In The Humanism of Media Ecology, Neil Postman addresses the progression of the field of Media Ecology and major questions that concern the field. He stresses the need for scholars to look at human interaction with technology and the ethical questions that concerning its role on shaping our interactions and rational. Postman stresses that media has an active role in shaping cultures and that by only studying our physical environment scholars are failing to see the moral implications that occur in the media environment (p.11) Leaders must keep in mind the medium in which they are communicating and the moral implications/miscommunications that may arise due to the medium.
I found that the most difficult thing about this weeks reading was trying to determine why exactly Postman distinguished print from the other mediums, which contribute to his “moral decline,”(p.12). I find this awkward because he distinguishes the difference between that medium and all the others yet there are just as many things in print that diminish our moral sense and capacity for good , (http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Ford-Translation-ebook/dp/B004LDLI0S/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1328151117&sr=8-2-fkmr0) as there are in other mediums. I also feel like Postman discredits televisions golden years with news anchors like Edward Murrow, who made the trasition from radio to T.V., and for many American’s was known as the preserver of liberty.
How does media that urges viewer action related to Postman’s thinking?
Furthermore, how can this medium (internet) provide the credible material Postman calls for, while still preserving civil liberites and our democratic society?
Can videos like this undermined democracy or are we moving towards Dyson’s version?