How foreseeable was the future from 1985?

My take on Amusing ourselves to Death by Neil Postman.

This was one of the most interesting books that I have read so far. It was written in 1985 and yet from everything Neil speaks about, you would think he wrote this a few weeks ago. Neil’s biggest concern was how America, a country whereby their main form of communication started from oral, to written typographic word to the telegraph combined with photographs and finally the television.

Neil begins by introducing us to how information and knowledge spread in America. It began with oral transmission. Knowledge was spread by word of mouth, through speeches and the ear was the main organ of communication. He describes this America as one that was emotional and structured. You had to be there to receive information and once received, process and make up an argument real time as it was being communicated. The memory was the storage system and if we think about it, it is why poetry had/has rhythm, that way it was easier to remember.

Now America moved to typography as a form of communication and what did that mean to be exact? Typography means the arrangement of letters, numbers and symbols to make written language legible and readable. Postman talks about how information was now mass produced and you could sit alone, read and follow an argument from start to end and be rational about your judgement. Neil describes this America as one that was rational and had linear thinking because they had time to sit and think through about whatever argument that they had, I think he was just trying to hint at the fact they could easily separate reason from emotion. He talks about a lot of things and basically how the progression of writing occurred and one thing that stood out to me was the debate between Stephen A Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, which occurred on August 21 1858 whereby they had written their speeches and basically they had to debate in front of an audience of eager listeners. Neil estimates that their debate would have taken approximately 7 hours and he then proceeds to ask an important question, “Is there any audience in America today who could endure 7 hours of talk especially without pictures of any kind”. Mind you he asked this in 1985, and as much as I hate to admit this, if he was concerned about the attention span and the ability to listen to speeches of those in 1985, what of those in 2026? I am a victim of the low attention span, I for sure cannot listen to a 3 hour debate let alone a 7 hour one without taking a break and even within the 3 hours that I am listening, my mind would have been going off to far and distant lands. I would be doing everything but comprehending what was being said.

Telegraphy was described as the decline of America and this is why I think it was described as that. Telegraphy basically means sending messages at a distance, ‘peek a boo’ for the lack of a better word, this means that information that was somewhat irrelevant could travel faster than any given human. Neil references Henry David Thoreau who said “ We are in a great haste to construct magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas but it may be that Maine and Texas have nothing important to communicate” I think that Neil was just slowly soft launching the fact that news in America became irrelevant and impotent but lets also think, what was the relevance of what was happening in Texas being known by those in Maine? Those in Texas would just be aware and go on their daily lives without altering their plans for the day and would have something to talk about and vice versa and I think it is what Neil was pointing to, the telegraph generating an abundance of irrelevant information. Let us also think about what this meant for the human mind, suddenly information and knowledge were no longer structured, it was all fragmented and short, precise is the better word. Information was consumed just for the sake and not for the usefulness of it. The mind was trained to become accustomed to speed rather than depth. Well it was with telegraphy that came photography.By itself a photograph does not talk about an idea or a concept unlike words, Neil says. Pictures are observed and words are subjective, this means that pictures present the world as an object and language presents the world as an idea, think about this in this manner, a photo of a ball is just a ball but the word longing for example changes meaning depending on different individuals and the life they have lived. In a nutshell all photos need is recognition and all words need are to be understood.

The television was not just about fragmented news anymore but rather fragmented, irrelevant news and information that was coupled up with pictures to take the focus away from argument to impression. Neil calls this “Age of show business” and just when he thought telegraphy was bad came television and I wonder what he would have thought about Tiktok. Personally as an avid tiktok user maybe avid is not the correct word an addict is the more suitable one, I really look at a video and if it looks appealing ,I assume that whatever that the video is about must be beneficial, diabolical to think that way but hey, I am trying to change that and see beyond the appearance and aesthetics. He talks about how everything was now appearance based (sounds familiar?) , even the presidential candidates were no longer debating each other for 7 hours but were now concerned with impressions. A president must be watchable before they are credible. The debates were no longer seen as debates but as boxing matches, Neil says. Who KO’d whom? Well try to guess the answer, it was of course who ever looked more masculine and more serious and had a fixed gaze. When you are watching a television show, you don’t say , let me think about that or even try to think and maybe that is the point, simply the attack is against your cognitive function. Television can not sustain complex argument because the format won’t allow it, think about it, because a 45–50 second news segment cannot do what a 1000 word essay does. Television took the fragmented information of the telegraph and added a requirement of entertainment. Everything was now appearance based whether it was religion, politics and even education.

Now to address the elephant in the room or rather in the book, Neil quotes Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian philosopher who said that the ‘medium is the message’ and what did that look for me as a reader of the book, the medium whether print, oral or television does not just deliver news and information to me but it tells me what the world is, it colours my perception of the world. I think Neil was somewhat bitter, sad and scared too. He saw that people around him were losing the ability to sit with information and come to conclusions and form arguments, he was just sad that people were losing their brainpower. Neil was scared for the future, he visioned a future whereby serious problems got packaged as entertainment, a world whereby people consume information without processing it and of course a world where image replaces reason and argument.The evolving world made Neil Postman lonely, a man who loved ideas, introspection and arguments watched the people around him slowly lose interest. Well, I could be going off on a limb here but I think Neil had the saviour complex, why you may ask? This book seemed like he was tying to show us and convince us that the television was detrimental to us. He felt the urge to save those around him from falling from their peak cognitive function to just people who had the illusion of being knowledgeable. The fact that I could not tell you what the last 5 tiktok videos that I watched were about just brands me as a passive consumer who thinks that I am being informed while actually just consuming noise. This is the world Neil Postman had foreseen in 1985 and he was not wrong to have been concerned and alarmed.