A little later in the chapter, Postman reasons that a good reader does not cheer, pause, or applaud after a well-written or inspirational sentence or paragraph. He concludes that because when a good reader engages the written word, he is too busy in analytic thought; clarifying confusions, weighing ideas, comparing, contrasting, and connecting generalizations.
To support his claim, Postman compares theologians Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham. He considers it a mistake to think of Graham as a modern day Edwards. He acknowledges that the television revivalist Billy Graham drew upon the passion and enthusiasm of his audiences that visually witnessed his sermons. On the other hand, Postman considers Edwards - who became well known because of his many books on theology - to be one of the most brilliant and creative revivalists ever. Edwards' audiences may have been emotionally moved by his works, but first had to understand and comprehend his message.
I find this also true to be in my life. For example, when I come across one of the many excellent points made by Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death, I do not become passionate; my face remains stoic, and I then merely reflect on the significance presented. If I were to possibly watch a passionate orator, I would more than likely be filled with excitement at the speech rather than be able to reflect on the meaning and significance of the words. Are there are any pros of visually watching a speech rather than reading it? What are some effects of the transition and dominance of television compared to reading? Could this or past presidential elections, important global or national decisions, or speeches have been different if they were read rather than watched?
There have been numerous studies on television on everything from behavior to damages, even pros and cons. When a person watches something such as a public speaker or an actor in a movie, they are able to look at their facial expressions, determining whether or not that person is in a good or bad mood. This influences them to that certain scenario. For instance, if one were to watch the ending scenes of Titanic, because of the melancholy and somber tones and expressions that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio portray, the audience is influenced to feel sad or touched by their gloomy setting. Where you read something, visualizing is hard for some and easy for others. In addition to influence at the moment, television also has a long lasting impression. If a child watches Tom and Jerry all the time, pretty soon they will think it is acceptable to hit their sibling with a frying pan because in the show it is for comical senses. Ultimately, political figures and television producers know this to be true. They use this human weakness of distraction to their advantage. This is why so many politicians post ads for their campaign or an ad from Congress about a bill on television rather than on newspaper. This way, the public is more prone to see and hear it versus waiting on the Sunday paper.
ReplyDeleteMs. Ferrell makes her points. Being able to see and read the expressions of someone while they're speaking plays a huge role in how the audience takes in the message. I like to tell people to act like they know what they're doing in front of a group and they will believe in it. When you watch someone who is confident and believes in what they say, their message makes a stronger impression on the public. When you watch someone who doesn't believe or know what they're saying, it shows and sends out a weaker message to the public.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading a speech, you read it and absorb the message in your point of view, not the writer. From speech competitions (not quite up to par as the ones for elections), I can say that reading a winning speech is quite different than hearing it in person. Actually seeing the speaker convey his message in the most unique way possible, his own, is almost infinitely better than trying to interpret a speech by reading it.
As for your last question, things could quite possibly be different if things were read instead of being seen and heard. Reading something opens up interpretation from our point of view, which may just be completely different than what the writer meant. Also, by not seeing the writer's demeanor while trying to present it, it can be hard to see if the author actually meant what they said and can. It can, in turn, either create a weaker impression or even a false impression to some people. On many issues, people are right in the middle. If someone were to read a speech, they might lean towards the way they seem to prefer, or they can misinterpret it somehow and go for the opposite. If the speech was heard, they can hear and see who the speech come out of. Listening to a speech creates a strong impression and would do better at pushing a voter in the direction they really want.