That's funny you mention that. I've been thinking the same thing as I read Postman's book. I went to a conference last week, and they posted statistics about teens in America today. One of the statistics stated that teens today spend more time on the Internet than they do watching television. I know that is definitely true for myself. I would argue that, in some ways, we are past the television age and into the social media age. I don't think Postman would approve of the use of Twitter or Facebook as a means for public discourse. Thanks for bringing this up!
Thanks for the heads up Ron, and for the encouragement to read. Which half of the month will you be unavailable?
We haven't decided when to begin the discussion, so you can be the first polled as to availability.
I will be reading and available from July 1st to 11th and then back on the 23rd.
Postman writes the role of news is to cause discourse or debate, to lead to meaningful change or to increase social and political potency. Is this the purpose of news?
Also, some of his argument have me wondering about commercials/spots/programs/documentaries that are meant for the social good? Documentaries like Invisible Soldiers or God Grew Tired of Us are two-fold in aim. Yes, they do try to make it as "entertaining" as possible I suppose but do so to push awareness of a major social issue. Somebody may read about this issue after seeing a telegraphic image of it. Is this good or bad? Sure, the context may be brief, but it gives an jolt for viewers to seek their own. Is creating own context good or bad?