3 ms·

The only real rebuttal I guess would be asking whether people were really more informed in the past? For a good chunk of the history of the US most people would

The only real rebuttal I guess would be asking whether people were really more informed in the past? For a good chunk of the history of the US most people would only have had access to, what, maybe a newspaper on a monthly or so basis? Maybe the publications back then were more intellectually honest and unbiased, but maybe not. Either way, unfortunately, I agree with the current state of media and the education level of the public. Even more unfortunately, in the midst of things being in such a sorry state, we now have LLMs/bots added to the mix, where groups and nation states now have an entirely new level of public manipulation available and it's already making the situation completely untenable.

eszed 3y ago
No, the average person was not. However, in a representative-democracy model people voted for someone to become better informed and then act on their behalf. I think people were (generally speaking) more aware of their own informational limits, and more prepared to take seriously their choice over those empowered to act on their behalf. Now, of course, everyone has "all the world's knowledge at their fingertips", and drowns in information of dubious relevance and / or provenance. As, increasingly (and ironically) do their representatives. A distressing twist: I am incredibly over-informed about national politics, and almost entirely uninformed about local matters.
ImJamal 3y ago
>Maybe the publications back then were more intellectually honest and unbiased, but maybe not. Many of the newspapers in the US were open about their biases. They would often have a political party as part of their name. The first newspaper in Chicago, for example, was "The Chicago Democrat". In Springfield Massachusetts there was a newspaper called "The Republican". Many cities had similar newspaper names like those.

eszed 3y ago

No, the average person was not. However, in a representative-democracy model people voted for someone to become better informed and then act on their behalf. I think people were (generally speaking) more aware of their own informational limits, and more prepared to take seriously their choice over those empowered to act on their behalf. Now, of course, everyone has "all the world's knowledge at their fingertips", and drowns in information of dubious relevance and / or provenance. As, increasingly (and ironically) do their representatives. A distressing twist: I am incredibly over-informed about national politics, and almost entirely uninformed about local matters.

ImJamal 3y ago

>Maybe the publications back then were more intellectually honest and unbiased, but maybe not. Many of the newspapers in the US were open about their biases. They would often have a political party as part of their name. The first newspaper in Chicago, for example, was "The Chicago Democrat". In Springfield Massachusetts there was a newspaper called "The Republican". Many cities had similar newspaper names like those.