Discover more from Metaviews: Future of Authority
Amusing Ourselves to Death: An Interview with Neil Postman
Media as Machinery of Mass Stupidity
Following up our issue yesterday on the Tyranny of Television, we made a quick trip to NYC to interview Neil Postman in his office at NYU. Here’s an edited transcript:
Metaviews: Professor Postman, thank you for joining us. With President Trump’s recent electoral victory and his high-profile cabinet nominations, many are reflecting on what these developments mean for authority and legitimacy. How do you interpret these events through the lens of Amusing Ourselves to Death?
Neil Postman: Thank you for having me. These developments are the natural outcome of a culture that has replaced reasoned discourse with entertainment-driven spectacle. Authority today depends not on expertise, thoughtful deliberation, or proven leadership, but on the ability to dominate media narratives. Trump's victory is a testament to how effectively he has mastered this shift.
When I wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death, I warned that television had redefined how we process information, emphasizing emotion, simplicity, and charisma over complexity and depth. Social media has only magnified this problem. Legitimacy, which once came from adherence to norms, competence, and public trust, is now conferred by the ability to entertain and maintain visibility.
Metaviews: Trump’s cabinet nominations seem to mirror this phenomenon. For example, figures like Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with his controversial anti-vaccine stance, have been nominated for critical positions. What do you make of these choices?
Neil Postman: These appointments illustrate the shift from valuing expertise to valuing symbolic gestures. Cabinet members are chosen not for their qualifications but for their media presence and their ability to generate public attention. It’s authority by association with spectacle, rather than by demonstrated skill or understanding.
This is dangerous because it undermines the purpose of governance. The individuals shaping policy should be those with the knowledge and experience to address complex issues. Instead, we are seeing appointments designed to signal allegiance to specific narratives or to provoke reactions—positive or negative—from the media. The result is a weakening of institutions, as their credibility erodes under the weight of these appointments.
Metaviews: Let’s talk more about legitimacy. In democratic systems, legitimacy traditionally comes from institutional norms, the rule of law, and public accountability. Do you think these sources of legitimacy are being replaced?
Neil Postman: I wouldn’t say they’re entirely replaced, but they’re certainly under siege. Legitimacy today is largely performative. Leaders who dominate the media narrative, whether through dramatic declarations or viral moments, can bypass traditional mechanisms of accountability. Trump, for example, uses his direct line to the public—via rallies, tweets, and television appearances—to reinforce his authority, circumventing institutional checks.
This performative legitimacy undermines public trust in democratic norms. When leaders focus more on maintaining their image than on governing effectively, the gap between perception and reality grows wider. Over time, this erodes the public's confidence in governance itself.
Metaviews: Your work often examined how media shapes authority. How does social media, specifically, factor into this shift?
Neil Postman: Social media has taken the trends I identified with television and amplified them exponentially. Platforms like Twitter and TikTok thrive on brevity, emotional resonance, and conflict. Authority is no longer about long-term trust or institutional expertise but about momentary engagement. The more polarizing or sensational a leader’s content, the more power they accrue in the digital arena.
What’s more troubling is the tribalism social media fosters. Platforms encourage users to form tight-knit communities where dissenting views are not debated but demonized. Leaders use this tribalism to consolidate power, crafting messages that rally their base while vilifying others. This weakens pluralism, a cornerstone of democratic legitimacy, and replaces it with a fractured, contentious landscape.
Metaviews: You’ve described this fragmented authority as tribalism. What are its implications for society?
Neil Postman: Tribalism splinters authority into competing factions, each operating within its own media ecosystem. One group might see a leader as legitimate because of their charisma or alignment with shared values, while another might reject that same leader outright. This polarization makes it nearly impossible to establish a common foundation for dialogue or governance.
Furthermore, tribalism is self-reinforcing. Social media algorithms reward outrage, ensuring that these factions become more entrenched. Leaders are incentivized to perpetuate conflict because it boosts engagement, but this comes at the expense of societal cohesion.
Metaviews: How do you see these dynamics affecting public discourse and decision-making at the highest levels?
Neil Postman: Public discourse has become theater, a performance designed to entertain rather than inform. Decision-making follows suit. Policies are crafted for their headline value, not for their practical implications. When public attention is the ultimate currency, long-term considerations are often ignored in favor of short-term spectacle.
This is particularly evident in debates—or what pass for debates today. These are no longer spaces for intellectual exchange but stages for one-liners and dramatic gestures. Leaders who understand the media landscape can dominate without offering substantive ideas, further reducing the quality of public deliberation.
Metaviews: Can we restore substantive authority and legitimacy in this environment?
Neil Postman: It will not be easy, but it’s possible. First, education must focus on media literacy and critical thinking. Citizens need to recognize when they are being manipulated by spectacle and learn to demand substance. Second, media platforms should be redesigned to reward depth over divisiveness. Imagine an algorithm that prioritizes thoughtful debate and shared understanding rather than conflict and outrage.
Finally, individuals must take responsibility for their engagement. If we settle for shallow entertainment, we will continue to get shallow leaders. But if we demand leaders who are thoughtful, informed, and capable of governing effectively, we can begin to rebuild trust and legitimacy.
Metaviews: One last question: If you could offer a guiding principle for navigating today’s media landscape, what would it be?
Neil Postman: Pay attention to where your attention goes. In a world where authority is shaped by who controls the narrative, the power to shape that narrative begins with the audience. By choosing depth, truth, and nuance over spectacle, you can help steer society back toward meaningful discourse and governance.
Subscribe to Metaviews: Future of Authority
Metaviews explores how power, influence, and leadership are being reshaped by technology, social movements, and shifting cultural values.
Reading books, aka engaging with long form narrative tends to support the development of attention to complex ideas, depth, nuance and, at least, an exploration of our perceived truth. The same may also apply to some films and TV. Social media, on the other hand, appears to be based on repetitive, instant positive reinforcement. Complex ideas/narratives take more time to digest and are not guaranteed to entertain. So, indeed, we may be amusing ourselves to death.