Andrew Rasiej, George Washington, and the Impact of Media on Modern Politics

I think we can all agree that Andrew Rasiej's presentation this past Tuesday in class was an incredibly appropriate end to our Interactive Media experience with Lance Strate. The presentation helped us draw referential conclusions in between our own interactive research, and proposed how we can constructively participate in the dawn of the up and coming, 'Information Age'. In an attempt to conglomerate my own personal opinion towards the internet and its future implications on society, I decided to take an evaluation of the mainstream media in American culture. The internet is a new medium of media that can reach further, faster, longer, and more specifically than ever before, and it will inevitably affect the news broadcast industry. I'm even going to cite the Farewell Address thoughts of the great, late President George Washington in my evaluation...so sit down and interact with me for a bit.

I don't find politics as important as our modern society makes it out to be. I think it is more important to formulate your own opinion on factual issues, rather than comparing where these ideas stand in relevance to some other group or party's school of thought. From a young age I think we are all under some sort of pressure, as we grow and mature, to pay attention to what is currently happening in society around us. This is a good thing. You cannot actively participate (and feel a part of) a group or society that you don't receive a constant flow of information from. I also think that the idea of current information, and current political opinion are often confused by the general public because of how they're portrayed by the mainstream media. The way that MSNBC feels about the Republican Party's point of view on a particular subject is not technically news because nothing is happening. This is more like promotional propaganda. Now take this one step further and consider the fact that most modern news stations are politically affiliated with a specific party. I think that the diminishing ability for the public to distinguish between current information and current political opinion is alarming.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

-George Washington, 1796 Farewell Address to Congress

President George Washington, in the final words of his political career, warned the American government against party politics. He acknowledges the need to express the difference of opinion in a democratic society, but states, "...in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged." I think that the difference in opinion between the Democratic and Republic party has helped to maintain our country to some sort of balance between the minds of many (although this is not relatively true for recent times). This is not George's and my problem with party politics. The problem arises when the ideas and goals of a political party turn focus toward issues that do not enhance free thought and democratic opinion. When a political party has a meeting to discuss how they will raise money to fund an election or a promotional event, it is no longer is politics for the good of the country...It is politics for the good of the party. To spend money, time and effort on the promotion, rather than the progression, of current ideas indicates an atrophy of free thought and egalitarian ideals. Now suppose that the media, which in the age of simultaneous information flow is becoming a cash cow industry, finds mutual benefit in sponsoring a particular political party. For example, say FOX NEWS provides coverage of The State of the Union that primarily outlines Republican issues, or say CNN is administered by a group of people who would feel safer if there was a Democratic majority in government office. Suddenly George's ideas don't seem so 16th Century.

We sit on the dawn of an 'Information Age' age, where the constant, simultaneous flow of information provided by the internet will allow us to investigate ideas and events from more, and different sources than ever before (through both promotional websites and interactive social networks). If the internet was made available to every single person in the country via WiFi and public access ports, then everyone would have the opportunity to formulate their own detailed opinion on issues that they were willing to research. BUT If we have a source of mainstream media that gives us the facts AND nudges us in a direction with which to comprehend these facts, then we do not feel the need to formulate our own opinions from scratch. Yet the freedom of thought and difference in opinion is the cornerstone of democracy. If you are inclined to be an intuitive person, then when you hear a fact your mind will ask you, "What is the reason for that?" or, "I wonder why that happened?" If the constant drone of the 24 hour news ticker already gives us a simple answer to these basic mind-wandering questions, then we wont feel the need to formulate our own opinions on these issues.

So basically, after all of this, I'm not saying much. I'm providing you with a political argument that doesn't even support politics. I will say though, that if you claim to watch the news (via tv, internet, mobile, or whatever new medium is created in the next decade), and assume that you represent an accountable reference on a current issue, make sure you have researched whatever it is your talking about. Better yet, if you are distributing news to the public, claiming to know what you're talking about regarding a controversial political issue, make sure you've researched whatever it is your talking about. The internet has provided us with the ability to globalize information retrieval, making it available to anyone who can get online. We need to take advantage of this resource, so that we can help enhance the cultural awareness of everyone in the world, for all classes and societies. We must also use the new ways in which technology has enabled us to obtain information to formulate our own opinions about current events. If you decide to watch what MSNBC has to say about the depreciation of the American dollar, then make sure to also read an article about it, and then find out what your social network feels about it in a community blog, and really consider your personal thoughts on the issue...all before you formulate your own opinion, and decide to offer that opinion to someone else.

Thanks for a good semester guys, see you in cyberspace.

Literary Quite Contrary, How Does Your Gardner Grow?

Howard Gardner is a well known and highly respected scholar in the field of education, and educational psychology. He's best known for his theory of multiple intelligences, which argues that, rather than there being one single "thing" called intelligence as is implied by the IQ test (a test that measures something that was never clearly defined), there are many different intelligences, for example verbal, mathematical, scientific, musical, visual, social and emotional, etc. Different people may be better or worse in any one of these, or any combination. Interestingly, for me, his theory was influenced, in part, by the highly uneven combinations that give rise to the autistic savant, an individual who may be on a genius level in mathematics or visual expression, for example, and extremely poor in verbal, and especially social intelligence.

So anyway, this morning as I was reading our local paper, The Record, (traditionally referred to as the Bergen Record, but now officially the North Jersey Record), I was delighted to see an op-ed piece by Gardner on literacy and the new media (the piece is not listed as a reprint from another paper, as is sometimes the case, but appears to have been commissioned by The Record, to its credit).

Gardner is certainly a media ecologist, as he puts literacy in an historical context going back to prehistory (although I find his chronology to be slightly off, as writing was developed a bit over 5,000 years ago, and other forms of notation are significantly less than 100,000 years old. But what's a few millennia among friends? More importantly, he discusses how different communication technologies, different media in other words, give rise to different types of literacy.

And please note that, at no point does he use the term literacy as a metaphor. He's not talking about some vague notion of media literacy, visual literacy, or even computer literacy. He's talking about the ability to create and understand written texts, about knowing your ABCs and minding your Ps and Qs.

And so, without further ado, let me give you over to Howard, in this think piece that's entitled: Gardner: Reading, R.I.P.? and appears on p. L7 of today's Record (February 19, 2008):

Computers, pessimists maintain, are destroying literacy; optimists foresee the Internet ushering in a new, vibrant participatory culture of words.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN to reading and writing in our time? Could the doomsayers be right? Computers, they maintain, are destroying literacy. The signs -- students' declining reading scores, the drop in leisure reading to just minutes a week, the fact that half the adult population reads no books in a year -- are all pointing to the day when a literate American culture becomes a distant memory. By contrast, optimists foresee the Internet ushering in a new, vibrant participatory culture of words. Will they carry the day?

Maybe neither. Let me suggest a third possibility: Literacy -- or an ensemble of literacies -- will continue to thrive, but in forms and formats we can't yet envision.

That's what has always happened as writing and reading have evolved over the ages. It was less than 100,000 years ago that our human predecessors first made meaningful marks on surfaces, notating the phases of the moon or drawing animals on cave walls. Within the past 5,000 years, societies across the Near East's Fertile Crescent began to use systems of marks to record important trade exchanges as well as pivotal events in the present and the past. These marks gradually became less pictorial, and a decisive leap occurred when they began to capture certain sounds reliably: U kn red ths sntnz cuz Inglsh feechurs "graphic-phoneme correspondences."

A master of written Greek, Plato feared that written language would undermine human memory capacities (much in the same way that we now worry about similar side effects of "Googling"). But libraries made the world's knowledge available to anyone who could read. The 15th-century printing press disturbed those who wanted to protect and interpret the word of God, but the availability of Bibles in the vernacular allowed laypeople to take control of their spiritual lives and, if historians are correct, encouraged entrepreneurship in commerce and innovation in science.

Criticism and celebration

In the past 150 years, each new medium of communication -- telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web -- has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration.

But of the changes in the media landscape over the past few centuries, those featuring digital media are potentially the most far-reaching. Those of us who grew up in the 1950s, at a time when there were just a few computers in the world, could never have anticipated the ubiquity of personal computers (back then, IBM's Thomas Watson famously declared that there'd be a market for perhaps five computers in the world!). A mere half-century later, more than a billion people can communicate via e-mail, chat rooms and instant messaging; post their views on a blog; play games with millions of others worldwide; create their own works of art or theater and post them on YouTube; join political movements; and even inhabit, buy, sell and organize in a virtual reality called Second Life. No wonder the chattering classes can't agree about what this all means.

Here's my take.

Once we ensured our basic survival, humans were freed to pursue other needs and desires, including the pleasures of communicating, forming friendships, convincing others of our point of view, exercising our imagination, enjoying a measure of privacy. Initially, we pursued these needs with our senses, our hands and our individual minds. Human and mechanical technologies to help us were at a premium. It's easy to see how the emergence of written languages represented a boon. The invention of the printing press and the emergence of readily available books, magazines and newspapers allowed untold millions to extend their circle, expand their minds and expound their pet ideas.

Inhabiting fascinating worlds

For those of us of a 19th- or 20th-century frame of mind, books play a special, perhaps even spiritual, role. Works of fiction -- the writings of Jane Austen, Leo Tolstoy, Toni Morrison, William Faulkner -- allow us to inhabit fascinating worlds we couldn't have envisioned. Works of scholarship -- the economic analyses of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, the histories of Thucydides and Edward Gibbon -- provide frameworks for making sense of the past and the present.

But now, at the start of the 21st century, there's a dizzying set of literacies available -- written languages, graphic displays and notations. And there's an even broader array of media -- analog, digital, electronic, hand-held, tangible and virtual -- from which to pick and choose. There will inevitably be a sorting-out process. Few media are likely to disappear completely; rather, the idiosyncratic genius and peculiar limitations of each medium will become increasingly clear. Fewer people will write notes or letters by hand, but the elegant handwritten note to mark a special occasion will endure.

I don't worry for a nanosecond that reading and writing will disappear. Even in the new digital media, it's essential to be able to read and write fluently and, if you want to capture people's attention, to write well. Of course, what it means to "write well" changes: Virginia Woolf didn't write the same way that Jane Austen did, and Arianna Huffington's blog won't be confused with Walter Lippmann's columns. But the imaginative spheres and real-world needs that all those written words address remain.

I also question the predicted disappearance of the material book. When they wanted to influence opinions, both the computer giant Bill Gates and the media visionary Nicholas Negroponte wrote books (the latter in spite of his assertion that the material book was becoming anachronistic). The convenience and portability of the book aren't easily replaced, though under certain circumstances -- a month-long business trip, say -- the advantages of Amazon's hand-held electronic Kindle reading device trumps a suitcase full of dog-eared paperbacks.

Books in jeopardy

Two aspects of the traditional book may be in jeopardy, however. One is the author's capacity to lay out a complex argument, which requires the reader to study and reread, following a circuitous course of reasoning. The Web's speedy browsing may make it difficult for digital natives to master Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" (not that it was ever easy).

The other is the book's special genius for allowing readers to enter a private world for hours or even days at a time. Many of us enjoyed long summer days or solitary train rides when we first discovered an author who spoke directly to us. Nowadays, as clinical psychologist Sherry Turkle has pointed out, young people seem to have a compulsion to stay in touch with one another all the time; periods of lonely silence or privacy seem toxic. If this lust for 24/7 online networking continues, one of the dividends of book reading may fade away. The wealth of different literacies and the ease of moving among them -- on an iPhone, for example -- may undermine the once-hallowed status of books.

But whatever our digital future brings, we need to overcome the perils of dualistic thinking, the notion that what lies ahead is either a utopia or a dystopia. If we're going to make sense of what's happening with literacy in our culture, we need to be able to triangulate: to bear in mind our needs and desires, the media as they once were and currently are, and the media as they're continually transforming.

It's not easy to do. But maybe there's a technology, just waiting to be invented, that will help us acquire this invaluable cognitive power.

Howard Gardner teaches cognitive psychology at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He is directing a study of the ethical dimensions of the new digital media.

Now, far be it from me to argue with the esteemed Professor Gardner, but I must conclude by saying that I do not share his optimism about the future of literacy.

While I believe that a significant minority will retain reading and writing skills, I think that minority will be a combination of an affluent elite, for whom literacy will be a luxury item, and certain vocational groups, for whom literacy will be a requirement, say computer programmers. But for the latter vocational literates (Eric Havelock used the term craft literacy), they may only use reading and writing for utilitarian purposes, not to obtain culture, entertainment or enlightenment.

The same short attention span that Gardner writes about in his piece will, in my opinion, drive people away from the written word altogether, and toward the visual. And while images can never entirely replace words, speech recognition and speech synthesis software will go a long way towards making literacy unnecessary for increasingly larger numbers of people.

Anyway, that's just my op-ed rebuttal, for what it's worth (about a buck forty-nine, I figure). Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to learn in no uncertain terms that I'm wrong and Howard's right.