A Land Far Away

Okay, I'm almost through with the book. It's an astoundingly easy read and very palatable, however, I have some questions that I'm too lazy to research / or would rather get a personal answer from some americans about.

First of all... a recurring theme is that TV is a one-way medium and that the receiver cannot communicate back to the sender, therefore cutting out much of public discourse and reasoning. All the while Gore keeps extolling how much better that wasin the time of the Founders, where according to him the printing press was the main medium instead, which supposedly made the exchange and forming of a public consensus through reasoned discourse easier.

This has me confused. Is, or was, it easier to get your opinions published in a big circulation of newspapers than it is on television? I know over here we have "open channels" where everyone can broadcast (though admittedly few watch), while it is somewhat harder to get an editorial published - "reader letters" are common, but very restricted in size, usually just short blurbs. Was it that during the Founder's time everyone could run a newspaper? I'm a bit at a loss here, I'm sure his opinion has virtue, I'm just trying to follow it.

Also... what, exactly, are the differences between Senate and House, despite the term durations? Both seem to be directly elected, and only Senate can confirm Justices, but what more is there?

Thanks,

The House of Representatives is based on population. Every 10 years, a national census must be conducted and based on that census congressional districts must be redrawn. Each district elects a single Representative that serves in the House for 2 years. There are currently 435 House seats, and current law maintains that cap. The House has the sole authority to pass Articles of Impeachment against the President, and the Speaker of the House (currenty Nancy Pelosi) is second in line of succession from the President.

Each state also elects 2 Senators that serve for 6 year terms. There are thus 100 Senators. The Vice-President serves as President of the Senate, and breaks all voting ties in the Senate. The Senate votes on whether to convict the President on the Articles of Impeachment from the House. Only the Senate has oversight over cabinet-level executive appointments (the confirmation hearings) which means not just Supreme Court Justices, but also Cabinet secretaries (Ministers to Europeans), representatives to the UN, etc..

Both houses of Congress must pass legislation for it to be legally binding. Often the two houses will pass competing versions, and then a conference committee must resolve those differences. A lot of questionable stuff happens to bills at this point because the Conference Committee meets behind closed doors.

As to Gore...who cares? He lost, he can get over it.

What you described on TV and newspapers is about the same as it is here. Anybody can get on public access stations but nobody watches, and letters to the editor are the only real way you can get published in a newspaper.

Anyone can still run a newspaper if they want, I guess it would be easier back when there were a lot more of them and they had smaller circulation. But he seems to have forgotten about the internet.

Well, IMO Gore's statement has more to do with the behavior of those watching TV, passive acceptance of information, than the one-way quality of the medium. His assumption, and it may very well be false, is that back in the "good old days" people discussed the news of the day, but now people just swallow it whole without thought or discussion.

I don't know that either is true. We certainly debate the news here, and I'm sure plenty of people passively accept what they read in newspapers, then and now. Although it's true that you can write a letter to the editor, how many actually get printed? Also, I think he fails to factor in that in the "good old days" most people were illiterate, so the readers of newspapers and certainly the writers of letters to the editor were the educated elite who of course also had knowledgeable opinions regarding the days events.

The better argument is that newspaper journalism used to be less organized and corporate, thus allowing for more varied views to be expressed, whereas today TV news is highly corporate and sanitized and strongly for profit, leading to a narrowing of information, as well as a strong pro-business bias. Of course, the availability of news over the web makes finding information today a thousand times more fruitful than it used to be, so it's really just a matter of perspective. I, for one, almost never watch TV news, since I have better sources and am not interested in Nichole Ritchie's pregnancy or the vast majority of other fluff that gets reported on TV these days. The last time I watched the news on TV was for the 2004 election results, and I quickly turned it off and relied on the Internet instead, which had a much more thorough analysis and no noise.

I do watch The Daily Show, of course.

What I find in general, and I suspect this has been true historically as well, is that when things are going well people largely ignore national and world events, and when things are going poorly they get interested until they reach burnout, and then go back to ignoring it. What's really needed is better education, that then in turn would result in more educated viewers, thus shifting the emphasis and importance of news stories.

So, despite Gore's emphasis on TV News (gee, I wonder where that came from given the hit job it did to him? "I invented the Internet" was pure slander, after all, he never said that), it all really comes back to public education. Crime, religiosity, teen pregnancy, drug use, environmental awareness, and the dumbing of the US in general. You can't cure any of it, but you can always improve things, and it starts in grade school, because adults rarely change their views of anything.

Grand Fromage wrote:But he seems to have forgotten about the internet.

Nah he didn't, he just mentions as it not being such a political medium yet, and TV still taking by far the prime space on where americans get their political "information".

Anyway, thanks for the answers.

To say that Americans inform themselves about political happenings is a gross overstatement, and the nature of the available media isn't a terribly big factor in it. The majority don't particularly care, a good number of the rest only care insofar as they can indulge their own political biases (think like Rush Limbaugh fans). I'd guess at most a third of Americans are really engaged and attentive to the debate, and that's probably being rather generous.

It should be acknowledged however that the Internet is taking a role in this presidential campaign that is unprecedented. I have no doubt that Web 2.0 will radically reshape American political discourse, though I can't offer much in the way of how.

Alara wrote:

Grand Fromage wrote:But he seems to have forgotten about the internet.

Nah he didn't, he just mentions as it not being such a political medium yet, and TV still taking by far the prime space on where americans get their political "information".

Mebby someone should send him a link to this forum. He might change his mind!

His assumption, and it may very well be false, is that back in the "good old days" people discussed the news of the day, but now people just swallow it whole without thought or discussion.

One word: Hearst

Yes, his assumption is false.

The house is the little guy's rep for each area. The senate is the states voice in the goverment. Sure it is more complicated than that but this is easer to understand.