“Television is altering the meaning of ‘being informed’ by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.”

                                                           -Neil Postman

I’d like to start this entry with an experiment.  Close your eyes for a moment and think about George Washington.  What’s the first thing that comes into your mind?  Was it an image of him heroically navigating the waters of the Delaware or the dollar bill?  I’ve performed this experiment on many of my friends.  Interestingly, upon being asked the question, there is a consensus among them.  With slight variations according to each person I’ve asked, the experiment always goes something like this, “What’s the first thing that comes into your mind when you think about George Washington,” to which they respond—as would I—after a short pondering, “an image of George Washington.”

Now contrast the reaction of the 21st century person with what we can presume would be the reaction of a 19th century person.  Had you mentioned a name such as Abraham Lincoln, the mind of a 19th century inhabitant would not immediately think of an image, but rather, something which Abraham Lincoln might have said or wrote.  The reason for this is quite practical: the 19th century person’s mind was not inundated with images provided by the moving picture boxes we’ve come to love in the 20th and 21st century.  What is frightening, is that the television, has become a valid source of information and what we see on the tube, is what we talk about at the coffee shops, bars and water coolers.  Below, I discuss two reasons why television is not a good medium for reporting objective information.   

News channels create flawed ad hominem arguments(arguments based on emotion and not based on reason or logic) using images and soundbites.  Take, for example, the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico.  This spill, is a horrible thing.  It’s had a devastating effect on the homes of many Americans.  With that said, how many of you, have gotten information on this oil spill directly from FOX, NBC, CNN or ABC news?  If you’ve stopped to flip on the tube at any point in the last few months, you’re likely to have seen that ever so stimulating image of oil gushing from the pipes of one of BP’s guilty rigs.  This image, is responsible for a large majority of the bullshit currently springing up from the mouths of the disinformed. 

In his eye-opening book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman defines disinformation as, “…information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.”  Think for a minute about the substance one receives from studying an image, as opposed to the substance one receives from reading a carefully researched essay on a certain topic.  An image has the ability to immediately trigger an emotional reaction.  This means, that upon seeing a picture such as this, an emotional reaction is immediately in tow of one’s visual perception.  Whereas, if I were to provide a first-hand, written account of this boys life, you would have to read quite a bit into the account to get any reaction at all.  But just think for a minute, how much more information you could receive from reading a written account of this boy’s life rather than simply looking at a picture!  An account of this boy’s life would most likely include a birth date, accounts of his parents, how he got to where he was and why there’s no one there to help him out of such a dire situation.  These are all things which the image above would utterly fail to convey.  Compare this with the image of oil spilling from an oil rig, and you receive a similar result.  Questions like, ‘why is this happening,’ ‘how do we stop it,’ ‘what caused this mess,’ and ‘who’s working on it,’ could not be answered by any combination of a single ghastly image and a twitteresque report on the subject.  

Secondly, information reported through the television puts an irrelevant emphasis on outward appearances, which distracts viewers from the actual content of what a politician, celebrity or news anchor might say, do or even think.  And don’t think for a second that those politicians aren’t taking advantage of this simple, yet elusive truth.  Think for a second, of our 27th president: Howard Taft.  There’s just no way in hell that guy could ever become president in this day and age.  Let’s imagine for a minute that Taft had all the answers to everything.  It’s my opinion that in this day and age, intellectual duds like the last 6 (minus 1) presidents of the US would still hold a favorable advantage, simply because they’re good-looking or have a status outside of politics.  Do you contest?  Maybe a simple reminder might be of assistance.     

My point is this: we should read more, watch less.  We can’t let our worldviews become shaped by the bias’ of personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman.    Yes, it does require more thinking and more reading, both of which are things we’ve come to despise at least in some way, but is the alternative worth it?  Is our transition into an information-deprived culture worth the trade of our intellectual freedom to read, think and discuss to the best of our ability?  Stand up and fight for your right to think.