4 ms·

> It's hard for me to really tell which is the greatest. I think you are getting mired in concretes and missing the forest for the trees. Moreover, I don't kn

by dmfdmf 11y ago

> It's hard for me to really tell which is the greatest. I think you are getting mired in concretes and missing the forest for the trees. Moreover, I don't know how old you are but I suspect you are too young to realize how the world worked prior to the internet. It is true that "it wasn't until the 1800s that the newspaper in the modern sense it came about" but this is irrelevant to my point. The modern form of the newspapers was the endpoint of a long consolidation -- ripples from the invention of the printing press. Nevertheless the modern form survived for over 100 years. Once the social role of newspapers was established it was impossible to supplant them prior to the internet. The New York Times (primarily) really replaced the Catholic Church as the cultural maypole. Moreover, if you were even alive in the 60's and 70's you would know that all the major TV networks took their lead from the NYT, they were followers. Old habit die hard so TV continues to follow in the internet age (partly because TV is now just entertainment not a major cultural influence). I think we agree TV was a major technological creation and certainly changed society but it did not challenge the newspapers for social power and influence nor change the power structures of society like the printing press or the internet. Today the NYT is dead as a cultural institution and something WILL take its place but I don't think anyone really knows what that will be. In any event, my point is obvious to me but won't be obvious to everyone until 100 years out which is the nature of a revolution of this scale.

dalke 11y ago
And I think you are standing close to a clump of trees labeled "internet" and mistaking that grove for the entire forest. FWIW, I'm about as old as ARPANET. I also have a special interest in information systems of the 1950s and 1960s - the era of the "information explosion" - and have been reading many papers and essays from that era. What you say about the Gray Lady is true, but only a part of history. I'm also old enough to remember Walter Cronkite's "And that's the way it is" signoff. You might remember that Johnson is said to have said "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America" after Cronkite's "Report from Vietnam: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" editorial. "The New York Times (primarily) really replaced the Catholic Church as the cultural maypole." That is nonsense. For one, it's American-centric, as "The Times" of London (and source for Times New Roman) used to be much more important on the world stage than the NYT. The NYT both started later than The Times, and derived its name from the London paper. Remember, it was The Times (of London) which first reported on Krakatoa, which was the first major natural disaster to appear after the world-wide telegraph was put into place. Not the NYT. And London was the world center in telecommunications. For another, the US was anti-papist long before the NYT started. The Catholic church was not a 'cultural maypole' in the US. (And how delicious to use the pagan maypole to describe the Catholic church! But do you mean 'touchstone'?) We were still wary about Catholicism in 1960, which is why Kennedy declared "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me." Early American anti-papist leanings come from its British cultural heritage. Great Britain was institutionally anti-Catholic since the Act of Supremacy of 1534 and restrictions against Roman Catholics were still in place until full Catholic Emancipation in 1829. It's easy to prove me wrong. The NYT started in 1851. Can you demonstrate how the Catholic church was an important 'cultural maypole' in the US before then? > I think we agree TV was a major technological creation and certainly changed society but it did not challenge the newspapers for social power and influence Yet there are articles like "The Kennedy-Nixon Debates: When TV Changed the Game" describing the growing social power and influence of televion http://time.com/26035/kennedy-nixon-debates-1960-the-tv-landmark-that-changed-the-game/ http://time.com/26035/kennedy-nixon-debates-1960-the-tv-land... . And the modern day Hearst is Rupert Murdoch, who started in newspapers (and bought 'The Times' and 'The Wall Street Journal') and also several TV networks, including Fox News, which he uses to help influence US policy. It's hard to argue that Fox News does not have significant social power in the US. And the major cultural development, from sports to political debates to "Game of Thrones" to satirical news sources likes "The Daily Show", are still structured as TV shows, even when they are 'broadcast' over the internet.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  > It's easy to prove me wrong. The NYT started in 1851. Can you demonstrate how the Catholic church was an important 'cultural maypole' in the US before then? Again you need to widen your context to the whole history of Western Civilization. My point compares the Catholic Church prior to the printing press (1400's) and the NYT prior to the invention of the internet (1900's) -- this was Shirky's point too.
  - dalke 11y ago
    This has nothing to do with Shirky's essay. You said "The New York Times (primarily) really replaced the Catholic Church as the cultural maypole." Please demonstrate the validity of that statement. In the "whole history of Western Civilization", when did the NYT become "the cultural maypole" of Italy, Mexico, and Brazil, and have more cultural influence than the Catholic Church? How is it that The Times of London did not have similar sway on the world stage in the 1800s, nor the the BBC (especially with the BBC World Service) in the 1900s? Why do you pick "Western World" when the Catholic church also has a big influence in Africa (140 million members) and the Philippines (80 million). Which has more social influence in the Philippines, the NYT or the Catholic Church? Which has more social influence in India, the NYT or the BBC?

by dmfdmf 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

And I think you are standing close to a clump of trees labeled "internet" and mistaking that grove for the entire forest. FWIW, I'm about as old as ARPANET. I also have a special interest in information systems of the 1950s and 1960s - the era of the "information explosion" - and have been reading many papers and essays from that era. What you say about the Gray Lady is true, but only a part of history. I'm also old enough to remember Walter Cronkite's "And that's the way it is" signoff. You might remember that Johnson is said to have said "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America" after Cronkite's "Report from Vietnam: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" editorial. "The New York Times (primarily) really replaced the Catholic Church as the cultural maypole." That is nonsense. For one, it's American-centric, as "The Times" of London (and source for Times New Roman) used to be much more important on the world stage than the NYT. The NYT both started later than The Times, and derived its name from the London paper. Remember, it was The Times (of London) which first reported on Krakatoa, which was the first major natural disaster to appear after the world-wide telegraph was put into place. Not the NYT. And London was the world center in telecommunications. For another, the US was anti-papist long before the NYT started. The Catholic church was not a 'cultural maypole' in the US. (And how delicious to use the pagan maypole to describe the Catholic church! But do you mean 'touchstone'?) We were still wary about Catholicism in 1960, which is why Kennedy declared "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me." Early American anti-papist leanings come from its British cultural heritage. Great Britain was institutionally anti-Catholic since the Act of Supremacy of 1534 and restrictions against Roman Catholics were still in place until full Catholic Emancipation in 1829. It's easy to prove me wrong. The NYT started in 1851. Can you demonstrate how the Catholic church was an important 'cultural maypole' in the US before then? > I think we agree TV was a major technological creation and certainly changed society but it did not challenge the newspapers for social power and influence Yet there are articles like "The Kennedy-Nixon Debates: When TV Changed the Game" describing the growing social power and influence of televion http://time.com/26035/kennedy-nixon-debates-1960-the-tv-landmark-that-changed-the-game/ http://time.com/26035/kennedy-nixon-debates-1960-the-tv-land... . And the modern day Hearst is Rupert Murdoch, who started in newspapers (and bought 'The Times' and 'The Wall Street Journal') and also several TV networks, including Fox News, which he uses to help influence US policy. It's hard to argue that Fox News does not have significant social power in the US. And the major cultural development, from sports to political debates to "Game of Thrones" to satirical news sources likes "The Daily Show", are still structured as TV shows, even when they are 'broadcast' over the internet.

dmfdmf 11y ago
> It's easy to prove me wrong. The NYT started in 1851. Can you demonstrate how the Catholic church was an important 'cultural maypole' in the US before then? Again you need to widen your context to the whole history of Western Civilization. My point compares the Catholic Church prior to the printing press (1400's) and the NYT prior to the invention of the internet (1900's) -- this was Shirky's point too.
- dalke 11y ago
  This has nothing to do with Shirky's essay. You said "The New York Times (primarily) really replaced the Catholic Church as the cultural maypole." Please demonstrate the validity of that statement. In the "whole history of Western Civilization", when did the NYT become "the cultural maypole" of Italy, Mexico, and Brazil, and have more cultural influence than the Catholic Church? How is it that The Times of London did not have similar sway on the world stage in the 1800s, nor the the BBC (especially with the BBC World Service) in the 1900s? Why do you pick "Western World" when the Catholic church also has a big influence in Africa (140 million members) and the Philippines (80 million). Which has more social influence in the Philippines, the NYT or the Catholic Church? Which has more social influence in India, the NYT or the BBC?