What We're Looking At...

The “Two Cultures” discussion and debate, between Neil Postman and Camille Paglia, zeroes in on two separate forms of media present today: Television and Written Word; Postman standing with the Written, and Paglia with TV. The debate gets rolling with the topic of early Christianity, and the necessity of images in the early church. From here, a slight bickering continues as they move to related topics of TV and literature.

To be honest, I felt as if I was reading a political debate gone wrong. Both arguments do not emphasize any positives of either medium. Instead, Postman and Paglia simply poke holes in the others preference.

From an opinionated standpoint, I agree that there are weaknesses in both mediums, but I also feel there are significant strengths also. TV has the advantage of pulling in several aspects of art into itself. In addition to the visual, there is the heavy bonus of audio. The sound and music adds a good deal of ‘attention grabbing’ material to the medium. But at the same hand, TV cannot hold depth as easily as literature can.

I don’t think Postman and Paglia did justice to either medium in their debate. If I would agree with any statement wholeheartedly it would be Paglia’s reference to how messages are stronger in the written texts because their emphasis is on that message and not on picture and sound. But regardless of the message, the future of media as a whole is through the integration of visual and audio mediums. Literature has been on a significant downward slope for quite a bit of time, and will continue down, whereas TV has been steadily heading up. TV has also been taking on more cinematic style in several shows, which contributes to the “reality” of the medium, which also pulls viewers in even further.

I don’t think either TV or Literature can take full superiority over the other. Both have their unique strengths and weakenesses.

Dropping the Pencil

The Current Questions of TIME:

How much is content worth in the digital age?

Is content really worth something to the media consumer?

ANSWER - Content is worth quite a bit in the digital age. Now, although some may argue that traditional, whole hearted 'content' is fleeting (to which they would be correct about), does not make content as a whole worthless. It merely depends on what the content is, how it is presented, and what it is intended to deliver. Clever writers will keep up and deliver what the general public wants to see. Reality TV is dying. Aside from MTV, the general public is beginning to get its fill. People are waking up. It is a 'media phase.' More traditional programming, however, such as "Heroes," has been around since the birth of television. And considering the attention spans of the average American TV views re-runs are not going to suffice.

"...the networks and studios are making the depressing bet that "quality" — i.e., original scripts — doesn't matter that much to the market. But who's to say they're wrong? Media consumers are deluged with diversions, many of them free. Even the New York Times couldn't get enough subscribers to sustain a paid online-subscription plan..."

~Time

The networks are making the wrong bet: that they don't need them, and that hoping the writers will bend and come back is inevitable.

It is logical that the writers are thinking about their future. Entertainment is changing, and they're smart to want to change with it.

"...the producers and writers continue playing chicken on a railroad track, with you as the oncoming train. Maybe they'll be right after all, and at the end of the strike, the nation will fall in love with TV all over again. And if they're wrong? Well, there's always Break.com..."

~Time

I brought this topic up in a coffee house this past week. Several of my friends didn't quite understand why and what this, and any other strike for that matter, was about. I had to explain that it's still one of the few very American things we hold on to. These writers see change coming, they want to prepare and make sure they get what's fair. The networks are thinking dollar signs. But it's not like that is a new concept.

Who should be looking for the solution? The networks should find a solution. Since I'm not a financial expert, I can't say what that might be. But I think the writers should be given more credit for the work they produce. Most mainstream entertainment as we know it comes from these guys. And to push them to the side is really slapping the consumer in the face.

I also really want to see "Gigli 2." And that's just not going to happen with the strike.