More thoughts about TV and "amusing ourselves to death"

In past entries, I have discussed the book “amusing ourselves to death” by Neil Postman.  I questioned his premise, even though I saw the potential for him to be right on target.  Something I read in the textbook for my political science class has me seeing even more clearly that he is right, we’re on a dangerous path.

 

The text book, “The Promise and Performance of American Democracy” by Jon R. Bond and Kevin B. Smith discusses how television has had an impact on the electoral process.  The prime example being that the GOP (Republican Party) changed its convention role call, done in one night, to spread it over several nights?  Why?  Because of the national TV coverage.  In other words, tradition gave way to playing for the camera.  It isn’t a part of the political process any more as much as an attempt at a television event.

 

I know this isn’t a drastic change in the discourse involved in the convention process, let alone the political process and the process of electing a president, but it is part of a larger phenomenon. 

 

That phenomenon is to get the whole process palatable for the TV viewing audience.  I’m waiting for “American Idol” to become “American President” with Simon replaced by, say, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin.

 

I’ll be the first to admit, I struggle with any kind of change.  As it is, the whole world has changed drastically in the few short decades during which I have grown up.  To see a change in something for the sake of a television audience, though, is a bit too much for me.  TV should be there to display it to the world, not indirectly or inadvertently mold it to be suitable for broadcast.

 

I used to roll my eyes and sigh with exasperation whenever I heard TV called “the opiate of the masses.”  People borrow the term that Karl Marx used to describe religion, and they borrow it to describe TV and the viewing habits it creates.  I thought that was a bit ridiculous for the longest time.  TV wasn’t going to lead to some Huxlian brave new world, either…not in my book.

 

Well, I am editing that “book” because I am seeing where it could very easily come to pass.  If we’re changing aspects of the political process, even trivial ones, to make it TV-worthy, how soon will it be before the aspects we change become less trivial and more significant?  How long will it take before the electoral process is done by viewers phoning in their votes to “American President”?

 

I could even potentially see someone deciding that perhaps TV is the way to draw younger voters…televise the whole presidential election process from start to finish, dramatize it, throw in some music by currently popular music artists, and bam!  Presidential election in the “real world.”

 

Okay, I realize that this would be a dramatic violating of constitutional principles, and hopefully our country, our society would never let it get that far.  That said, however, if the opiate known as television lulls enough people into a viewing coma, it could very well happen.

 

Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that TV is pure evil.  It has good and bad qualities, just as everything in life does.  I guess I just wonder if maybe Neil Postman was more accurate in his premise than I once thought.  For that matter, maybe even Roger Water’s words inspired by Postman’s book are accurate and some race of extraterrestrials will come along, and they will have the equivalent of anthropologists that discover that we, literally, amused ourselves to death.