I'm quite curious what you think of this piece, as a member of a generation she targets in her argument.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We spend time learning WHAT media workers do, but it's just as important to think about HOW they do it and WHY they do it. Let's get some ideas percolating about what we see and how it affects us. I call it "Sunrise on Media" because I often arrive at work obscenely early and will update this blog then.
I'm quite curious what you think of this piece, as a member of a generation she targets in her argument.
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
7:58 AM
Labels: anti-intellectualism, washington post
5 comments:
hey, maybe if we had a president who was intelligent and knew what he was talking about, and maybe even spoke correctly, there would be more interest in what he had to say, like in the days of FDR. i would love to give bush a geography test. an english one too.
i have read "Everything Bad Is Good for You" and i think it makes a weak argument. i dont think video games and the like are greatly benefitting anyone (nowhere near the benefits of someone reading a book or paper)
i def. think it is disturbing the rate at which reading has decreased. if adults dont read themselves, and probably dont read to their children, how can we expect those kids and teens to want to read?
I agree that the plummeting reading rate is worrisome, but I don't think the public should be receiving all the blame. Media has fully embraced digital technologies and less and less attention is being paid to the written word. The cap times cutting production is a perfect example. If media is no longer focusing on print, then how are Americans supposed to read more? I know digital technology may not effect novels and poetry, but when so much information is online, it is hard to resist it for entertainment value as well.
i have to say that i think that some kinds of technology make me want to learn more, not less. the fact that i can read most of the new york times online, or check the bbc, or even google something i'm curious about and find an answer in 30 seconds doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. of course, with the internet we do have to be careful about where information is coming from, and sure, it's more satisfying to actually read the print copy of the paper, but i do think that the internet can be a good source for news, and has the possibility to foster interest in world events.
however, i agree with the first comment that the president has an negative influence on the public's interest in international and national events. i think that maybe patriotism has crossed the line so that some americans believe that other countries just don't matter, and this to me is far more disturbing than kids playing video games or looking at facebook.
it's hard to hear this kind of stuff when you're on a college campus where reading and learning is just what you do.
The very first thing I thought about after I read this article was the book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. Postman believed when education mixes with media, children assume that information worth learning comes in the form of entertainment. I think that could be a valid reason as to why reading is declining, because people are using the television and the Internet as learning tools instead of print. Because of this change in technology and the fact people aren't reading print as much, jobs in the newspaper industry are declining. It all makes sense.
I am going to be the devil's advocate and disagree with Susan Jacoby's ideas about the dumbing of America. I don't think people are getting less intellectual in society. Cultural values have changed so much in the past century and before that. Most of our parents were probably not doing anything more valuable with their time than we have been doing with ours now. It just so happens that we seem to be taking the "easy way out" by using the technology that has been developed.
I feel like she has an interesting idea, but I don't think it matters and it doesn't need to be discussed. This sort of goes along with her belief that our generation is anti-intellectual and anti-rational. I'd rather not talk about how I am stupid and I don't think as efficiently as previous generations, so I see her as an elitist.
When I finished reading the article, the first thing that came to my mind is, "Why is this article online if her argument is that computers hurt society?" She probably had no choice in keeping it away from the online community, but her piece alienated me for being a user of the Internet.
Post a Comment