Typographic America and the Typographic Mind In setting an agenda for his argument, Postman exploits the importance of typography itself. In the 16th century, a great epistemological shift occurred in which knowledge of all kinds was transferred to and manifested through the printed page. There was a keen sense of knowing how to read. Newspapers, newsletters, and pamphlets were extremely popular among the colonies. At the heart of the great influx in literacy rates was the fact that we relied solely on printed materials, not television, radio, etc. “For two centuries, America declared its intentions, expressed its ideology, designed its laws, sold its products, created its literature, and addressed its deities in black scribbles on white paper. She spoke in the printing house, and with this main characteristic of her symbolic environment she rose to prominence in world civilization” (63). Postman's main argument here is that the power of typography has the ability to control speech. When language is controlled by print, the result is an idea, a fact, or a statement. And today we have this incessant demand to understand and know everything that is presented to us. The press gave priority to the intellectual and rational mind, thus encouraging serious and logical public discourse. Postman supports this claim by arguing that Thomas Paine's “The Age of Reason,” a written pamphlet that challenged the religious and political institutions of the 18th century, coexisted with the growth of print culture. Paine carefully examined the Bible and accused its divine claims as false. He did this through careful analysis and came to logical conclusions. In essence, typography and printing created and changed people's identities and beliefs. As long as they create a “performance,” they can be trusted. Aside from being fascinating, a journalist's job is simply to report, free from any emotional connection to the story. If a reporter showed signs of terror or inflicted a worried tone of voice, the viewer would be quite disconcerted. “Viewers, after all, are partners with journalists in the “Now…This” culture, and they expect the journalist to play his role as a character who is marginally serious but remains far from authentic understanding” (104). If the story is indeed serious, the audience will not perceive it that way due to the constant advertisements and discontinuities in the program. Unlike a book that maintains a consistent tone and continuity of content, this is not the expectation of television.