I believe that the people's vocal dissent is caused in part by the abdication of the media. The obvious lack of in-depth, investigative reporting of the Obama phenomenon has resulted in an even deeper distrust and disregard of political platitudes presented to us in matters deeply personal to the public, i.e., the proposed health care reformation, more government control of financial institutions and industries.
Social media, even when disseminating erroneous material, gives the public at large the opportunity to read, hear and/or participate in discussions that enable it to judge conflicting reports and opinions in order to find any grains of truth that comport with its own reckoning.
Before the media, there was the forum. Social media is merely a recurrence of that.
Mike McDermott
· 4 months ago
@susan do you fear the government backlash against new media and its practitioners (us)? I think that Social Media may be as important as Gutenberg's printing press. Way back in 1414 the printing press allowed the sharing of knowledge with others without being face to face with them. Masses of people rallied around new thoughts, ideas and beliefs that did not originate in their local community. Nations were destroyed, the crushing weight of the Church was overthrown and the printing press ushered in the scientific revolution and renaissance. To this day I believe that the Church would have very much liked to have retained control of information for the sake of the souls of the faithful. In the times of Johannes Gutenberg, the printing press only challenged the power of a small city state the size of Manhattan. Social Media now seeks to "moderate" the conversation and challenge many tenets of "belief" from the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. Too much paranoia or justified concern?
susanlangley
· 4 months ago
Yes, the comparison to Gutenberg's press is apt. I think that a free people must always carry the obligation to vigilance. Remember the old saw - "Just because you're paranoid" doesn't mean they're not out to get you." We already suffered through the "Fairness Doctrine", the elimination of which precipitated talk radio. Although I suspect it would be politically risky to do so, some powerful Democrats have hinted at their desire to reinstate the misleadingly titled "Fairness Doctrine."
All Comments
Social media, even when disseminating erroneous material, gives the public at large the opportunity to read, hear and/or participate in discussions that enable it to judge conflicting reports and opinions in order to find any grains of truth that comport with its own reckoning.
Before the media, there was the forum. Social media is merely a recurrence of that.
To this day I believe that the Church would have very much liked to have retained control of information for the sake of the souls of the faithful.
In the times of Johannes Gutenberg, the printing press only challenged the power of a small city state the size of Manhattan. Social Media now seeks to "moderate" the conversation and challenge many tenets of "belief" from the greatest and most powerful nation on earth.
Too much paranoia or justified concern?
We already suffered through the "Fairness Doctrine", the elimination of which precipitated talk radio. Although I suspect it would be politically risky to do so, some powerful Democrats have hinted at their desire to reinstate the misleadingly titled "Fairness Doctrine."