thought questions and discussion from the other day

we were talking about media and democratic theory. Here are some things we did not get to talk about but I would love to hear your thoughts.
1) We talked some re whether Lippmann is dated or not but pushing his ideas further re blogs etc would be cool. what for exmaple would he have to say about jon stewart and colbert?
2) What did you think of what Schudson says? If he and Lippmann were to have a conversation where would they find commonalities if at all
3) I'm really curious what you think of Bimber's argument generally and the idea of information regimes. I think his historical approach is fascinating but it feels very conspiracy like. Can we really see that much convergence through history?
Ok your turn


So I forgot to mention that I would be doing commentary on super tuesday tomorrow tuesday on a twin cities tv station. This is not about me by the way but its ironic since we are studying the media's role in our politics that I am becoming one of the media's gasbags/talking heads. So what are the dangers of people like me expressing our analysis? Are we just giving a narrative like the media does just through punditry? For next week's reading, can we affect the public the way regular members of the media do?

Looks like I'll be the trailblazer here. In regards to Bimber, I agree absolutely with his theory. I'm a "knowledge is power" kinda guy, and when you look through history, the guys in control are also almost always the guys who control the information.

I think the best example is to look at the Roman Catholic Church at its height. They didn't have an army to speak of, yet it was the richest and most influential political body in the whole of Europe. They said "jump!" and KINGS asked "how high?" Why? Because they had knowledge people wanted (how to get into heaven) and they controlled all the access to that knowledge. (The vast majority of the churchgoing population was illiterate, and even if they weren't, hand-written and illuminated Bibles were incredibly expensive.)

Then Gutenberg invented the printing press and, suddenly, people could read the Bible for themselves and the Reformation happened (relatively) shortly thereafter as a direct result. The Church was broken solely due to that shift in information technology and never regained anywhere near its previous power.

I don't think it's conspiratorial. I think gathering control of knowledge is a natural byproduct of accumulating power of other sorts. It's kind of a tripod - power is money, force, and knowledge. You get all three when you get power.

Well, if someone is bucking that power, it's really difficult to get enough money or weapons to fight them head-on. But knowledge... knowledge can be reproduced for free. Therefore, the easiest way to bring a power down is to steal its secrets and either make them widely known or use them against it. And the more easily information can be disseminated, the easier this task is.

So no, his argument makes perfect sense to me. I don't think it's any more conspiratorial than suggesting that rich people are more powerful than poor people. It's just part of the condition of being powerful.

Thought Questions for this week:
1) Are the masses asses, what does the reading suggest and how are they right and/or wrong? What do they miss
2)How does the reading for this week (3) suggest problems with some of the roles media may serve?
3) So reading Callaghan chapter 1, what are the possibilities of public journalism in light of her critique and the readings this week?

Good points jason but let's push it even further. what to you discredits or seems to undermine his argument?
What is the understanding of the citizen's capacities underlying his argument? How do those work with the other readings?

You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.