We

“We make some people’s troubles our business while we ignore the troubles of others.” (Ignatieff  287).

“In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours.” (Postman, 155)

In discussing television, and in arguing that television is inadequate for displaying complexity, discussion, or even thinking, both Ignatieff and Postman position themselves and—significantly--their readers right in the middle of the debate.  They both, in other words, make use of the first person plural:  We—Us—Our.

What does that accomplish? On the one hand, by including themselves, they forestall objections that they are being elitist. They both see themselves as part of the audience; they aren’t simply talking down to an ignorant public. They aren’t saying, stop watching tv so naively YOU silly people.  They make their readers equals—and that is a generous rhetorical move (one worth emulating).  And, for democratic societies, the use of “we” emphasizes the fact that citizens are not passive subjects:  we are, after all, responsible for creating the cultures—political, educational, artistic, media-oriented—around us.

More broadly, though, both use the first person plural in order to discuss widespread trends. I have a tv monitor and I use it occasionally to watch movies on DVD.  I haven’t had tv reception in my home in close to 15 years.  Does that mean that Postman isn’t talking to me? Does that mean that I am an exception to these trends? Maybe.  But does the fact that there are exceptions mean his argument is flawed? Probably not. I’m still part of the “we” who are, as his title puts it, “Amusing Ourselves To Death.” Maybe I see the problems more clearly—like Postman himself—but nonetheless I live in a culture that has a hard time reflecting intelligent discussion in its mass media.

George Saunders, in a reading that is optional, brilliantly discusses the problem of the relationship between exceptions and trends in audiences of mass media. His essay works by presenting a variety of vignettes about what he calls the “braindead megaphone.” In one vignette, he parodies a newscaster sending in a report about how busy parking lots are at Christmastime. He argues that such patently obvious and thoughtless stories damage our ability to think critically when more serious stories are presented in similarly superficial ways. Moreover, if the people we trust to give us real news seem to accept shallow, illogical thinking, we start to wonder about our own response. If we respond critically to what he calls “dopey communication” but our newscaster seem unconcerned  “we’ll feel a bit insane, and therefore less confident, and therefore more passive” (9).

Another vignette discusses the problem of the relationship between the exceptional person and general trends more explicitly.  Saunders imagines a village in which a vegetable that turns people red is purchased on the cheap.  If you eat a lot, you turn red, and over time, the “village will have moved toward the Red end of the spectrum” (13).  He goes on: “Within that general trend will be all sorts of variations and exceptions:  this guy eats as much as he likes of that vegetable, but just goes a little Pink; this women, who can’t stand the taste of it and never eats is, stays the same color as always.  But in general, because of the omnipresence of that vegetable, the village is going to become Redder . . .” (13). Saunders explains this parable in his essay, so I won’t (in the hope that you will read it).  What seems interesting though is the assertion that village becomes Redder—you can’t escape—or escape noticing-- the large scale cultural change even you are not, yourself Red.

Sources.

Ignatieff, Michael. “The Stories We Tell: Television and Humanitarian Aid.” Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention. Ed. Jonathan Moore. 287-302. Print.
Postman, Neil. “The Age of Show Business.”Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discussion in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1985, 2005. 83-98; 155-163. Print.

Saunders, George. “The Braindead Megaphone.” The Braindead Megaphone. New York: Riverhead, 2007. 1-19. Print.