Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... in regards to both the media and in regards to us "regular folk".
I'm just wandering. I am 28. Didn't start to care until around 24. Obviously, my political beliefs have been molded under the fire of 24/7 opinion-based reporting and the internet (in my opinion, there are both positive and negative aspects to that fact).
So, if you have an opinion, I would like a generic (or specific) picture of what things were like back in the more "less instant" times. This can mean anywhere from the early 1900's to mid-1900's to maybe even the semi-later 1900's ... since I doubt anyone here was alive before then (RIP my great-grandfather 1899-2003). However, if you want to give ramblings about your early U.S knowledge on this - I'm all ears for that too.
I don't really have a specific guide for the conversation, so talk about any aspect regarding politics or communication that you would like to.
During the Viet Nam War era, we had real journalists covering real news. You would actualy see footage of what was happening on the ground in Viet Nam. That is why American citizens were protesting. They were aware of the truth behind the war. We would actually see caskets coming off the planes returning from Nam. Not somethig anyone wants to see, but at least it was real and true. News was not sensationalism and move stars and their exploits certainly did not dominate any of it unless it was truly noteworthy.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 01-28-2009 at 08:57 PM..
... in regards to both the media and in regards to us "regular folk".
I'm just wandering. I am 28. Didn't start to care until around 24. Obviously, my political beliefs have been molded under the fire of 24/7 opinion-based reporting and the internet (in my opinion, there are both positive and negative aspects to that fact).
So, if you have an opinion, I would like a generic (or specific) picture of what things were like back in the more "less instant" times. This can mean anywhere from the early 1900's to mid-1900's to maybe even the semi-later 1900's ... since I doubt anyone here was alive before then (RIP my great-grandfather 1899-2003). However, if you want to give ramblings about your early U.S knowledge on this - I'm all ears for that too.
I don't really have a specific guide for the conversation, so talk about any aspect regarding politics or communication that you would like to.
I am taking AP us history right now in High school and this is what I know.
Previously before radio and television, politics was a heated affair with no bars attached. For example, Southern congressmen would carry guns to Congress, especially during slavery debates just preceeding the civil war.
As the technology progressed, people were now hearing the voices of their leaders over the radio. Politics was becoming more cultured(people couldn't see their leaders but it seemed like people no longer screaming at each other).
In the 1960s, television allowed for polticial debates to shown at face value.
The time where you start seeing this 24/7 phemenona is the 1991 Gulf War, where daily reports on bombing and battles were frequent and kept the public hungry for more.
The late 90s brought you the popularization of the internet and blogs, allowing for even faster news intepreption.
The future?
As much as I am hard-core retro teen(not 1970s here but more like 1950s), I see mankind dropping newspapers in favor of implanted chips.
One of the things remarkable about the past(Antiquity here 1 B.C), is that we had empires like the Han, the Romans, the Mayans, the wandering aztecs who did not have single electronic device and still managed to wade through politicial crises time after time.
I really admire the antiquity age, it was like Mankind's first golden age before the second one which is right now.
Back in the day it was all televised. There was no real way to research and discredit anything our politicians said or did. So whatever biased network you happened to be watching is basically what your beliefs formed around. It wasn't until the '00 election, maybe even the '96 elections that people took a step back and realized what was going on.
But then again, people were not nearly as engaged in politics as they are today. Back in the 60's and 70's most of us could careless who was president, as the position of president did not really have a large impact on our daily lives (this is coming from a Southern perspective). It was probably not until the Watergate Scandal and later the Carter years that people starting tuning in a bit more to what the president was up to.
I find the internet to be a rather poor choice for basing your entire political viewpoint on - You have to take the good with the bad and 80% of what you read on the internet is probably BS. Even worse, you have to deal with a lot more moonbats and wingnuts with radical viewpoints that would be unacceptable to mention in public.
The media treated different presidents in different ways. Clinton probably attracted the most media attention. Republicans were on about his past as a womanizer in the '92 and '96 elections, and that was the first time that religion and 'family values' really came onto the political scene. But then again, news in the '90s was always depressing. Everyday it seemed the situation in Europe got worse, Clinton was always on some trip over there trying to push for European Integration (the EU).
I can not even imagine politics before television was widely available, I suspect it was mostly carried out through the radio and newspapers. I also suspect that voters would have been more easily influenced back in those days, as (like I mentioned before) there was no way to really conduct research on your own.
Oh and you certainly did not have nearly as much partisanship, media sensationalism, nor the level of personal attack and hatred that we experienced these past few elections...
I am taking AP us history right now in High school and this is what I know.
Well I was looking for more first-hand knowldege from those older than me (although I guess I did open up that door in the last two sentences), but thanks for your knowledge and kudos for being a high schooler that actually cares and seems to be up on his/her stuff.
News was the newspaper, and a good newspaper reports stories in depth, along with pertinent background articles and opinion pieces. Today, we've done away with everything but the opinion pieces, many of which feel no obligation to any standards of journalistic integrity at all.
Politics was more about substance that it is today and less about style. The primary difference between the most and least informed tended to be in breadth and depth of knowledge. Today, substance, if any, is a curious by-product, and the difference between the most and least informed is that the most informed still know what's going on, and the least informed know only what an organized disinformation media has chosen to feed them.
Back in the day it was all televised. There was no real way to research and discredit anything our politicians said or did.
Six words...The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. The pre-digital version of Google. Learning to use it was as basic as learning the multiplication tables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
So whatever biased network you happened to be watching is basically what your beliefs formed around.
In the era of the Fairness Doctrine, there were no biased networks. They all had to play it straight except during those minutes they plainly described as being an Editorial. And then they had to invite spokespersons for opposing views into the studio and give them free air-time to air their side.
The newscast started with an announcement: Now, the International, National, and Local News. Usually 30 minutes of news without idle chatter between the anchor and his weatherman or sportsman. Sports were reserved for last. Celebrities were mentioned if they died. This was before the era of two anchors. One man read the news as still photos were shown in the background.
Before video the studios relied on film which had to be developed and edited before showing on TV. If a plane crashed at 4 pm, the studio wouldn't have a film until at least 10pm. The studios were plain, and no creative graphics that spin and whirl on the screen.
Newspapers were much thicker. Sports items seldom made the front page. Daily, the Chicago Tribune published 8 to 10 photos made by press photographers of actual events all over the world.
The masthead of the Tribune contained the banner "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it".
My interest in politics, government, and history started when I was high school in the mid/late 80's. Those who remember or are familiar with that time period know Reagan was President, a lot of things happening geopolitically were centered around the Cold War (which was soon to come to an end), there were lots of nukes, the Space Shuttle was relatively new, I bought my first CD player for $400, the internet was in its infancy, and I think I only knew one person who had a computer (a Mac).
The biggest change I think is the internet. I recall in the early 90's sitting with a friend discussing all the things that the internet would 'bring'. Happily, the internet is everything I expected it to be and more.
The quantity of political discussion between individuals has increased significantly. How could it not otherwise? The internet has made it easy for people to dialog with each other about the topics of the day (ranging from the mundane to the very significant). Back when I was in high school, discussions such as this were limited to a small circle of people while these days your 'circle' is basically anyone who is on the internet. This has resulted in greater exposure to other people's ideas and thoughts and the exchange has allowed me to understand and appreciate different opinions. Although I may not agree with everyone - some of these discussions have often reinforced my positions - others have been very convincing and forced me to re-evaluate my positions.
Access to, and the availability of, information has increased dramatically and, therefore, opportunities to research and acquire good information (and unfortunately acquire bad information, as well) have increased. For example, these days, it is very unlikely for one to not be able to find out who was the 25th President if the United States because you can just Google it and you'll have the answer in seconds. Back in the day, you had to resort to the nearest encyclopedia or history book if you had them, or you had to go to the library - and that's assuming you were interested to begin with because if you were not that interested you didn't start the search. These days, looking up information is so easy you can pick any topic and discuss it like you actually know something.
The quality of political discussion is difficult for me to know - how do you measure it? The name of the 25th President is a fact; debating whether he was a good or bad one is often a matter of opinion and sometimes positions are supported by data and sometimes not. Which leads me to my final point and that is because anything can be discussed anyone will discuss it. The quality of the discussion is suspect because you will often find people who know nothing, and those who know practically everything, about the subject mixing it up and the difficulty is figuring out who really knows (because sometimes I sure don't!).
The closest analogy I can think of at the moment is that political discussion is like driving. There are more cars on the road, the cars are faster, the road goes to more places, and there are more destinations. But I don't know if the driving is better - some of the threads and posts I have read are total wrecks!!
One pretty much had to take the old media's word for it.
There was not much in the way for the average stiff to do independent research on whether he was getting a load of biased BS or not.
Cable TV, AM radio and now the internet explosion really opened up people's chance to efficiently dig into any story if they choose to do so.
For some that's good. For others, not good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
