I won't lie, reading the title of this book's introduction made me make some premature judgements about where the readings were headed: "The Political Origins of Modern Communication." Where this chapter began had me in a mind frame that was no where close to where is was when the chapter ended. Although quite interesting, the ways in which European and American governments implemented policies and laws to control communication is somewhat of a stale topic for me.
But as this chapter progresses, it becomes much less about the role of politics in the creation of the media and more about the mind-set of the people. I find it somewhat obvious that each of the countries discussed (America, England, and France) have their histories of censorship of control of communication. But the more fascinating side of the equation comes from the role of the people and their ability to shape the development of a more open and progressive media culture.
Early on, one element that struck me is where Starr mentions how Americans have very little interest in the theoretical and abstract side of human knowledge, and they simply are consumers of FACTS. I found this claim to go against my personal ways of thinking and communicating. Unlike the Americans Starr describes, I am a person who is more concerned with "knowledge" than "information." My background in epistemology has made me into someone that doesn't always necessarily concern myself with facts and data. Instead, I try to look at the bigger picture when trying to contemplate whether or not what we claim to call "information" can even be counted as knowledge.
It makes you wonder what our society might be like today had we taken more of the "French" approach to newspaper reporting in the 19th and 20th centuries. As Starr points out, the French newspapers primarily consisted of "literary essays," whereas American newspapers simply stuck to reporting the news. I can see how that is reflected today in the cultures of each country. Albeit stereotypically, France is a country that is largely associated with its "high culture." Elegant museums, decadent foods, and sophisticated literature are all things that I would associate with French culture. Meanwhile--and maybe this is just because I've lived here my whole life--the stereotypes associated with everyday Americans are that we have a tendency to be lazy and stupid. Now, the majority of you reading this blog certainly don't fall into that category, but I think you get the point.
Perhaps this, in part, answers Starr when he writes, "what kind of society it proves to be will ultimately be a political choice" (19). I think we've already begun to see a very distinct society created by the American media, and I don't necessarily believe that the results have all been because of political choices. Today, in a society where we basically have access to anything and everything (or at least we like to think we do), it seems that the people have more of a choice in what type of society we'll become. When a video of a kid going crazy because he's on laughing gas has about 5 million hits on youtube, I think the people have spoke.
Well, I guess reading the first few chapters of this book have really got me thinking positively! I don't necessarily think that Starr intended this type of reaction, especially from the book's introduction. But the media and it's role in shaping society is a very interesting topic for me, and it's one that sends my mind in many different directions. That being said, I did enjoy what I've read so far, and I look forward to the internal debates that will develop from further readings.
No comments:
Post a Comment