Comments on: The News http://flexistentialist.org/blog/archives/2003/11/07/the-news/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:54:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: sam http://flexistentialist.org/blog/archives/2003/11/07/the-news/comment-page-1/#comment-2477 sam Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:18:28 +0000 http://flexistentialist.org/wordpress/?p=349#comment-2477 You are right, he does refer to 'The medium is the message' a lot. I should go check that one out. I gather that it deals heavily with how the method you choose for transmitting information colors the nature of the information itself. Television, by its nature, changes the information it broadcasts, by shortening it, disconnecting it, and over-visualizing it. In 1986 the internet was not in existance the way we think of it today. There was no such thing as 'online news'. However, if postman had written amusing ourselves to death today, he probably would have a LOT to say about online news, and how in many ways it fulfills his predictions of how news will get more common, and be dispensed faster, but will simultaneously get less relevant to our lives. He probably wouldn't have forseen the advent of blogs and other types of alternative 'news-like' information spreading systems, which behave quite differently from traditional print/television news. They take on a more 'human to human' conversation, rather than a mechanical outlay of factoids, and they add a continuous editorial aspect, that lets one see the human aspects. Take Dear Raed for example. People have learned a lot about the conflict in Iraq from him, probably as much as they learn in the news. Less factoids, less up-to-the-second updates on casualties, but a more relevant human side, that allows a more complete picture to develop than one can get from strictly 'standard' news. You are right, he does refer to ‘The medium is the message’ a lot. I should go check that one out. I gather that it deals heavily with how the method you choose for transmitting information colors the nature of the information itself. Television, by its nature, changes the information it broadcasts, by shortening it, disconnecting it, and over-visualizing it.

In 1986 the internet was not in existance the way we think of it today. There was no such thing as ‘online news’. However, if postman had written amusing ourselves to death today, he probably would have a LOT to say about online news, and how in many ways it fulfills his predictions of how news will get more common, and be dispensed faster, but will simultaneously get less relevant to our lives.

He probably wouldn’t have forseen the advent of blogs and other types of alternative ‘news-like’ information spreading systems, which behave quite differently from traditional print/television news. They take on a more ‘human to human’ conversation, rather than a mechanical outlay of factoids, and they add a continuous editorial aspect, that lets one see the human aspects. Take Dear Raed for example. People have learned a lot about the conflict in Iraq from him, probably as much as they learn in the news. Less factoids, less up-to-the-second updates on casualties, but a more relevant human side, that allows a more complete picture to develop than one can get from strictly ‘standard’ news.

]]> By: Jasper http://flexistentialist.org/blog/archives/2003/11/07/the-news/comment-page-1/#comment-2476 Jasper Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:57:39 +0000 http://flexistentialist.org/wordpress/?p=349#comment-2476 Amusing ourselves to death is an awesome book. If memory serves postman was refering primarily to news from television programs but I think you have done a good job adapting his ideas to the internet. It draws in some interesting points about the type of information that people generally process. Specifically the way that we are insulated from the news by the rate at which television occurs. Say for instance that 10,000 people die in a chemical spill in India you don't really have time to process that because now a word from our sponsors... TV delivers information in 30second chunks without anysort of discussion (usually). Information only has value when it relates to other information and so these little bites serve only to fill heads with bits that don't fit together. What sam says about the quality of most news rings true as well. I like to read the wall street journal. I feel like its one of the few newspapers that isn't just fucking around with me. I can respect the wsj because even though it is incredibly evil, its honest. If you like Amusing Ourselves to Death I recommend [+] The medium is the Message by marshal mcluhan (this is frequently quoted by postman) [+] White Noise by Don DeLillo [+] Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky or Spectacular Achievements in Propaganda Amusing ourselves to death is an awesome book.

If memory serves postman was refering primarily to news from television programs but I think you have done a good job adapting his ideas to the internet.

It draws in some interesting points about the type of information that people generally process. Specifically the way that we are insulated from the news by the rate at which television occurs. Say for instance that 10,000 people die in a chemical spill in India you don’t really have time to process that because now a word from our sponsors…

TV delivers information in 30second chunks without anysort of discussion (usually). Information only has value when it relates to other information and so these little bites serve only to fill heads with bits that don’t fit together.

What sam says about the quality of most news rings true as well. I like to read the wall street journal. I feel like its one of the few newspapers that isn’t just fucking around with me. I can respect the wsj because even though it is incredibly evil, its honest.

If you like Amusing Ourselves to Death I recommend

[+] The medium is the Message by marshal mcluhan (this is frequently quoted by postman)

[+] White Noise by Don DeLillo

[+] Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky or Spectacular Achievements in Propaganda

]]>