Every now and then the Internet is given credit for having an effect on the elections by way of fundraising and organization. But what about the quality of public discourse?
Remember how narrow opinions were just a few years ago before the internet. What a disgrace it was that a country like ours was satisfied to sit before the newspaper, radio, or boob toob, and passively consume the drivel of a small number of corporate opinion providers.
The opportunity is indeed huge compared to what has happened in the past. How was public discourse improved by the Hearst newspaper chain when it became nationwide? All we got was a disgusting little war, the Spanish-American War, and the "Teddy" cult. We turned our back on our proud tradition of non-interference in other countries and embraced imperialism, all because it made good copy for Hearst.
A couple decades later, the high-tech miracle of the day was radio, which had a huge effect on the politics of the 1930's: it amplified Hitler's harangues across all of Germany. It also enhanced the power of an American president with an excellent radio voice, aristocratic and reassuring. But did it really improve the quality of anything?
Just a couple years before my birth, television established a hegemony over the human mind: never before, in the history our species, had idiocy been so universal and inescapable. Now elections could depend on whether women thought the candidate resembled a movie star. Imagine the political fortunes of an eloquent, but homely, man like Abraham Lincoln appearing on a televised presidential debate. For that matter, imagine his high-pitched voice on the radio.
There are tremendous opportunities for the internet to improve the quality of public discourse in elections, but it might be naive to think that we're really to cash in on those opportunities. For instance, every day the text on the website becomes a little less important, while video grows. And you know what that means.
Bloggers should not compete against professional pundits on the latter's terms. If independent bloggers don't question the assumptions of Establishment media, who will? Important things which aren't normally considered News could be discussed instead of the latest Breaking News.
Comments