YouTube Visual Representation In this YouTube clip, an amateur news station discusses the possibility of whether or not presidential-hopeful Romney had tanned his face brown to appeal to Latino voters. Whether or not he actually did is irrelevant, the mere fact that this is being discussed is sufficient enough evidence. Namely, this is evidence of the fact that looks are becoming more important than something’s actual content. In Neil Postman’s article, he discusses how politics, the presidential race in particular, is being plagued by the same problem that the rest society is: aesthetics over quality and content. Just so long something looks good, people will think its good. Which is what Romney here is being accused of: making himself look good so that hopefully Latino voters will think that Romney is a good choice for president. The videos reveal, and as Neil Postman argues, that politics has become dangerously aligned with aesthetics over quality, and that this has dire consequences on the future of this nation. This is because looks are not everything, and it will be a president who has good content and quality, with aesthetics being irrelevant, that will lead a good presidency.
Vocabulary/Concepts:
Extension of Postman's Argument:
Thought-provoking questions:
1.) Postman states, “Ifpoliticsislikeshowbusiness,thentheideaisnottopursueexcellence, clarity or honesty but to appear as if you are…” Are we, American society,beingfooledintermsofpoliticalofficeandoccurrenceaccordingtoPostman’stheorythatindividualsinvolvedinthepoliticalsystemare, in reality, just “appearing” to possess the qualities we admire, appreciate, and vote for?
2.) Postman implies that television is distorting the label of “best man for the job.” Are we voting for what may perhaps be the wrong candidate due to the influences of television?
3.) Postman argues commercialism lacksasenseofintellectduetothefactthatitisassumedbuyersareunabletomakerationaldecisionsontheirownsoadsmustbeassimpleandunderstandableaspossible.Isthislackofcommercializedcomplexitypromotingstupidityandsimplicityratherthanintellectandcomplexity?
4.) According to Postman, “…politiciansbegantoputthemselvesforward,intentionally,assourcesof amusement.” CanonearguethatpoliticiansmayhavedifferentmotivesforrunningforPresidentthaninpreviousyears,likefame,rather than to serve the country and solely focus on its wellbeing?
5.) Does the internet reform the political spectrum advertisement wise, or does it, in fact, alter truth or understanding much like television does?
6.) Postman states, we, as a society, always try to vote for the “best man”, however, in our eyes, the best man is the candidate whotypicallypossessesthesamebeliefsandvaluesintheirpersonallifeastheirvoters.Shoulda candidate’s personal life determine if they are “the best man” for the position just because we see a similarity?
7.) How has political advertisement, through television, influenced yourself and those around you? In other words, have your family members or piers altered their political views or opinions due to commercialism.
8.) Is Postman’s argument, in terms of politics and commercialism, now applicable in terms of other technologies?
9.) Is television the dominant form of discourse or medium politically speaking?
10.) What are the implications for a society that values aesthetics over the actual content and quality of something?
Application of Postman's Argument:
Lev Grossman refutes and qualifies Postman’s ideas in his article “Meet Joe
Blog”. In chapter 9 postman writes about
the use of commercials and looks over merit to describe the political
atmosphere of the time. Grossman uses the phrase, “Gross, Malda, and Dutton
aren’t rich or famous or even conspicuously good-looking” (Par.2), to give a
since that blogs are not affected by the people that write them, but the
writing itself. The phrase does not support Postman’s argument because Postman
believes that it’s the prettiest man or the one with the most money that wins
elections, and not by the important things like how well they run a political
seen. This could very well have to do with the time period difference in which
it’s the status of the site rather than the credibility of its author.
Postman’s ideas about political commercials and Grossman’s point about blogging
sites however share many of the same characteristics. Grossman articulates the
fascination of the blog and how it has become the credible place to look for
information even though it is manly someone else’s opinion, and Postman
describes that informative TV is strictly for the fact of moving you to one
side without having all the facts. They show very similar qualities in that
they relate the fact that people believe the content just because of its status
as a blog or a political commercial. In most cases people in general will shrug
their shoulders and find the information as fact without ever looking into it
further, which proves that the technology speaks for the people and not the
other way around.
Reach out and Elect Someone
Summary/Outline:
Visual Representation:
YouTube Visual RepresentationIn this YouTube clip, an amateur news station discusses the possibility of whether or not presidential-hopeful Romney had tanned his face brown to appeal to Latino voters. Whether or not he actually did is irrelevant, the mere fact that this is being discussed is sufficient enough evidence. Namely, this is evidence of the fact that looks are becoming more important than something’s actual content. In Neil Postman’s article, he discusses how politics, the presidential race in particular, is being plagued by the same problem that the rest society is: aesthetics over quality and content. Just so long something looks good, people will think its good. Which is what Romney here is being accused of: making himself look good so that hopefully Latino voters will think that Romney is a good choice for president. The videos reveal, and as Neil Postman argues, that politics has become dangerously aligned with aesthetics over quality, and that this has dire consequences on the future of this nation. This is because looks are not everything, and it will be a president who has good content and quality, with aesthetics being irrelevant, that will lead a good presidency.
Vocabulary/Concepts:
Extension of Postman's Argument:
Thought-provoking questions:
1.) Postman states, “Ifpoliticsislikeshowbusiness,thentheideaisnottopursueexcellence, clarity or honesty but to appear as if you are…” Are we, American society,beingfooledintermsofpoliticalofficeandoccurrenceaccordingtoPostman’stheorythatindividualsinvolvedinthepoliticalsystemare, in reality, just “appearing” to possess the qualities we admire, appreciate, and vote for?2.) Postman implies that television is distorting the label of “best man for the job.” Are we voting for what may perhaps be the wrong candidate due to the influences of television?
3.) Postman argues commercialism lacksasenseofintellectduetothefactthatitisassumedbuyersareunabletomakerationaldecisionsontheirownsoadsmustbeassimpleandunderstandableaspossible.Isthislackofcommercializedcomplexitypromotingstupidityandsimplicityratherthanintellectandcomplexity?
4.) According to Postman, “…politiciansbegantoputthemselvesforward,intentionally,assourcesof amusement.” CanonearguethatpoliticiansmayhavedifferentmotivesforrunningforPresidentthaninpreviousyears,likefame,rather than to serve the country and solely focus on its wellbeing?
5.) Does the internet reform the political spectrum advertisement wise, or does it, in fact, alter truth or understanding much like television does?
6.) Postman states, we, as a society, always try to vote for the “best man”, however, in our eyes, the best man is the candidate whotypicallypossessesthesamebeliefsandvaluesintheirpersonallifeastheirvoters.Shoulda candidate’s personal life determine if they are “the best man” for the position just because we see a similarity?
7.) How has political advertisement, through television, influenced yourself and those around you? In other words, have your family members or piers altered their political views or opinions due to commercialism.
8.) Is Postman’s argument, in terms of politics and commercialism, now applicable in terms of other technologies?
9.) Is television the dominant form of discourse or medium politically speaking?
10.) What are the implications for a society that values aesthetics over the actual content and quality of something?
Application of Postman's Argument:
Lev Grossman refutes and qualifies Postman’s ideas in his article “Meet JoeBlog”. In chapter 9 postman writes about
the use of commercials and looks over merit to describe the political
atmosphere of the time. Grossman uses the phrase, “Gross, Malda, and Dutton
aren’t rich or famous or even conspicuously good-looking” (Par.2), to give a
since that blogs are not affected by the people that write them, but the
writing itself. The phrase does not support Postman’s argument because Postman
believes that it’s the prettiest man or the one with the most money that wins
elections, and not by the important things like how well they run a political
seen. This could very well have to do with the time period difference in which
it’s the status of the site rather than the credibility of its author.
Postman’s ideas about political commercials and Grossman’s point about blogging
sites however share many of the same characteristics. Grossman articulates the
fascination of the blog and how it has become the credible place to look for
information even though it is manly someone else’s opinion, and Postman
describes that informative TV is strictly for the fact of moving you to one
side without having all the facts. They show very similar qualities in that
they relate the fact that people believe the content just because of its status
as a blog or a political commercial. In most cases people in general will shrug
their shoulders and find the information as fact without ever looking into it
further, which proves that the technology speaks for the people and not the
other way around.