned background of our lives. We may discuss the content of a TV programme, but we don’t reflect on television as a universally accessible, all-pervasive medium. We don’t notice that instead of hour-long speeches, we are told that our prime minister likes sausage rolls. No matter how devastating the news, the next item, or a commercial, is a maximum of 45 seconds away, which detracts from any need to take it seriously. Newsreaders are likely to spend more time with their hair dryer than with their script, indicating that their image is more important than the content of the message they convey.

Television prioritises the image. It does not lend itself to complex, nuanced argument. Even when it tries its best to be serious, debaters are likely to have no more than five minutes to make the case, and one minute to respond to counter-arguments. Television is best suited to entertainment, and indeed tends to turn even news into entertainment. Talking heads do not make good television. Postman distinguishes television technology from television as a medium. In cultures other than the US, television can be a different medium but use the same technology. It may be used in authoritarian nations predominantly to disseminate government propaganda, for example.

And what about the churches? I’m sad to say that they are mostly still in the age of typography; hence the unsuitability of church services for televising.  However, enterprising conservative pastors (such as Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart), have invested heavily in religious television and built up huge empires. Postman’s conclusion, after watching 42 hours of such programmes, is that religion is presented as entertainment. The preacher comes out as the main feature; God is a lower priority. The second commandment, forbidding the making of graven images, is a salutary warning here. Christianity is a demanding faith but is presented as easy and amusing. It tells people what they want to hear. For example, if they have faith and donate generously to the church, God will see that they have health, wealth, and happiness. Oral Roberts preached “seed faith,” according to which money donated to his ministry would return to the donor sevenfold. The medium of television necessarily distorts the message. Religion in the age of print was dominated by an austere, learned and intellectual style that is largely absent today (just compare Jonathan Edwards with Jerry Falwell!).

Now think what has happened since 1985! We have multiple channels 24/7 and competing streaming services such as Netflix, Neon, Disney+ Sky Sport, Acorn TV and Youtube TV. We have cellphones and social media. We need another Postman to analyse the effects these new technologies are having on us and on what now counts as knowledge.

The Editor