<doc.id=5008.a3>
<title> Some reflections on Neil Postman's analysis of television's effect on culture in his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death". </title>
Today, the average time Swedes spend at watching television programs is 2,5 hours a day. The question is what influence this has on us. Neil Postman states in his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" that the television entertainment makes us stop thinking. He also states that it is not a solution to improve the programs, because television is not good for serious modes of entertainment such as news, science, education and religion. Is he perhaps too negative? Here I want to reflect about this.
	Neil Postman lives in the United States and I live in Sweden. The conditions may differ. The American society makes an ambigous impression on me. There is so much junk; food, television programs and amusement industry. On the other hand, most Noble Prizes every year are given to scientists from the United States. I have the impression that in spite of bad television programs, there is an élite to carry on culture and science work. 
	Society today has the tendency to give a chaotic impression. Everything is happening very fast and there is not much time left for background information. The news programs at television tend to have a very limited amount of time for each subject. When television financed by advertising was introduced in Sweden, the two basic channels were said to keep their high standards. This has not been the fact. The channels compete of having most people looking at them. Thus, the state channels began to produce more programs for amusement Another negative trend is that some people spend so much time in front of television or the computer that they do not do enough sports. Many families also do not arrange alternative activities to spend time together. 
	So to the question is if television is good at producing serious programs or not. I do think that it may be in many areas. Throughout the years I have seen many good documentary reports, mostly from the BBC. 
	Nature programs are very common at television and I think that this subject is especially well suited for television. Many of these programs deal with pollution of the environment. They also give very good information about animals and their living conditions.
 	 Some years ago, there were not many young people considering history as a thrilling subject. Herman Lindquist made a series of documentary programs about Swedish history. The interest grew. Lindqvist's books were sold in many copies and other books about history as well. Among young people, TV games about history also increased their will of learning this subject.
	 Religious services in Swedish television are very well done. Old and sick people have the opportunity to participate more vividly than through the radio. Of course it is not a good substute for attending church yourself. As a teacher of religion, I am very fond of the film about Jesus made by Zeffirelli. The children watch it and they grow more receptive for the teaching at church. 
	Neil Postman states that education is hard work and does not go together with amusement. Here, I think he is wrong. In the long run, watching amusement programs at television is rather boring and it cannot compete with the joy of learning. To develop new skills, to see new connections is much more thrilling than to watch the program "Robinson" for the fourth year. Learning does not always have to be hard work. For example, Swedes learn very much English, not even noticing it, through watching television and reading the underlined Swedish text of the English program.
	"The classroom cannot compete with the television program" - this another of Postman's arguments. I really do think that to meet a teacher is far more interesting than to spend the time in front of a screen. At the English Department at Uppsala University grammar is taught through a web linked course. It is very good, but it cannot compete with the lessons given by a teacher. 
	Neil Postman points out that nobody opposes to television, and without a debate, it is doing a lot of damage. He implies that technology changes the culture. I am very much looking forward to a broad debate about the influence of television. On the other hand he does not give any clue, how to minimalize the abuse of television. I do think that we have a great task to improve the quality of the programs. I hope people watch these programs or choose other sources for information.
</doc>