4 ms·
> In 1903, the average voter didn't know what the government was doing. In "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Neil Postman argued the opposite: In the 1800s, people
by Cpoll 9y ago
> In 1903, the average voter didn't know what the government was doing.
In "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Neil Postman argued the opposite: In the 1800s, people would watch hours-long political debates for amusement and were much more politically literate (the book is more about the negative effects of telecommunication - most people know it as the inspiration for the famous Orwell vs. Huxley infographic).
- jcranberry 9y agoYou may be right in this instance but there are plenty salient examples to illustrate his point. Current governments are much better than the mixed bag of monarchic/feudal societies that were in place for much longer than current systems.
- ameister14 9y agoAs I recall, he was actually talking about the 1700's, not the 1800's, and said that by the mid 1800's, that had already changed, if in fact it was ever as rosy as he painted it to be (I doubt that, as I studied political discourse during the period of 1779-1860 fairly extensively). In that same book, he also argued that the telegraph enabled news without context. That hit most of the US market by the 1850's. Yellow journalism and the general sensationalist nature of news writing in the late 19th and early 20th century also don't support his argument about the written word's innate superiority to oral argument and television.
- justadeveloper2 9y agoPlus, back then, people weren't shy about tar and feathering ingrate politicians.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago> In the 1800s, people would watch hours-long political debates for amusement and were much more politically literate Isn't that what YouTube is?