ideal base for subversion, since thenrioting Marxist teachers and studentsnwill have a safe, First Amendmenttype,nshelter. At public meetings, studentsnalready preach from North Koreanntextbooks, as they praise Kim IInSung as the shining unifier of thennation and idolize the northern “socialistnman.” In my nightmare, I seenthis lovely, happy, hardworking peoplenOn Tulling thenPlugs’nMay I be permitted to make a correction,ncomplaint, and observationnabout Walter Beale’s review of mynbook in your November 1986 issue?nFirst, the correction: The titie of mynbook is Amusing Ourselves to Death,nnot Entertaining Ourselves to Death,nas Professor Beale has it. Perhaps this isna small point, but, I can assure you,nthe title of the book is right there on itsncover, and one is a bit unnerved tonthink that a reviewer didn’t notice it.nThe complaint: Professor Bealenmakes the point that in 1948 RichardnWeaver said many of the same things Indo now and said them about radio,nnewspapers, and cinematic journalism.nThe implication is that I fuss toonmuch about television since the problemnpredates television, I agree withnWeaver and Professor Beale on thisnpoint. That is why I devote a chapternin the book to discussing how thentelegraph, photograph, penny newspapers,nand other 19th-century medianbegan the process of dissolving literatendiscourse. 1 tried to make it clear thatntelevision is the culmination, not thenorigin of the problem. Professor Bealendoes me an injustice by not mention­nof the South cowering before the commissarnwho destroys their family life,nrice paddies, and quiet monasteriesnwith the deep-bowing monks.nI don’t think it will happen, though.nMoscow does not want to push Japanndeeper into America’s arms, becausenthis is how Tokyo would react if SouthnKorea were imperiled. Besides, Japannis quietly arming, too. My friends innPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESning this.nThe observation: Professor Bealenspends a few sentences critiquing GeneralnSemantics, noting that I am theneditor of Efc, which he describesn(probably accurately) as one of the lastnremaining vestiges of General Semantics.nI raise no complaint against ProfessornBeale for not having read Etc.nover the past 10 years; that is, over thenperiod of time I edited the journal. (Inhave recentiy withdrawn as editor.) Inmerely wish to observe that if, asnProfessor Beale remarks. General Semanticsnhas “loosened its connectionnwith scientism and no longer engagesnin arcane prescriptions to ‘objectify’nlanguage,” my efforts as editor of Efc.nhad something to do with that. I certainlynagree with Professor Beale that itnis a modern superstition to believe inncommunication as a panacea, and henwill not find that superstition in thenpages of Ete. from 1976 to 1986.n—Neil PostmannProf. Beale RepliesnI’m very sorry that I mistranscribed thentitie of Mr. Postman’s book. It is rightnthere on the cover, and it was absent-nnnSu-chon may go on picnicking, ricenpicking, visiting the monasteries andnthe tearooms. But they are still a normalnpeople.nThomas Molnar is on the faculty atnthe City University of New York andna visiting professor of religious studiesnat Yale University.nminded of me to get it wrong.nTo any further charge of injustice tonMr. Postman, however, I plead notnguilty. The central flaw that I find innPostman’s analysis is not that it lacksnhistorical perspective but that it lacksnperspective on the role of ideas andnvalues in history. In pointing out thatnthe deteriorizations of culture Mr.nPostman associates with televisionnwere well along before its advent, I wasnnot overlooking Postman’s treatmentnof the telegraph and the newspaper; Inwas underscoring the proposition thatnPostman has adopted a simplistic andnformalistic account of the relation betweenntechniques and culture. Therenis a great struggle going on right nownbetween those who insist that the substancenof education is of prime importancenand those who are preoccupiednwith methods and processes. That substancencan be corrupted by a process ofntransmission (television), Postman wellndemonstrates; that adequate substancencan therefore be assured by “medianconsciousness” is a fallacy, and I don’tnthink it was unjust of me to dwell uponnthis error in an otherwise valuablenbook.nMARCH 1987 / 41n