# Is Media Neutral?



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2005)

On one hand as A VanTillian I affirm no-neutrality. I have read Neil Postman's wonderful book, _Amusing Ourselves to Death_. He affirms that Media (or any medium we use) is not neutral. I think I know what he means. I think he is referring to no-neutrality in that the medium we use will in some sense determine our message. 

But can Media be morally neutral? I mean, Postman was not a Christian and I don't know if he would be using categories like sin and redemption.

[Edited on 5--17-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 17, 2005)

I think not. Media bias is a term we hear or use sometimes. Usually I hear it in the context of critiquing liberal bias in the media. I'm all for that. However, bias itself is not a bad thing. I want my news source to be biased. I just want that bias to be in favor of Biblical principles, ie., the truth. Journalistic ethics ought not to be an oxymoron.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2005)

I agree Andrew, but I was thinking of something else. Of course liberals are going to be biased. All covenant-breakers are. I was thinking of, say, the TV itself.


----------



## sastark (May 17, 2005)

The TV is an inanimate object, and therefore is neither good nor evil. How we use the TV can be judged according to Scripture to be good or evil, though.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> The TV is an inanimate object, and therefore is neither good nor evil. How we use the TV can be judged according to Scripture to be good or evil, though.



Fair enough. I think what I was trying to get at is that TV, while morally neutral, is not...let me look for a word...descriptively neutral. It does not...so I am reasoning at the moment...objectively portray such and such data. So far for the moment.


----------



## sastark (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Fair enough. I think what I was trying to get at is that TV, while morally neutral, is not...let me look for a word...descriptively neutral. It does not...so I am reasoning at the moment...objectively portray such and such data. So far for the moment.



I _think_ I see what you are getting at, and I _think_ I agree. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that no medium perfectly reflects reality (TV, paintings, or whatever the medium may be)? I would agree with you, although I'm not sure how this would apply to Scripture, which perfectly reveals God's will.


----------



## crhoades (May 17, 2005)

For a great analysis (better than Postman's) check out Gregory Reynolds book: The Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures: Preaching in an Electronic Age. 





Book at Amazon

This was Reynold's PhD dissertation at Westminster and analyzes the media from a presuppostional perspective. I've only skim read it but have found it very well written. I have recommended it to a couple of pastors that have really enjoyed it. It is a nice corrective to Postman although there is good to be had there as well...Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. I'll check the book a little closer when I get home.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



If I am on the same page here with Jacob's train of thought, then I think it might be helpful to speak in terms of the ways in which TV as a medium is capable of effectively conveying something that is profitable and edifying vs. the limitations associated with TV as a medium. 

TV is visuallly-oriented. That means it can show pictures with sound. Pictures can tell a story very well, if the story is appropriate to the medium. Not all stories are. The gospel is not meant to be told visually but rather through the Word. News can be told on TV, but sound bites reveal the limitations of telling the full story in-depth. TV shows bring us to places that we could never see on our own, or enable us to enjoy movies classic and new, but they can never replace a good book by the fireside on a cold winter's night. 

Am I on the right track here, Jacob?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2005)

I think I am trying to get at what Andrew issaying


----------



## sastark (May 17, 2005)

Well, I agree with Andrew.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 17, 2005)

The media possesses a certain amoral neutrality...


----------



## Robin (May 17, 2005)

Media, by its very nature, mediates reality. Imagine, a camera lens has a certain, limited scope. A tape recorder is gathering sound waves and translating them....

All media "translates" and "mediates" by definition. So, it cannot be neutral -- ever. The reality will be translated in some way. A sober question to ask is "how" is the reality changed in translation?


Robin 

[Edited on 5-18-2005 by Robin]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2005)

Robin,
That is exactly what I am getting at. Thanks!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 17, 2005)

To follow up, a camera, for example, takes a picture. It also has a perspective - the perspective of the cameraman. 

Consider the infamous Rodney King video. The clip repeated so often was a brief segment of a fairly brief tape showing the end of a police pursuit. The part shown so often shows the beating but not what lead up to the beating, ie., the provocation. In other words, the videotape did not tell the whole story. 

Thus, because the camera may not tell the whole truth, the perspective of the story it tells may be used for good or for ill. 

And that's only referring to unedited videtape. 

They say that the camera never lies. However, even the truth captured on film can be bent towards untruth in a certain context. 

Remember the saying, a text (or a video) without a context is but a pretext.


----------



## Scott (May 18, 2005)

"The gospel is not meant to be told visually but rather through the Word."

There are exceptions. The Lord's Supper, for example, proclaims the gospel in visible and tangible ways. So did the Old Testament temple, tabernacle, and sacrificial system. All were visible (and sometimes pictoral) proclamations of the gospel, if in a typological fashion.

And, of course, there is the Jesus Movie. 

Scott


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 18, 2005)

I'll go along with those exceptions. Excepting, of course, the Jesus movie!


----------

