TV is actually what we see

It was very difficult for me to arrive at a decision when trying to decide whether the perspective or Neil Postman or Carmine Paglia was closer to reality. I love to read and watch television so my allegiances over what is better at shaping reality could go either way and I would feel fine about it. However, I think I am going to give a slight edge to the majority in my mind that is pointing towards TV. Its a close race, more Bush/Kerry than Obama/McCain. I think that seeing actual reality on television take place barely edges out reading about a reality in a book and then having to decipher it for yourself.

I thought Paglia used many great analogies to describe how scanning through television channels is actually a representation of the way we go through life. She says that the way a quarterback quickly analyzes a defense at the line of scrimmage is comparable to how a TV viewer is quickly scanning images while surfing through the channels. This type of quick thinking takes places many times throughout a day. It can be evident when quickly looking through all the clothes in a closet to find something to wear, to quickly glancing left and right when trying to merge on a highway.

Paglia also brings up an excellent point in explaining how changes in a person's presence can be realized on television in such a way that is hard to convey with literature. She cites a great example from the Presidential campaign in 1988. Paglia writes that George H.W. Bush had a dynamic machismo about him after naming Dan Quayle his Vice-President that he never had serving under Ronald Reagan. Paglia says:
"He was this totally new person, a man no one had seen before. It was then I knew he was going to be president. I called people up and told them, but no one believed me. If you didn't know how to read TV or weren't watching, you missed it completely."

Literature requires an interpretation and analysis of the reality being presented to the reader. One can imagine the situation being described , but they can never truly see what actually happened during an event. There is always room for misinterpretation and its difficult to convey the atmosphere that an event takes place in. With television the viewer actually sees reality as its happening. There is no room for misunderstanding because what is taking place is being witnessed as its happening. The television viewer gets access to complete un-doctored reality as it is taking place.

One of Neil Postman's complaints about television is that news coverage of tragedies causes an unnatural emotional response due to the rapid switching from reports about the tragedy to humorous commercials and then back again. Paglia counters by saying:
"By moving from disaster to commercial TV creates the effect of Greek tragedy: emotion, then detachment; contemplation of loss, then philosophical perspective. At the end of Hamlet, there are four corpses strewn all over the stage."
She is saying that just because TV will jump around from one thing to the next, it does not take away from the final loss in a tragedy. It is similar to how in real life no person is focused on any one issue for twenty four hours a day. There will always be a distraction that takes attention away from an issue at hand.

It was close, but I just think the actuality of television wins out in the end and does a better job of capturing the essence of reality in a moment better than literature. The more we talk about the emergence of television in class, I can't help but think of U2's Achtung Baby and the Zoo TV tour that came with it. The explosion of television and images was the main theme of the album. Maybe everything you know is wrong.