I’d label Carr as a pessimist. He goes so far as to call computers and other new media our “masters,” as their “dazzling effects” have blinded us from seeing what truly matters.
Turkle is also a pessimist. Her outlook on technology, especially concerning the upcoming generations, is bleak. She see’s them as dependent and unable to think or speak for themselves.
Postman is neutral in the sense that he at times argues for both sides. He ultimately concedes with Aldous Huxley, basically saying it is necessary to understand the potential evils of advancing new media so one can prevent a bad future.
Bogost offers some relief to the pessimism of the previous authors, being somewhat of an optimist. His outlook on video games as an escape or a chance to experience some other life than the one you have makes him think that this sort of new media can help society, and in turn offer empathy.
Shirky, while at first strikes me as optimist, is actually fairly neutral. I say this because while he praises the evolution of human ability to communicate through various different mediums, he sort of bashes it when it says that we will look back and realize none of it was anything special. Shirky summarizes this at the end of his piece when he states that the word “scribe” didn’t apply to everyone once literacy became widespread, the term simply disappeared.
Jenkins is optimistic. He makes a case for building the bridge between the old and the new to better understand where we are going from there.
McLuhan is neutral because he feels very strongly that the “medium is the message.” This can be taken as negative or positive, depending.