After reading the article "Two Cultures, Television Versus Print," I can see how each scholar constructs a solid argument, however I agree with Neil Postman. He Argues that "reading is an ordered process requiring us to sit at a table, consume ideas from left to right, and make judgments of truth and falsehood. Postman states that reading teaches us reason while television is "random unconnected images that works against the linear tradition and breaks the habits of logic and thinking."
One the other hand, Camille Paglia argues that one's age has determined whether they and obtain knowledge from the television. She states that "people born after World War II can't understand those of us raised in the fragmented, imagistic world of TV."
Paglia states that she has a different view than Postman because they were born fifteen year apart, and although it is a small difference in age, "it's a critical fifteen years, an unbridgeable chasm in American Culture."
Postman provides and excellent example of the importance of the book in comparison to the Television. He argues that television lacks explanations and details that would be included in a book. Postman provides and example of how when an young student is watching the news with Dan Rather and who states that "5,000 people died in and earthquake in Chile, and then Dan States, We'll be right back after this word from United Airlines." Postman then states "hey, wait a second, how could he make such an emotional switch?" The statement leaves unanswered questions in one's mind. It almost a tease to state a current event without providing any details to support it.
After reading the debate between the two scholars I would have to disagree with Camille Paglia's "weak and unconvincing case" for Televisions importance over print. I feel as though reading requires one to think outside the box and use their brain in more useful ways than staring at the television. Reading teaches us "reason, logic and thinking," qualities I feel television is lacking.
