<strong><em>“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance."
</em>-- NEIL POSTMAN</strong>

<strong><em><a href="http://mikerappaport.net/onevoice/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/amuse.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-1567" title="amuse" src="http://mikerappaport.net/onevoice/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/amuse-195x300.jpg" alt="" width="195" height="300" /></a>
</em></strong>Do you know what the two most destructive words in the English language are?

<em>"Now ... this."</em>

Neil Postman wrote books that are literally painful to read, and none are more painful than "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business."

In a way, he says, Aldous Huxley turned out to be far more correct than George Orwell was. And while it may surprise anyone under the age of 40 to learn that prior to 1974, there were no mainstream magazines devoted to news of celebrities and their lives. That was when <em>People</em> made its debut, with Mia Farrow on the cover. And prior to 1981, there were no television shows devoted to news of the entertainment industry. <em>ET</em> (Entertainment Tonight) made its appearance one year before ET (the extraterrestrial).

Even then, though, we hadn't gone one toke over the line. Shows like <em>ET</em> and magazines like <em>People</em> were what they were and no one was looking to either of them for serious news of the world. But with the advent of hour-long local newscasts and newspapers like <em>USA Today</em>, the line kept getting farther and farther from real news.

It would be difficult for anyone who spent nearly 30 years as a print journalist not to think <em>USA Today</em> was a slippery slope all in itself. One can argue chicken/egg here as to whether the shorter stories and bigger photos filled a desire of readers or whether the format dumbed down readers all by itself.

But there's no arguing the disaster most local newscasts have been.

Postman describes "Now ... this" as a way of informing viewers that it's time to stop thinking about the previous story and move on to something else. Yes, that school fire that killed eight children was sad, but 45 seconds is enough time for that. And we've got Sally out at the zoo to report on the baby hippo that was just born.

I gave up on local television news in 1994 when I watched an entire 30-minute late news show on one of the major networks. There wasn't one story that didn't involve either car chases, celebrities, crime or some local scandal. Then we had a couple minutes of weather, a few minutes of sports and some happy-talk feature to finish with.

Is it any wonder we have the attention span of hummingbirds?

Now ... this.

You hear me? Stop thinking about the hummingbirds. Lindsay Lohan had another meltdown, the governator fathered an illegitimate child and there's a new <em>"Star Wars"</em> movie coming out.

Against all odds against people hearing foreign news, Iran has been in the news lately. How many of you know the language they speak in Iran? How many of you know the ethnic background or Iranians? <em>Hint: They're not Arabs.</em> How many of you know who the real leader of the country is? <em>Hint: It's not Ahmadinejad.</em>

Face it. We've got the neo-con chorus screaming for war with Iran, and 80 percent of us couldn't even find it on a map.

Orwell was wrong. The year 1984 came and went.

Huxley was right, even if there isn't much that's brave about our new world.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;