2020: Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death?

Beto 2

Journalist Ross Barkan reflects on the “eternal presidential sweepstakes” with the help of Neil Postman.  Here a taste of his piece at The Baffler:

The Beto/Trump hand gesture skirmish—Trump jerks and floats his arms and hands around in even odder ways—was another inanity of this 2020 campaign, one that is sure to be followed by many more. This is because a campaign of this length demands programming. As cable channels peaked in the early 2000s, TV producers realized they had a lot of dead-time to fill and only so much money to spend filling it. Hence, the birth of reality TV: SurvivorAmerican Idol, and, to the detriment of our future selves, The Apprentice. They were all aspirational, promising us stardom, great wealth, or the kind of self-discovery that can keep any average schmuck alive on a desert island.

Today, the hours, days, weeks, and months of the perma-campaign must be filled, too. Beto’s hands, Amy Klobuchar’s salad comb, Bernie’s head bandage, Elizabeth Warren’s beer chug, Cory Booker’s girlfriend, Kamala Harris’s musical tastes while she smoked pot in college. No triviality is too trivial for an underpaid journalist somewhere to bundle into an article, video, or meme in the hopes of attracting attention and driving fleeting dollars to a collapsing media ecosystem. The perma-campaign is the apotheosis of reality TV because the stakes are so high—we are choosing a world leader with the power to drop civilization-annihilating bombs, and therefore every plot twist in the extended marathon can be justified in the solemn, self-satisfied way a political reporter will defend just about every absurd practice of the profession. 

Beto, Bernie, Biden, Kamala, and more—these are characters the American people must get to know through their TV screens and social media. This year and next, they are all Democrats, and they are auditioning for us. They will speak to us, rally for us, and construct events in states ten months before a vote. Why? Well, the show needs content. And if you aren’t producing content, you are irrelevant. Imagine a presidential candidate deciding to take April, May, and June off, arguing that an entire six months of campaigning before the Iowa caucuses is probably enough to win votes. The horror! What will be tweeted, Instagram storied, Facebook lived, and packaged into lively, anecdote-addled reporting for a New York Times political memo?

Thirty-four years ago, the media theorist Neil Postman published a book that is distressingly relevant today. Amusing Ourselves to Death was a prescient indictment of TV culture that drove to the heart of the matter in ways few academic texts ever do. Postman’s problem wasn’t so much with TV itself—people have a right to entertain themselves—but with how the rules of this dominant technology infected all serious discourse. He fought, most strenuously and fruitlessly, against the merger of politics and entertainment.

We’ve only metastasized since Postman’s time, with the internet and smartphones slashing attention spans, polarizing voters, and allowing most people to customize the world around them. What’s remained constant, at least in certain quarters, is the principal of entertainment: most political content operates from this premise first, that it must captivate before it informs. The image-based culture triumphs. Beto told you in a crisp three minutes and twenty-nine seconds why he wanted to be the leader of the free world.

Read the entire piece here.

4 thoughts on “2020: Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death?

  1. Christian,
    Elizabeth II is a good choice, but there is a downside to supporting her. Specifically, are we not left with Prince Charles once she passes on? That’s a “downer” as the old hippies used to say.


  2. The 2016 Election destroyed my “faith” in the Republic and any Republic as a viable form of government. The only way to have democracy be a viable form of government is as a constitutional parliamentary monarchy, preferably Catholic one like Liechtenstein where the monarch is a few steps removed from a absolute monarchy but still participates in a democratic parliament.

    It seems to me that parliamentary democracy was designed to compliment a near-absolute monarchy more than be its rival. In a parliamentary monarchy, the monarch is to focus on examining long-term challenges his/her state is facing and then allowing the government to focus on the day-to-day challenges of governing.

    America has no suitable family who could be a royal family; therefore, MAGA is missing the B; MAGA should be MAGBA- Make America Great Britain Again! I intend to vote for Queen Elizabeth next year, and put this insanity of the Republic to an end.


  3. Remember the backstory of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (the original novel and graphic novel adaptation, not the other media versions).


  4. Interesting article. I wonder if the current environment described by Barkan is simply the logical extension of the iconic Nixon-Kennedy television debates in 1960? Many serious observers thought that Dick Nixon “won” on actual debating points; of course, Jack Kennedy decisively won on style and image. It doesn’t take a political genius today to know that without a favorable media persona there is scant chance of achieving the presidency. In order to achieve that end, campaigns are starting earlier and earlier.

    Since the compliant media keeps an undue focus on incidentals rather than substance, the candidates know they have to play by the rules if they are going to get traction. I wonder if a high percentage of viewers have actually lost the ability to endure and comprehend a substantive policy discussion. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates might be a quaint relic of the 19th Century.


Comments are closed.