Introduction
Summary of the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. Let us start with a brief introduction of the book. Picture a world where ideas and beliefs are served in bright, bite-sized packages, where the complexity of real-life issues is squeezed into catchy visuals and brief headlines. This is the landscape in which we find ourselves. The old comforts of thoughtful reading and careful listening, where understanding took effort, now face stiff competition from endless spectacles. As television and similar media dominate our lives, the style of communication shapes not just what we know, but how we think. In this transformed environment, serious discussions blend with showmanship, and even faith, politics, and learning become performances. Yet, the choice is not between rejecting all entertainment and embracing dullness. The choice is about recognizing the silent trade-offs. What happens when we trade genuine reasoning for a quick thrill? This book invites you to step back, notice these shifts, and consider how we might preserve depth amid a world of amusement.
Chapter 1: Witnessing the Changing Face of Truth as New Communication Tools Reshape Our Shared Reality Across Different Eras.
Imagine living in a world where the shape of truth itself shifts and warps each time a new way of sharing information arrives. For centuries, human beings have communicated through speech, passing stories and ideas from one person to another using only the power of their voices. Then came writing, the invention of alphabets and the delicate art of recording words on paper, allowing thoughts to be preserved, revisited, and studied for generations. As civilizations moved from oral traditions to written language, what people considered to be true and important also began to change. This transformation did not stop with the printing press. Instead, it continued as new media emerged. With each new communication tool—from neatly printed newspapers to images flashing across television screens—our standards for what feels legitimate, trustworthy, or meaningful have adapted. Understanding how each medium changes us helps explain why we think the way we do today.
Centuries ago, most people relied on spoken words. Laws, sacred teachings, heroic legends, and everyday lessons traveled through human voices. Yet, spoken words vanish quickly. The listener must rely on memory, and subtle details can fade or shift with each retelling. When alphabets and writing systems appeared, they captured language in a permanent form. This gave birth to grammar, logic, and reasoned argumentation as tools to dissect and understand what was written. Over time, educated thinkers emerged, shaping the way societies saw truth. Written knowledge encouraged deeper thought, careful comparison, and an understanding of cause and effect. The printed word felt stable and lasting, something that could be returned to repeatedly to test its accuracy or to spark new ideas. This shift from oral to written cultures forever changed how people reasoned, analyzed, and recognized what was real and reliable.
As writing gained importance, people slowly began trusting the printed page. Books, pamphlets, and newspapers offered not only facts but also detailed explanations. They gave readers the power to dissect information critically. A printed argument or a historical account could be studied, broken down into its core parts, and re-examined if needed. This process created a world where truth often meant something proven by written evidence. People demanded proof in printed form—if someone claimed to hold a doctorate, for example, they needed a tangible diploma issued by a known institution. Over time, the notion that what is written is more reliable than what is simply said became common sense. Print culture allowed for complex debates, philosophical reasoning, and scientific inquiry to thrive. It shaped a landscape where understanding and intelligence were deeply linked to reading and analyzing texts.
But as the 20th century progressed, newer media emerged and challenged the supremacy of printed words. Televised images, rapidly spreading headlines, and sound bites started competing for attention. Moving pictures, bright colors, lively music, and faces on screens gradually replaced the careful logic of the printed page. With the rise of these new forms of communication, the meaning of truth slowly shifted again. Legitimacy began to depend less on reasoned arguments and more on appearances and visual impact. Suddenly, the style and performance of a speaker mattered just as much—or even more—than the factual content of their statements. Understanding this journey from spoken word to printed argument to visual spectacle sets the stage for grasping the dramatic changes in public discourse. Once we know how we got here, we can better understand what we might lose or gain next.
Chapter 2: Reflecting on the Golden Age of Print and the Deep Intellectual Engagement of Nineteenth-Century America.
In early America, printed words reigned supreme, and much of the population was surprisingly literate. This widespread reading culture was not just a quiet hobby but the very foundation of public dialogue and national identity. Newspapers, pamphlets, and books circulated widely, and people took pride in their ability to read and debate complex arguments. The world of ideas was, quite literally, at their fingertips. In those days, when Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, the pamphlet ignited the imagination of thousands, shaping the political direction of a young nation. The reach of the written word was astonishing. Rather than short, flashy headlines, people engaged with lengthy texts, challenging themselves to understand and interpret detailed reasoning. This environment fostered a society prepared to think critically, cherish informed debate, and appreciate the logic behind the printed arguments that defined their communities.
The nineteenth century in America was not just about books and newspapers; it was also about the kind of thinking that print encouraged. Back then, political speeches resembled epic essays delivered aloud. Candidates for the highest offices spoke for hours, weaving elaborate metaphors, stacking clauses upon clauses, and using language that demanded patience and attention from the audience. These events resembled marathon lessons in philosophy and policy, where listeners followed intricate reasoning. Crowds stood or sat through these lengthy orations, proving their willingness to tackle challenging material. This dedication to understanding complicated ideas did not come from nowhere—it was nurtured by a world steeped in print culture. In that era, voters recognized the strength of a candidate’s arguments by the quality of their words, not by their style of dress, their facial expressions, or their ability to smile into a camera.
Because America’s public life revolved around printed words, people’s perception of leaders was shaped by what those leaders wrote and how they reasoned, rather than how they looked. Most citizens would not have recognized their own president if he strolled past them on a busy street. Instead of relying on facial images or catchy slogans, people measured public figures by the logical structure of their ideas, the clarity of their stances, and the honesty of their arguments. Written documents and speeches offered a slow, methodical journey through complex truths. Debate took place on an intellectual battlefield, where the written word stood as the most respected weapon. The country’s emotional heart and rational mind found a home in books, pamphlets, and newspapers. Public trust and social unity often hinged on a shared understanding of well-argued, widely circulated printed materials.
This print-based universe shaped citizens who were accustomed to building meaning piece by piece, examining each step of an argument, and respecting evidence. The flow of information was deliberate, and readers had to work for understanding. They practiced patience, became skilled in identifying reliable sources, and gained a richer sense of context. Because printed material required time to produce and distribute, news moved more slowly, allowing events to be thoroughly analyzed. Information, in other words, had a chance to sink in. Such a culture fostered maturity in public discussions. Before the rise of modern media technologies, Americans understood their world through layered, logical narratives rather than jolts of shallow spectacle. This period stands as a stark contrast to what came next, when new inventions started accelerating the flow of information and reshaping the very definition of what truth means.
Chapter 3: Understanding the Disruptive Arrival of the Telegraph and How It Paved the Way for Context-Free, Rapid-Fire Information.
Before the telegraph, information traveled at the speed of human or animal movement. Letters and newspapers journeyed by horse, train, or ship. News from distant places took days, weeks, or even months to arrive, encouraging people to consider events more thoughtfully. But the telegraph changed all that in an instant. Suddenly, messages could speed across vast distances at nearly unimaginable velocity. This invention proved groundbreaking: facts, names, or events could be reported almost as soon as they happened. Yet, the telegraph did not come with a built-in ability to explain or provide background. Stripped of the slow, steady reasoning found in printed texts, telegraphic tidbits turned information into a series of context-free bursts. This new style of communication challenged readers to make sense of disconnected fragments, often leaving them puzzled or unsure about why these random updates mattered at all.
Telegraphy encouraged the rise of trivial information and head-turning oddities delivered as headlines without explanation. If a princess in another country caught a minor illness, this fact could be instantly transmitted, even if it had no relevance to the receiver’s life. Thinkers like Henry David Thoreau predicted this flood of meaningless content, seeing the telegraph as a novelty that would fill minds with distractions rather than knowledge. Instead of carefully piecing together evidence and analyzing it, people began consuming scattered facts as they arrived. The telegraph presented news like a heap of puzzle pieces with no picture to guide assembly. Readers found themselves struggling to create order from chaos. Where print culture encouraged depth, sequence, and methodical understanding, telegraphic communication launched a world where fragments danced across wires, delighting or surprising but rarely enlightening.
This shift affected the nature of public discourse. Printed arguments required writers to present their reasoning step by step. With the telegraph, information became something to be collected rather than contemplated. Bits of news were like bright flashes in a dark room—attention-grabbing but too brief and scattered to form a clear scene. The ability to send messages fast made relevance less important. Instead of nurturing thoughtful debate, telegraphic communication turned the spread of information into a race. Speed, novelty, and shock value overshadowed context, completeness, and meaning. Over time, people became accustomed to this style, accepting snippets of isolated facts as a normal part of daily life. The cultural mindset shifted toward quick consumption. Instead of asking, Why does this matter? the public learned to shrug and move on, often forgetting that genuine understanding requires context and depth.
These developments set the stage for future changes. With telegraphy, information no longer respected borders of geography or reason. By zipping messages across continents, it trained people to expect constant updates from everywhere, regardless of their personal relevance. The telegraph weakened the idea that knowledge should flow in an orderly path from cause to effect, problem to solution, or premise to conclusion. In this new environment, truth itself started feeling more slippery. Without coherence, facts became floating dots rather than connected lines of reasoning. While newspapers continued to print detailed stories, telegraph wires competed by showering audiences with random bulletins. This unsettled the comfortable dominance of print, inching society closer to a world where the next big invention—photography—would make the problem even more complicated. Soon, images would add another layer to the puzzle, influencing how truth was portrayed and interpreted.
Chapter 4: Witnessing Photography’s Emergence and the Collision of Visual Facts with Context-Free Information Streams.
Photography joined the scene as telegraphy’s visual partner. While telegraphy delivered words with lightning speed, photographs brought snapshots of reality right before people’s eyes. At first glance, this seemed like a wonderful step forward. Instead of imagining a place or event, people could see it. Photos promised a direct, unbiased look at the world, revealing truth in a way words never could. But a photograph is no neutral reporter. It shows a tiny slice of reality—just one angle, one moment, one piece of a much larger story. Without explanation, a photograph can be as confusing as a telegraphic blip of text. It might tell you that something happened, but not why it happened, what led up to it, or what followed. Like a puzzle piece, it offered a fact but did little to help viewers assemble the entire puzzle.
Soon, images and telegraphic news merged in the public sphere, shaping a culture that valued impressions over explanations. Advertisers and editors realized the power of a single, striking image to grab attention. With a captivating photo, they could spark curiosity, emotion, or desire with minimal effort. This made the world of information more fragmented than ever before. People started accepting that seeing a photo was equivalent to understanding its subject. But just as telegraphy introduced fragments of text without meaning, photography delivered fragments of vision without context. Viewers might be enchanted, shocked, or persuaded without truly comprehending the situation. Over time, this approach seeped into everyday thinking. People trusted images as undeniable evidence, forgetting that photographs could be cropped, posed, or misinterpreted. The door opened for a future where rapidly shared images and bite-sized headlines defined knowledge.
As the nineteenth century ended and the twentieth century began, a new type of public consciousness formed—one that treated information like building blocks thrown on a table, waiting for people to piece them together on their own. Yet without guidance, many abandoned the challenge altogether. The flood of images and brief news items trained audiences to settle for the surface. The era of context-rich print discourse slowly receded, replaced by a continuous stream of isolated moments. Instead of slowing down to read pages of detail, people skimmed headlines, glanced at pictures, and moved on. This cultural shift affected everything, from how citizens formed opinions about their leaders to how they understood foreign cultures. With each passing year, the hunger for entertainment, speed, and excitement overshadowed the desire for careful interpretation.
By joining forces, telegraphy and photography paved the way for a show-business culture. Instead of asking deep questions and seeking structured explanations, audiences learned to respond to stimuli with quick emotional reactions. The world of meaningful, reasoned discourse, once alive in the pages of newspapers and books, struggled to stand firm. Soon, a new medium would perfect this trend: television. Television would blend images, sound, color, and motion into a continuous spectacle, making information entertaining but often intellectually thin. Before long, truth would become a performance, and seriousness would fade into the background. The solid foundation print once provided was eroded by a wave of unconnected facts and captivating visuals. As we move forward, understanding how photography and telegraphy reshaped public thought helps us see the dangers lurking when depth is sacrificed for amusement.
Chapter 5: Observing Television’s Emergence as the Supreme Entertainment Medium That Transforms Serious Content into Show Business.
When television arrived, many believed it would be a grand improvement over radio or a dynamic extension of printed journalism. Instead, it followed the path laid out by telegraphy and photography but took it to an extreme. Television was not merely a faster printing press or a talking newspaper—it became a stage, a carnival of images and sounds that demanded little intellectual effort from viewers. Its glowing screen promised excitement, color, and movement. Almost effortlessly, it turned news into spectacle. Reporting the weather, debating national issues, or discussing world affairs all became shows designed to please viewers. The goal shifted: instead of helping audiences think deeply, television aimed to keep them watching. By wrapping content in entertainment, it created a world where people expected to be amused while learning about their society and the events shaping their lives.
As television secured its hold, the line between serious discourse and light amusement blurred. The evening news introduced each story with dramatic music, fancy graphics, and polished anchors who smiled confidently into the camera. Complex problems were explained in minutes, or even seconds, with no time for depth. Catastrophes and tragedies appeared side-by-side with cheerful commercials. In one moment, a viewer might learn of a global crisis; in the next, they would be urged to buy a new snack or gadget. This constant, jarring contrast taught audiences to treat important information as yet another piece of entertainment. Even the tone of newscasters became uniform—equally enthusiastic whether reporting a plane crash or a fun local festival. Serious political debates morphed into image battles, where a candidate’s stage presence mattered more than their logic or policies.
People began to measure truth by appearances. A confident smile, a charismatic personality, or a well-chosen backdrop could matter more than facts or reasoned arguments. Public figures understood this, tailoring their messages to fit television’s demands. Instead of writing long, careful speeches, they delivered short, catchy lines suitable for quick broadcast segments. The age of slogans and sound bites dawned, with television as its guiding force. In place of documents and detailed statements, quick impressions influenced voters. The medium rewarded entertainment value over intellectual rigor. The result was a shift not just in how people received information, but also in how they decided what to believe. If an idea looked good on TV, many viewers assumed it was worth considering, without necessarily probing deeper into its origins, evidence, or implications.
This reliance on television as the main stage for public discourse changed the nation’s cognitive habits. Logical reasoning and extended analysis—hallmarks of the print era—gave way to preference for easy consumption. Television’s success depended on never boring its audience, so complicated issues had to be simplified or dramatized. The grand tradition of reasoned debate lost ground as image and spectacle took over. The shift was so subtle that many hardly noticed it happening. Yet, as people accepted television’s entertaining style of delivering news, politics, and social commentary, their expectations for public communication transformed. They learned to crave visual stimulation, snappy dialogues, and emotional impact. In doing so, they slowly abandoned the patience and critical thinking skills that once allowed them to dissect arguments on printed pages and build a more informed understanding of their world.
Chapter 6: Recognizing How Television’s Entertaining Lens Shapes Religious and Political Discourse into Visually-Pleasing Performances.
Television’s power to turn all subjects into entertainment did not spare religion or politics. Religious messages, once delivered in sacred spaces through careful sermons, made their way to television screens. Preachers and religious leaders learned to adapt. Their sets resembled colorful stages, complete with flowers, musical choirs, and dazzling lights. Worship services on television became shows designed to captivate attention, much like variety programs. The concept of holiness or spiritual depth, which often requires thoughtful reflection and quiet reverence, struggled to fit into the fast, flashy medium. Instead, religious broadcasts focused on emotional punch, instant comfort, and visual appeal. The mysterious, profound aspects of faith became harder to convey. Television’s logic dictated that if something did not entertain, audiences might switch channels. Thus, even religion adjusted its message to fit the entertaining style of the small screen.
Politics underwent a similar transformation. Once, voters judged politicians by their written proposals and lengthy orations. Now, they sized them up by how they looked and sounded on TV. Ronald Reagan famously noted that politics is like show business, and indeed, the camera rewarded candidates who could charm audiences. Complex policies gave way to simple slogans. Detailed plans to address tough problems were replaced by brief commercials promising quick fixes. Instead of reading detailed position papers, citizens tuned in to campaign ads that compressed messages into seconds. Political debates resembled talent contests, with candidates trying to impress viewers visually and emotionally rather than engage them intellectually. The depth and seriousness of public policy discussions eroded, leaving behind a spectacle that resembled a performance. In this environment, truth risked becoming just another stage prop.
By reducing religion and politics to entertainment, television encouraged the belief that everything—belief systems, leadership qualities, moral standards—could be packaged as a show. Audiences became used to immediate satisfaction and surface-level understanding. There was less room for the quiet work of studying sacred texts or the careful consideration of political ideologies. Instead, television offered a parade of memorable images and voices to be accepted at face value. When entire communities found their spiritual and civic conversations shaped by television’s entertaining demands, the result was a significant cultural shift. The subtlety and complexity that once defined serious discourse faded. In their place stood rapid segments, emotional appeals, and eye-catching visuals. People learned to expect religious comfort without deep study, political solutions without thorough debate, and leadership images without the substance to back them up.
Over time, this approach altered how people viewed social progress. If a problem could not be solved in a TV-friendly format, it seemed hopelessly complicated. Hard truths that required patient reasoning struggled to find an audience. Instead, dazzling personalities and simple storylines captured public attention. Viewers began to see the world through lenses polished by television studios: what they could see and enjoy instantly was what mattered most. Religious doctrines and political platforms were squeezed into tiny boxes of visual entertainment. The old idea that some truths must be wrestled with, studied, and understood in depth became less common. Just as telegraphy and photography redefined the meaning of information, television redefined the meaning of civic and spiritual life. It taught people that serious public matters could, and perhaps should, be as enjoyable as a nightly sitcom.
Chapter 7: Exploring How Television’s Entertainment Values Reshape Ideas About Knowledge, Learning, and Quick-Fix Solutions.
As television’s influence spread, it reached into the classroom—or perhaps more accurately, it created a rival classroom inside the home. Children and adults alike spent hours each day watching shows. These shows often claimed to educate, but their educational philosophy differed drastically from that of traditional schools. Instead of acknowledging that true learning requires step-by-step understanding, practice, and sometimes struggle, television taught the opposite. It insisted that everything should be simple enough to grasp instantly, without prior knowledge. On TV, there were no prerequisites and no building of skills over time. Each episode had to entertain a newcomer who knew nothing, meaning lessons were often shallow and disconnected. Instead of guiding learners through complex reasoning, television’s educational approach offered a buffet of easy-to-digest fragments that never demanded the hard work of deep, cumulative understanding.
By presenting education as quick, fun, and story-driven, television turned the learning process into passive entertainment. Instead of reading, analyzing, questioning, and reflecting, viewers were encouraged to sit back and absorb. Gone were the long reading sessions that prepared minds to follow a logical argument from start to finish. Gone was the notion that some subjects, like mathematics or philosophy, require time and patience to master. Television’s version of learning had to fit the same shape as other TV content: it had to be appealing, instantly understandable, and emotionally gratifying. Complex concepts had to be reduced to simple narratives. Difficult steps and repeated practice did not suit the quick pace of the medium. As a result, viewers came to expect that real-world problems and knowledge itself could be approached with minimal effort.
This new educational philosophy affected society’s ability to deal with complicated issues. If people believed that truths should be entertaining, easy, and delivered in neat little packages, they would naturally grow impatient with the messy reality of scientific research, political strategy, or moral reasoning. Television’s style encouraged the fantasy that if a problem could not be solved in a half-hour show, maybe it was too complex or uninteresting. This played directly into political and social debates, where audiences favored bold promises and instant solutions over thoughtful policies requiring time and sacrifice. Instead of building knowledge brick by brick, many people tried to skip straight to the conclusions. As a result, public understanding grew shallower, making it easier for misinformation, oversimplified claims, and hollow slogans to fill the void where informed debate and careful learning once thrived.
In this environment, the warnings of thinkers like Aldous Huxley rang out. Huxley imagined a future where people would love their own mental enslavement, cherishing technologies that dulled their capacity for independent thought. Television, by transforming every form of discourse—religion, politics, education—into entertainment, seemed to be nudging society in that direction. Where once we prized reading and reflection, we now embraced quick shows and flashy images. If everything, including knowledge and belief, was subject to television’s requirement to amuse, then deep understanding faced extinction. Without noticing, people risked slipping into a reality where truth and meaning were drowned in a flood of trivial content. Huxley’s cautionary vision of a world amused into passivity and shallow thought was becoming harder to ignore. Television’s educational logic showed how close the line was between enlightenment and distraction.
Chapter 8: Gazing at the Road Ahead, Acknowledging Huxley’s Caution, and Reevaluating Our Relationship with Television’s Shallow Spectacles.
As we stand at the intersection of past and future, it becomes clear that each new communication medium does more than just relay information. It reshapes minds, values, and cultural priorities. From the reasoned, print-based debates of early America to the rapid bursts of telegraphic facts, from the eye-catching photography revolution to the theatrical universe of television, we have seen truth and understanding stretched, bent, and reshaped. Now, the era of television as the dominant medium has taught us an important lesson: when serious content is forced to compete in an arena built for entertainment, it often loses its depth. Recognizing this pattern is the first step. Instead of mindlessly accepting that all discourse should be fun and easy, we might ask ourselves: what do we gain by turning everything into a spectacle, and what do we lose?
Huxley’s warning lingers as a reminder that being entertained by our own intellectual downfall is a genuine risk. No one is suggesting we must abandon enjoyment completely—joy, laughter, and relaxation are part of a healthy life. But when political choices, religious beliefs, and educational principles become just another TV show, we must be cautious. Perhaps we need to rediscover the virtues of patience, critical thinking, and context-driven understanding. Maybe we should rediscover the value of turning off the screen and turning to books, community discussions, and other formats that demand more effort but yield richer insights. If we do not ask these questions now, we risk drifting into a world where knowledge is nothing more than a shallow current, easily manipulated and quickly forgotten.
Television created a new kind of public conversation, one that discourages depth and adores instant thrills. The solution does not lie in demonizing television completely but in recognizing its limits. We might treat television like a dessert rather than the main course. Our minds need the balanced meal that comes from reading detailed arguments, asking hard questions, and wrestling with unfamiliar ideas. If we continue to rely solely on images and entertaining segments, we let others control the narrative. We lose the ability to shape our world with informed choices and solid reasoning. Instead, we become spectators, watching serious matters float by as if they were fun distractions, rarely anchoring ourselves to genuine understanding.
In acknowledging this situation, we open the door for change. We can encourage media that respects the complexity of truths, that invests time in analysis, and that does not shy away from challenging its audience. We can support educators who teach students not just to remember facts but to understand their sources and implications. We can seek leaders who value substance over style. By doing so, we protect ourselves from the fate Huxley described, where people embrace their own shallow amusements at the expense of their thinking minds. The lessons we have learned show that media shapes our concept of truth. If we fail to notice this shaping, we risk living in a world of endless entertainment where depth disappears. But if we pay attention, we can choose to reclaim seriousness, encourage thoughtful inquiry, and restore meaning to public discourse.
All about the Book
Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman explores how television alters public discourse, warning against a society obsessed with entertainment over critical thinking. A thought-provoking critique of modern communication and its implications for democracy.
Neil Postman was a prominent media theorist and author. His insightful works, including Amusing Ourselves to Death, critically examine the effects of media on culture and communication.
Educators, Media Analysts, Political Scientists, Sociologists, Cultural Critics
Media Analysis, Reading Non-Fiction, Philosophical Debates, Social Commentary, Public Speaking
Impact of Television on Society, Decline of Serious Public Discourse, Influence of Media on Politics, Cultural Values and Communication
We are not amusing ourselves to death; we are dying while we amuse ourselves.
Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Malcolm Gladwell
National Book Award, American Book Award, Lewis Carroll Shelf Award
1. How does television influence our understanding of reality? #2. In what ways does entertainment shape public discourse? #3. Can technology alter the way we think critically? #4. What are the effects of soundbite culture on communication? #5. How does visual media impact our attention spans? #6. What role does humor play in serious discussions? #7. Can the shift from print to screen affect literacy? #8. How does media affect our perception of truth? #9. What is the relationship between politics and entertainment? #10. How do images overshadow words in modern society? #11. What lessons can we learn from historical media development? #12. How does constant entertainment diminish our critical thinking? #13. In what ways does media create a false reality? #14. How does fear influence our engagement with media? #15. How can a society be entertained into complacency? #16. What are the dangers of a mediated culture? #17. How does advertising shape our values and beliefs? #18. In what ways does media promote consumerism? #19. Can we reclaim meaningful communication in a media age? #20. How does dialogue differ from debate in media?
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, media and society, technology and communication, critical analysis of media, impact of television, cultural commentary, media literacy, postman books, book reviews, socio-political commentary, education and media
https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Reflection-Television/dp/014303653X
https://audiofire.in/wp-content/uploads/covers/3658.png
https://www.youtube.com/@audiobooksfire
audiofireapplink