4 ms·

>> The rise of newspapers and magazines meant that tales of the bizarre and the outrageous could circulate widely and quickly, while the rapid increase in print

>> The rise of newspapers and magazines meant that tales of the bizarre and the outrageous could circulate widely and quickly, while the rapid increase in printed advertising made it easy to promote stunts and shams. Was it worse than millenia of unchallengable state-sanctioned bullshit that preceded it?

Mordisquitos 5y ago
> Was it worse than millenia of unchallengable state-sanctioned bullshit? Before the advent of mass media there was no "unchallengeable state-sanctioned" anything. The was a mix of local news and gossip, word-of-mouth, announcements from the local aristocrat or landlord, and more or less accurate rumours arriving from travellers.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  True, but, state craft also had paid snitches to watch, and report on state/king/etc unfriendly talk, which would sit in pubs, or just wander around listening. They also had people spreading state policy/thought, too. Before wide scale monitoring, such as phones, then computers, then internet, massive numbers of people were paid to listen, even in modern times. Mass media was surely an important change, but our ancestors didn't let things go uncontrolled, for, while all of the above was being done internally, external enemies were spreading propaganda to crush foreign kingdoms. This sort of stuff has likely been happening since the dawn of humans, two villages rivaling over local hunting grounds or some such.
  - Ialdaboth 5y ago
    Kings had secret agents and diplomats fooling around, sure. But you need the technical/societal advancements and the production surplus brought by modern civilization if you want to be able to run a totalitarian state.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      Feudal cultures were far more limited and totalitarian in every possible way. Serfs literally weren't allowed to leave their villages without a good reason - like war. There was an intellectual monoculture with the Church using scare stories about the fate of the disobedient to terrify serfs into compliance. There was no access to books or personal development. You worked the land, you paid your tithes, and if you were lucky you survived the numerous famines, illnesses, bandit raids, and larger military campaigns, and passed your rented land on to one of your sons. The big difference between that kind of totalitarianism and the modern kind is the fact that the Church has been replaced a more diverse media. In fact there's less diversity than there appears to be. The liberal tradition means there's at least the possibility of independent thought, but it's less common than it might be. In the West, non-compliance and failure-to-be-useful are enforced with brutal economic sanctions. But you can at least think about starting a business and having some nominal independence - which wasn't an option in feudal times. But there's a proselytising corporate monoculture instead of a proselytising religious monoculture [1], and it's very hard for many to imagine that other systems may be possible - never mind better for them. [1] In many parts of the US, you get both.
- axlee 5y ago
  Religion definitely fits the criteria here.
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    "Mass" Media. Check.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Depends what you count as “unchallengeable” (how do you see the house of Tudor in the Kingdom of England alternating religious views at least some of which were very strongly enforced?) and “mass media” (do you count the Gutenberg press?)
duxup 5y ago
I can't tell you the historical landscape except to say that I often find "the media" and similar sentiments are usually followed by <my own bullshit I believe in/>. The common usage for "the media", "MSM", "the state" and so on just seem like filler folks use to prop up their own ill informed ideas.

Mordisquitos 5y ago

> Was it worse than millenia of unchallengable state-sanctioned bullshit? Before the advent of mass media there was no "unchallengeable state-sanctioned" anything. The was a mix of local news and gossip, word-of-mouth, announcements from the local aristocrat or landlord, and more or less accurate rumours arriving from travellers.

bbarnett 5y ago
True, but, state craft also had paid snitches to watch, and report on state/king/etc unfriendly talk, which would sit in pubs, or just wander around listening. They also had people spreading state policy/thought, too. Before wide scale monitoring, such as phones, then computers, then internet, massive numbers of people were paid to listen, even in modern times. Mass media was surely an important change, but our ancestors didn't let things go uncontrolled, for, while all of the above was being done internally, external enemies were spreading propaganda to crush foreign kingdoms. This sort of stuff has likely been happening since the dawn of humans, two villages rivaling over local hunting grounds or some such.
- Ialdaboth 5y ago
  Kings had secret agents and diplomats fooling around, sure. But you need the technical/societal advancements and the production surplus brought by modern civilization if you want to be able to run a totalitarian state.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Feudal cultures were far more limited and totalitarian in every possible way. Serfs literally weren't allowed to leave their villages without a good reason - like war. There was an intellectual monoculture with the Church using scare stories about the fate of the disobedient to terrify serfs into compliance. There was no access to books or personal development. You worked the land, you paid your tithes, and if you were lucky you survived the numerous famines, illnesses, bandit raids, and larger military campaigns, and passed your rented land on to one of your sons. The big difference between that kind of totalitarianism and the modern kind is the fact that the Church has been replaced a more diverse media. In fact there's less diversity than there appears to be. The liberal tradition means there's at least the possibility of independent thought, but it's less common than it might be. In the West, non-compliance and failure-to-be-useful are enforced with brutal economic sanctions. But you can at least think about starting a business and having some nominal independence - which wasn't an option in feudal times. But there's a proselytising corporate monoculture instead of a proselytising religious monoculture [1], and it's very hard for many to imagine that other systems may be possible - never mind better for them. [1] In many parts of the US, you get both.
axlee 5y ago
Religion definitely fits the criteria here.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  "Mass" Media. Check.
ben_w 5y ago
Depends what you count as “unchallengeable” (how do you see the house of Tudor in the Kingdom of England alternating religious views at least some of which were very strongly enforced?) and “mass media” (do you count the Gutenberg press?)

duxup 5y ago

I can't tell you the historical landscape except to say that I often find "the media" and similar sentiments are usually followed by <my own bullshit I believe in/>. The common usage for "the media", "MSM", "the state" and so on just seem like filler folks use to prop up their own ill informed ideas.