Saturday September 04, 2004

THE INFORMATION. Michael Ledeen, normally involved in expanding our military adventures to new countries, has turned to media criticism. He thinks Zell Miller at the RNC went over a treat, and that this reflects a change in the state of the media:

[Marshall McLuhan] stressed that tv was "cool," and that "hot" personalities would do badly on it...

But I think that era is over now. First of all, because of the net, which has diversified our sources of information so dramatically. We no longer need the networks or the various Post's and Times's. We can just log on. And secondly, tv has gotten a lot hotter. Probably a lot of that is due to MTV and other such, but in any case the screen is now a much less antiseptic thing than it was a generation ago. People now argue and fight on tv, the decibels are higher, and the broadcasters are changing their style. They are competing for audience rather than monopolizing it. And so they change.

We may argue whether the content of television programming is generally "less antiseptic" now than it was in the days of Playhouse 90. But it is observably true that televised political discourse is significantly more jacked-up now. I just saw a promo for Hardball prominently featuring the ravings of Miller on that show. You certainly didn't get that in the days of Lawrence Spivak.

One night reasonably ask whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Certainly Ledeen thinks it's good:

I suspect that when the cultural history of this period is written, the two big names will be Rush and Drudge, both of whom dramatically undercut the power of the Old Media, and gave the American people something they desperately wanted: the information that the Old Media monopolists didn't want to reach us.

Leaving aside the gruesome idea that the "cultural" achievements of our era will be exemplified by Matt Drudge, is it true that the Old Media filtered information?

Of course it is, in a way. No one with a Huntley-Brinkley sized public megaphone amplified the infidelities of, to name one example, Martin Luther King -- certainly not with the heavy funding, political acumen, and persistence of such efforts today. Had there then been a vibrant talk radio and screaming-head TV circuit, equivalent in reach and temperment to our own, we might have had television ads from the White Citizens Councils for Truth testifying to King's failings. These folks might eventually have wound up on Meet the Press and, sticking to their talking points, brushed aside all egghead talk of racial equality by asserting that no one of such dubious character -- one who had flourished his credentials as a clergyman, no less -- deserved a hearing from the American people.

Or imagine a similarly powerful popular movement, enabled by citizen's band or ham radio, operating at the time of the Watergate Hearings. The prior racial insensitivies of Sam Ervin might have been bigger news than the malefactions of the Plumbers, and a rowdy group of Republican operatives crying "Shut It Down!" outside Ervin's committee room might have helped direct the tide of events a different way.

And if a fellow like Rupert Murdoch were able to obtain a network like Fox ten, twenty, or thirty years earlier than Murdoch himself did, all sorts of scenaria are enabled. At the very least, our diplomatic relations with China would have been accelerated.

We could discuss for a good long while the extent to which "Old Media monopolists" deprived us of "information" (which is not always, I hasten to add, a synonym for truth), but our findings would not be of much use. That genie is out and its bottle is broken. Ledeen has a point. The temperature is rising. We will see soon enough whether this results in incubation or incineration.

<br />[Your user agent does not support frames or is currently configured not to display frames.]<br />