scm_redrum

Postman offers "three commandments that form the philosophy of the
education which television offers. The influence of these commandments is
observable in every type of television programming-from 'Sesame Street' to
the documentaries of 'Nova' and 'The National Geographic' to 'Fantasy
Island' to MTV. The commandments are as follows:
Thou shalt have no prerequisites
Thou shalt induce no perplexity
Thou shalt avoid exposition like the ten plagues visited upon Egypt."

I have been having troubling understand these commandments that Postman states in his book. For all those who has read this great book, can you help me explain these in with more detail and maybe give me some contemporary examples?

Koyaanisqatsi

I haven't read his book, but the points you excerpted seem obvious enough:

1: Thou shalt have no prerequisites

You will have no preconceived notions of what you are going to see; meaning, you will have no active barriers to what you are about to watch.

2: Thou shalt induce no perplexity

Due to the passive quality of TV, you have no reason to impose any form of complex analysis. It will simply flow over and through you.

3: Thou shalt avoid exposition like the ten plagues visited upon Egypt.

Due to your willing participation in a passive medium, you will not be encouraged to seek a deeper level.

"The medium is the message," means that there is no actual message from the medium, other than passive acceptance. TV induces a hypnotic passivity (at thirty frames per second, no less), which means you will not be able to ever learn anything of substance from the TV.

Never.

Indeed, no human has ever nor can ever learn anything from TV, regardless of what they may or may not have memorized from exposure to TV.

Learning and mere memorization have nothing to do with each other. Most of us Americans have no idea what that means, since we were all mesmerized by TV and bought all of the self-serving propaganda from the TV shows we watched, but none of us have ever learned anything from TV.

How could we? Nothing on TV was/is ever real, nor can it be, regardless of how real it may seem, and that is the message of the medium.

Even if one were to say, "I learned how to kiss or how to count to ten or what a 'perp' is," they are only, ultimately, affirming rote memorization and never learning. To learn something is to experience it in some direct fashion.

excreationist

I've read Neil Postman's books "The Disappearance of Childhood" and "Technopoly" and maybe some of "Amusing Ourselves to Death".... the first two books I mentioned talk quite a bit about TV.
I think it is basically that TV is basically about entertainment - one that usually doesn't require literacy.
If you have "prerequisites" - e.g. assume a lot of things about their knowledge - then you would be alienating a lot of potential viewers - and the ratings would go down. Ratings are important.
If there is too much perplexity people would tend to change the channel.
I guess expositions also would encourage people to change the channel.
Basically those no-no's go against what entertainment-seeking TV watchers would seek... and the audience must be satisfied otherwise the program will get axed.
Of course, there is always some demand for some super in-depth educational programs.
Postman probably said something like that in the surrounding pages - in fact the title talks about being "amused" - i.e. being entertained - having fun. And in general, this means not learning much.... (except exciting things like gossip, etc)

excreationist

I guess you'd say that when kids are learning their times tables (multiplication) they're not learning anything - they are just doing some rote memorization.
It seems you only consider things learning if it involves "learning to do" things - well I think "learning about" things is also learning... one involves learning skills, the other is about data.

ex-xian

Does this mean no one can ever learn anything from a book? If not, what's the difference?

Neilium

What about when someone takes what they see on TV and correllates it with what they experience in the world? Isn't that learning? Conversely, one can experience something over and over and never learn. (A joke about a cat jumping on a hot stove, getting scorched, and subsequently being afraid of all stoves, hot or cold, comes to mind.)

I'm not a great lover of TV, either. But it provides a lot of data, just like books, movies, and newspapers. And just like those, when examining the data, one must consider the source.

I also subscribe to McLuhan's mantra, "the medium is the message". The nature of television (McLuhan called it a "hot" medium, that does a lot and demands little else than passive attention from its audience) has largely shaped its programming. His repsonse to it was critical viewership, that the audience view television in a larger context. Keep in mind, the title of his oft -quoted book is "Understanding Mass Media", not "Dismissing Mass Media".

-Neil

Amos

I'd say "never ever!"

Hello and I am with you on this. The difference is in your difinition of knowledge and learning. We can receive much data from TV but that will become a liability to us until we experience it first hand and so tie this data down in understanding.

TV is not all wrong but to be popular and sell advertising it seems to feed our "curious eyes" and this is where things get out of hand. It feeds our imagination with garbage that is unreal to leave many of us stranded with a worldview that is not real and does not exist. Yes, much like small forms of "incubator stories."

Neilium

But what medium is exempt from this? Michael Chriton's novels and every fashion magazine ever published fit the criteria spelled out in Postman's three commandments. Is that an indictment on publishing? That would be tantamount to blaming cholera solely on water because of water's potential to carry the disease.

I could drag my TV to the hockshop and get my $20, but am I free from the unreal? Heck no. It's everywhere, on the chest of every logoed t-shirt, across every billboard, and on the menu of every restaurant.

There's no question that TV has been a powerful tool in shaping a culture that prizes the impermanent, vapid and disposable, but that culture existed before TV. I wonder how different TV would be if the culture that spawned it was different.

Amos

That is a good point and we must add religion to this as well. Is it perhaps also true that a civilization that is steadfast and in charge of its own destiny will not as easily be moved by the moods of religion, persuasion of TV and mind changing drugs?

scm_redrum

Thank you for replying everyone

It's hard to argue against Postmans point of view if you haven't read the book, but if you ever turn on a television today it's pretty plain to see that everything is pretty much "crap." i.e "Joe Millionare, "Married by America," "American Idol," and so on. Ever since the ivention of television, "American Culture" (if such a thing exists), has been declining at a rapid pace. We can arguably blame alot if things like A.D.D, declining SAT scores, mass propaganda, and the idea that "learning must be fun" on television because it created a culture where everything must be fast and simple (like sound bites).

Well thanks again for all the replies. More insight on this subject would be appreciated. Good bye.

Brian Min