Writing vs. Television: Ready! Fight!

With each new medium comes a feud with the old mediums. Orality versus writing, and now writing versus television. Old media vs. new media. Again. Postman and Paglia seemed to have a fabulous time bickering and picking away at each others arguments without really making a strong stance on either of their own preferred mediums.

From what I can tell based on previous readings and discussions, each medium carries with it possibilities weighed down by the history and nostalgia of older mediums. Writing and television both act as that extra somatic memory. Because of the standards of literacy, at least in the United States, writing is something available to most of the population, and is something individuals can each record, share and receive. Very few, however, know how to broadcast a television show or even how to edit or produce the film caught on the family camcorder. To create a piece of writing, all one needs is a pen. To create something for television broadcast, one needs a significant amount of money and a specific skill set. Double or triple that if they want it to be broadcast on something other than a local station too.

In terms of effectiveness television does have writing/print beat, at least on a neurological level. Where print is only evoking one sense (sight), television is calling on two (sight and hearing). Television is also incredibly absorbing, causing viewers to go into a trance of sorts as they completely focus on a single point. Television can be considered more for communicating this extra memory to us. This especially makes it the perfect tool for mass propaganda. Philip Thompson, who compares print journalism and televised journalism also bring two more pairs to the table. Writing's space-focused boundaries versus TV's time-based boundaries and writing's dissemination versus TV's narration. Writing is usually in past tense, read at any time and built in the informational pyramid we were all taught in grade school. Television is restricted by primetime, commercials and news breaks, forces viewers to make time for a broadcast, but has the advantage of having instantaneous information (or "news as it happens") and is shown in the form of a dramatic narrative. In a way, television pounces on all the shortcomings that writing has in regards to mass communication and rolls into a more attractive and entertaining package. This leaves us susceptible to more advertising that we sit through (spend time viewing despite the ability to zone it out).

There is a perfectly good reason that writing holds a more intellectual reputation over television despite there being as much garbage in writing as there is on television. The biggest difference between them is how much capital and effort is spent putting the garbage onto TV, and then how much money is made in turn. A crazy person can print and share their writing, but for some incredibly unknown reason, their literary works are just not as far reaching or popular as reality TV or political pundit shows. Most everything is staged for television as well. Even if something is broadcast live, the "actors" will be prepared for TV, with makeup and knowledge of where to look at the cameras. Where we create the stage when we read, television takes that responsibility away from us and in turn gives our brains less work to do but to
merely pay attention and absorb.

Postman, Neil and Paglia, Camille. “Two Cultures.” Communication in History.
Thompson, Philip. “Two Cultures: The Press and Broadcast Journalism.” http://www.bee.net/panthony/research/TwoCultures.html