5 ms·

> It's like in 20s-30s last century - radio was invented and democracy wasn't ready for it - and when crisis came the result was totalitarianisms. Interesting.

• raxxorrax 7y ago
  People attesting this are mostly totalitarians themselves. People tend to find out about the patronism and pick their own favorite totalitarian in a most reactionary manner. I doubt there is any further and deeper insight.
• ajuc 7y ago
  > Recognising the importance of radio in disseminating the Nazi message, Goebbels approved a scheme whereby millions of cheap radio sets (the Volksempfänger) were subsidised by the government. In the "Radio as the Eighth Great Power"[114] speech, Goebbels proclaimed: > It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio. ...[Radio] reached the entire nation, regardless of class, standing, or religion. That was primarily the result of the tight centralization, the strong reporting, and the up-to-date nature of the German radio....Above all it is necessary to clearly centralize all radio activities, to place spiritual tasks ahead of technical ones,...to provide a clear worldview, > By the start of the Second World War, over 70% of German households had one of these radios, which were deliberately limited in range in order to prevent loyal citizens from considering other viewpoints in foreign broadcasts.[113] Radio broadcasts were also played over loudspeakers in public places and workplaces.[113] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany > During the democratic period, when the Weimar government introduced progovernment political news, the growth of Nazi popularity slowed down in areas with access to radio. This effect was reversed during the campaign for the last competitive election as a result of the pro-Nazi radio broadcast following Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. During the consolidation of dictatorship, radio propaganda helped the Nazis enroll new party members. After the Nazis established their rule, radio propaganda incited anti-Semitic acts and denunciations of Jews to authorities by ordinary citizens. The effect of anti-Semitic propaganda varied depending on the listeners’ predispositions toward the message. Nazi radio was most effective in places where anti-Semitism was historically high and had a negative effect in places with historically low anti-Semitism https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1885/1916582?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1885/191... Remember that before radio the best you could get was newspapers and leaflets, and both were mostly ignoring the lower strata of society. In religious regions you could also make a deal with the church I guess, it was the only information network that reached masses regularly. People in countryside don't get leaflets. Poor people don't spend on newspapers. Radio was "free newspaper everyday", and Nazis gave the radios for free. Also when you buy a newspaper you presumably already agree with its message at least a little, so it's hard to make people change their minds with newspapers. When you buy a radio you get all the stations, so you can be persuaded by them to change your mind over time.
  • madaxe_again 7y ago
    Newspapers were dynamite in their time. Before moveable type, printing anything was expensive and time consuming. It was typically done only by governments and the very wealthy. They controlled the message. Then, along comes the ability to move type, and re-use your castings. Luther prises the faultlines in religion wide open with handbills. The English and the French end up having revolutions, promulgated by samizdat handbills disseminated throughout society. The abolitionist movement promote their cause through the same, and American dissenters publish their ideas to a malleable audience with cheap ease, resulting in another revolution. Arguably, the last gasp of newspapers as the primary medium of movement was the First World War - and then radio took the helm, then television, and now, the internet. It’s not so much that we’re unready for these media so much as we never will be. We receive subjective realities willingly - it’s how we form social bonds. All that changes is the accessibility of broadcast through the medium, and radio and tv were machines for centralised messaging, whereas the printing press and internet have allowed dissenting voices to once more gain a foothold in the minds of many. If we follow pattern, we are in for a rough ride, but perhaps a better state of affairs at the end of it.
    • jacquesm 7y ago
      May you live in interesting times is generally not considered to be a blessing.