Blog Post 2 Postman

Postman makes strong claims throughout the first chapter of this book. He makes logical connections between things, but sometimes uses those connections too definitely, that is, he draws heavy conclusions. Postman finishes the chapter saying, "Our media are our metaphors. Our metaphors create the content of our culture." I believe there is definitely merit to that claim, but too it is too strong a conclusion to draw. My answer to Postman would be, "Maybe, but not necessarily." Here's what I mean by that.

I do not dispute that the medium of communication can affect the message; it can affect what becomes important to the viewer and in turn the one communicating. For example, I do not dispute that the rise of television made it harder for a fat person to run for president. However, all this example shows, is that the medium affects the message. Not that it has to create the message or content. For example, I like to watch Jason Evert, a well known chastity speaker on YouTube. I have also seen him give talks in person. I also listen to audio files of his talks in my car. These are three different media of communication, but the message he gives is the same. It is possible for the media to affect what consumers care about and what kind of content they expect, but that does not mean every single person in the world will conform to that. Plenty of people on TV will show fat people in positions of authority, even if the average consumer might find it "gross," because the average consumer is not necessarily everyone's audience.

I think Postman made a good point when he said Taft could not run for president today because he is too fat. I agree. But with that one premise, it does not follow logically that the media controls the content completely. It can bend the content or sway it in one direction. But only if the communicator allows it to do so. 

I think Postman's weakest point was when he talked about the "news of the day." He said the news of the day did not exist before media that allowed it. He agreed those things we find in the news still happened, but they did not become "news of the day." I think Postman is trying too hard here. He said the idea that there is "news of the day" was created by the telegraph. But that is not true. The "news of the day" was simply a name, a reconstruct, of an idea people already wanted to know. People already wanted to know what happened in different places that day. The "news of the day" is not a "figment of of our technological imagination." It is a nominal linguistic construct of a group of ideas that people wanted to know, and it exists.