Television vs. Print

The book and the television are two distinctively different ways of life, both portraying a “story,” whether true or not, but in two totally different ways. Many can and will argue that watching TV makes one dumber and reading makes you smarter. Other people will take the stance of television producing no harm to the public and reading is either just another hobby with no real intellectual booster or can even hurt one buy secluding themselves from the world. Neil Postman argues that the book is the correct way of life. He claims “reading teaches us to reason” (283) and that television hurts our thinking and disables us to achieve what we could by reading over watching TV. Camille Paglia, on the other hand, defends the television by saying it “is the culture” (238) and it has a great, drawing power over us.

Each of the authors has their valid arguments, but on the whole, Paglia won me over in the reading “Two Cultures- Television Versus Print.” The example she gives about the Catholic Church was really what sold me on her. I totally agree with her, I know my childhood memories were of images, not something profound that I read. I think it is easy to understand the Catholic Church in images, statues, and other visual ways because it has such depth to them. Yes the Bible and other words of Catholicism are still extremely important, but I think for a younger person to fully grasp a concept, seeing a visual is easier. Also, she stated how minor the Virgin Mary was in the Bible and how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were clearly dominate over any woman figure. But with images, Mary can be depicted anywhere and her small role in the Bible is a drastic difference from her more obvious visual. When I really think about it, I do realize how much of a difference Mary is portrayed in the Bible versus a visual of her. When I think of Catholicism, I think of God, Jesus, and Mary instantly. But when reading the Bible she is not one of those ‘characters’ that pop out so profoundly like the way my mind makes it in the visual sense. Paglia’s argument on this is very interesting and I totally see where she’s coming from in regards to it.

Paglia also points out the 15-year difference between herself and Postman, who is the older of the two. She explains how this generation gap makes a huge difference between their thinking because of the change in American culture during their times (287). They both view the mass media in different ways, making their argument on the television and print capturing. I agree with how she justifies how symbols used in television commercials and ads reinforce their deeper meaning. People will see an ad and a symbol used along with it, say for instance Martin Luther King Jr., and in their mind will rethink everything MLK Jr. stands for and what he has done for African Americans nationwide. It brings a sense of history to the product or whatever is being sold and, to me at least, reinforces what it means and makes more people aware of problems. I think symbols are great to be used in the media or in marketing because it ‘re-teaches’ a person about their history and the symbol becomes more meaningful and sometimes even more personal.

Paglia and Postman both give valid arguments as shown in “Two Cultures- Television Versus Print” and have insightful information regarding the influence of the television and print. Though I understand where Postman comes from and I agree with him on a couple theories, I feel Paglia shows the better defense of television, and being a post war baby, I stand by her notion of the television. Print and the TV are two extremely important events that have occurred in American history, making them to cause such argument over their impact on our culture.

 

 

Postman, Neil and Camille Paglia. "Two Cultures- Television Verses Print.” Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th  ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 283-295