The Proposition

Since I am laid up during recovery from a medical procedure, I decided to read a book or two. My first dive into the sea of reading was this one by Neil Postman, written in 1985, exploring how public discourse is shaped by the way people communicate. Each communications method places different constraints on what type of information is available for discussion in public, and what is required of the population for those discussions to happen. The book, and my review of it, touches on the consequences to Americans of our evolution from a “print” or “book” culture to a “TV” or “electronic” one.

Because we here in America have evolved from a print-based culture to a “TV” or electronic culture, our greatest concern is no longer the repressive and omniscient State of Orwell’s “1984″, but rather the attractive and seductive draw of entertainment and pleasure, as laid out in Huxley’s “Brave New World“.

TV – and now, its current evolution, the Internet – are today’s equivalent of Huxley’s Soma. (If you don’t know what Soma is, I can recommend a book for you to read.)

Our public discourse is shaped by visuals, actions, and things that generate a quick emotional resonance without any context for what is going on to provide longer-term meaning to each tidbit. In other words, TV. Producers of information via this medium are concerned with attracting the most viewers to each segment, regardless of whether it is selling laundry detergent, a political candidate, or the nightly news. Each segment is short (1 or 2 minutes for a TV news item), must stand alone so that it needs no context by the viewer, and it must grab your attention.

From a blurb about his book, Postman argues that “public discourse, the advancing of arguments in logical order for the public good, once a hallmark of American culture, is being converted from exposition and explanation to entertainment.”

Stripping the context from all communication, and optimizing its entertainment value, renders Americans incapable of knowing what is true and what is not, or what is important versus what is merely emotionally compelling. It isn’t that lying becomes an accepted practice (although it could); rather, that without exposition and context, you have no way to judge the difference between truth and falsehood.

Does Tide or All clean your clothes better? You can’t tell — all you know is that your family loves the way the shirts smell, and therefore loves you, with either of them. Will Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith enact laws that are helpful to you personally? You can’t tell — all you know is that they both resonate with your sense of patriotism, and the music in their ads makes you feel good.

Some Historical Perspective

First, a bit of background on what types of communication methods have been dominant in the past and therefore shaped the societies that employed them. He describes these broad types:

1. Cultures that are oral, based on memorized stories and myths (think of pre-European Native Americans, aboriginal Australians, and many African tribes). Memory and the ability to apply myths to real-world problems are highly valued in the leaders.
2. Cultures that are based on writing, where the elite control what is preserved while the general populace has no access to it (think of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Medieval Europe). Knowledge of the sacred texts and the ability of the elite to decipher and interpret them are highly valued in the leaders.
3. Cultures that use printing presses to distribute information, where learning is universal (Enlightenment Europe, for example). A wide understanding of many sources of wisdom, books, and viewpoints along with the ability to comprehend complex ideas and arguments is highly valued, not just by the leaders, but by everyone. And finally,
4. Cultures that communicate primarily via instant electronics, where information tends to be shallow and context-free (like Americans now). The ability to present yourself in an attractive way, differentiate yourself instantly from others, and command a large electronic audience by quickly touching common emotional triggers is highly valued in leaders. The population need only respond to these triggers and presentations.

Postman argues that America was founded in the 18th century by highly literate European intellectuals, and American colonists generally were receptive because they were more literate than their foreign counterparts. All public discourse took place using the methods and techniques that worked in a printed medium: argument, proposition, conflict, support, nuance, history, resolution and so on. Public discourse was therefore nuanced, extended in time, and mostly based on books or long pamphlets, which have the time and space to develop and defend sophisticated arguments based on facts.

Between 1640 and 1700, the literacy rate for men in Massachusetts and Connecticut was between 85% and 95%, quite likely the highest concentration of literate males anywhere in the world. In the 1690s, the literacy rate for women was above 62%. Meanwhile, the literacy rate in 17th century England did not exceed 40%. From 1650 on, almost all New England towns passed laws requiring the establishment of a reading and writing school. The schooling of the young was taken on not just as a moral duty but as an intellectual imperative. While literacy rates lagged in the South, they caught up during the 19th century.

As a result, no literary aristocracy emerged in colonial America. Reading was not regarded as an elitist activity, and printed matter was spread evenly among all kinds of people. A thriving, classless reading culture developed because it was diffused. Everyone could speak the same language. For example, Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ sold more than 100,000 copies in January 1776. In 1985, a book would have to sell 8 million copies in two months to cover the same percent of the population. Postman remarks that the only equivalent mass communication event today (i.e., 1985) would be the Superbowl. The first printing press was established in Boston in 1639, and others sprang up quickly thereafter.

At the end of the 18th century, America had two-thirds the number of newspapers available in England and yet had only half the population. In the 19th century, lecture halls became universal, where Americans would sit for hours and listen to lectures read from printed matter. They were jammed. These were the equivalent of modern concert halls where singers and bands now perform.

From the 17th to the middle of the 19th century, printed matter was all there was to base our public discussions on. No movies, TV, internet, or social media. Americans were comfortable listening to long and complex arguments, and they were as well-read as any modern culture. This state of affairs, where public discourse was based on reasoned and well-crafted arguments, came to an end with the invention and deployment of the telegraph.

With the telegraph, “news” had to be short, and it originated in a city often far away and irrelevant to the receiver. There was no room for nuanced arguments or complex propositions, arguments, refutations, and conclusions. The big difference between the telegraph and our modern media is commercialization: producers are now invariably maximizing the number of people who “consume” each segment, be it a TV news show, a sitcom, a YouTube channel, a FaceBook posting, a laundry product commercial, or a political advertisement. In order to maximize viewer attention, advertisements stopped being based on the products themselves, but rather on the marketer’s perception of the needs and wants of the consumers.

The Transformation of Religious Practice

Postman devotes a chapter to the transformation of religious practice. Historically, religion was steeped in ritual, had an extensive historical theology, communal activities, and was practiced in designated locations, rendering them sacred. He turns to the world of evangelical TV preachers and notes that their shows were produced following the same values as other widely watched TV entertainment, such as musical variety shows. Specifically, there are ‘celebrities’ (often the preachers), elaborate sets (modeled often on real TV shows), short edit cuts, guest stars, simple messages, upbeat music, and so on. These shows are driven, like all TV entertainment, to maximize the number of viewers. In other words, they look a lot like a religious service but lack pretty much all the prerequisites I mentioned at the top of the paragraph.

This chapter caught my attention, given what is happening at Tower Hill Presbyterian Church. Our pastor sincerely believes that he is not compromising the essence of being a Christian church by modeling the service after values of the world of Postman’s TV. Is he correct?

His reworked contemporary service is not based on what the historical Protestant religion tells us, but rather on what the Church perceives the potential congregants want or need. Sound familiar? It does to me. Pastor Jason calls it “speaking their language.” The resulting contemporary service moves quickly, has engaging visuals, has music that makes you happy, and is entertaining in a very professional way. We have a professional and credentialed TV producer in Dogie who makes sure that the service works as a TV show. The service is tightly scripted and rehearsed. The TV version of the service focuses tightly on both the band and on the star, Pastor Jason. To me, not unlike the format of the Tonight Show under Johnny Carson but – so far – perhaps without the celebrity guest interviews.

Should we have let the traditional Protestant service die along with its congregants? This is a tough question, being faced by all mainline American Protestant churches. Is reworking the service to be a TV show really “reviving” the congregation? Or is it something else altogether? Reasonable people can differ on the answer.

Here is a link to ‘The Tower Hill Band’ performing ‘I’m Runnin’ Home’ at the start of the April 19, 2026 contemporary service:

I love this song! The beat is catching, the musicians are professional and compelling, the chorus is a great hook, and the lyrics make me want to run home where I will be happy. Let’s not think too hard about the fact that ‘running home’ here technically means that you are dead, but hey, this is right up there with our American history of southern African American gospel music presented with a modern and approachable bass line, back beat, call-and-response chorus, and soaring vocals. Note the way the lights come up at the start. It is all that we love from our popular musical entertainers without the sex or drugs. Wow.

Is Postman’s 1985 Proposition Still True?