3 ms·
Your comment reminds of something Douglas Adams once said: >> * In this century (and the previous century) we modelled one-to-one communications in the telepho
by justforfunhere 6y ago
Your comment reminds of something Douglas Adams once said:
>> * In this century (and the previous century) we modelled one-to-one communications in the telephone, which I assume we are all familiar with. We have one-to-many communication - boy do we have an awful lot of that; broadcasting, publishing, journalism, etc. - we get information poured at us from all over the place and it's completely indiscriminate as to where it might land. It's curious, but we don't have to go very far back in our history until we find that all the information that reached us was relevant to us and therefore anything that happened, any news, whether it was about something that's actually happened to us, in the next house, or in the next village, within the boundary or within our horizon, it happened in our world and if we reacted to it the world reacted back. It was all relevant to us, so for example, if somebody had a terrible accident we could crowd round and really help. Nowadays, because of the plethora of one-to-many communication we have, if a plane crashes in India we may get terribly anxious about it but our anxiety doesn't have any impact. We're not very well able to distinguish between a terrible emergency that's happened to somebody a world away and something that's happened to someone round the corner. We can't really distinguish between them any more, which is why we get terribly upset by something that has happened to somebody in a soap opera that comes out of Hollywood and maybe less concerned when it's happened to our sister. We've all become twisted and disconnected and it's not surprising that we feel very stressed and alienated in the world because the world impacts on us but we don't impact the world. Then there's many-to-one; we have that, but not very well yet and there's not much of it about. Essentially, our democratic systems are a model of that and though they're not very good, they will improve dramatically. *
Link: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/ http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
- KineticLensman 6y ago> we don't have to go very far back in our history until we find that all the information that reached us was relevant to us and therefore anything that happened, any news, whether it was about something that's actually happened to us, in the next house, or in the next village, within the boundary or within our horizon, it happened in our world and if we reacted to it the world reacted back Well Douglas Adams is a great writer and all that but this is a massive simplification, at least in the UK [0]. There is an extensive history of public opinion being swayed by highly politicised media, also a lot of state control on what could be said. E.g. salacious gossip about the royals. There was also a lot of graphic media - essentially political cartoons - that were very highly political and intended to inflame opinion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_journalism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_journalism_in_the_U...