Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jim's avatar

I want to like this, but there's a lot of problems:

1) You paint the past as far better than it was, to make the pressent seem more of an abberation than it was. The Printing Press did not, arguably, make us smarter- at least not at first. It lead to centuries of religious warfare (remember, Guttenber started with the Bible, and translation of the Bible into the vernacular- aided by the printing press- was one of the many schisms between Protestant and Catholic). It took quite a while for reading and writing to become "respectable" in the way we now think of it.

As for your point about Lincoln-Douglas: those debates coincided with penny dreadfuls, full of tales of 'orrible murder and depraved crime. They were followed a few years later by the era of yellow journalism- an era that you could have cited to bolster your point about competition leading to error, but you ignore (because it goes against your point about the good old days of media and the virtues of the printed word, perhaps?)

And, on the subject of oration: I know a few people who love 8 hour YouTube documentaries that are just one person talking. Or three hour podcasts where people go back and forth. For all that some of the populations attention has diminished (and does seem, on net, to have diminished overall) I think a good argument must account for or at least try to explain away these continuities.

If one wants to use history to bolster their argument, then one needs to account for history in its totality, not the most flattering examples.

2) "you therefore may not realize that anything more satisfying than a video game even exists."

It's 2022, The Last of Us has been turned into a series that will win Emmies, and we're still on this?

Ah, yes, video games. Those childish amusements, that obviously have no artistic value (well... except for Braid. And Portal. And Chrono Trigger. And Wind Waker. And... well, I could go on for days, but I believe the point is clear). They contain no reading (well... except for visual novels. And text based games. Oh, and those RPGs sure are wordy). There is nothing deeper to engage with and analyze (because video games have not been the subject of essays... right?)

Actually, now that I've mentioned essays: how cavalier you are in dismissing deeper engagement with television, radio, and film. It's not like whole academic disciplines are devoted to "reading" these "texts" or anything. And, sure, once again, many people DON'T engage with them on a deeper level, but if anything the internet has popularized deep textual anaylsis of non-textual works.

You could have at least tried to make some kind of argument like, "People write books about Citizen Kane- do you honestly think that they will do so with Marvel movies?"

It would have at least bosltered your "everything has gotten worst" point.

3) Let's talk about "the golden age of American policy." Who was it a golden age *for*?

Well, certainly not many African Americans, who were under the segregationist policies of Jim Crow in the South and expierienced redlining- a business policy- nationwide. Women weren't doing so great either. Nor were people who were gay. Oh, and let's not forget Native Americans- the protests that happened at the end of the 60s showed the failure of those policies.

Interestingly, while the article you link does talk at length about the seriousness of the Petagon Papers (and I am awfully glad that they thought so very "seriously" about lying to the American public and sending teenagers to die in a war on false pretenses), it doesn't talk much (I actually didn't see it talk about this at all, but maybe I missed a sentence) about the civil rights movement, women's liberation, gay liberation, etc etc, and how these movements showed the failures and blindspots of the "golden age".

So, in conclusion:

I think you do have a point about competition being bad for media truth. Given a choice, many will go to the person who tells them what they want to hear.

But in making this point, you rely on ignoring inconvenient information and historical realities. You snobbishingly deingrate all but reading, without critically examining print media in its totality. You commit the same sins you find in others: telling people a flattering story over a far messier truth.

Expand full comment
Roger's avatar

"How do we put the fire out?"

I would love to see some ideas for this.

Maybe someone with a substack called The Permanent Problem already has some ideas (theirs or others) about possible solutions?

Expand full comment
33 more comments...

No posts