Like most people who read this blog, I have been following the primaries with great interest. I’m not a TV watcher, but I’m online watching video daily, and various friends forward me video clips as well. I have been disgusted with the coverage of presidential candidates by the mainstream press. Certain candidates with significant followings get little coverage and very dismissive treatment. And one candidate gets just appalling treatment—Hillary Clinton. Regardless of whether Hillary is your choice, you’d have to be blind and heartless not to see how the media has absolutely trashed her, in ways that are so over the top you can hardly believe they get away with saying this stuff on national TV. Chris Matthews stands out as the Head Bully here, but he’s just one of many. I have wondered daily--what is wrong with these people? Off their meds? Why does the mainstream media range from vapid to awful?
But recently I read something that filled in a piece of the puzzle, and I'd like to share it. In fact, this article I read has stayed with me for many days, as its implications multiply before my eyes every time I watch election coverage.
The New Yorker, in its last 2007 issue (December 24 & 31), carried an article named, "Twilight of the Books" by Caleb Crain. This piece cites statistics to the effect that we are now a POST-literate society and suggests our assumptions about people's perceptions need to be completely updated.
"Twilight of the Books" by Caleb Crain
Research from various scientific disciplines was compiled by Tufts professor Maryanne Wolf in her book Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. This work examines the history of literacy, comparing literate and non-literate populations. Data now supports that non-readers ("oral cultures") are becoming a majority, not just in this country but all over the world. Kids don’t read, and adults have quit reading too.
(Here is the link to more info about the book:
http://www.amazon.com/...
0060186399/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200264410&sr=1-1
What jumped out at me was the idea that non-readers process information very differently than people who read—and like to get their information in different ways. In fact, post-literate societies may be more like PRE-literate ones—back when bards roamed the earth and served as the main conduits of cultural transmission. Perhaps we are becoming an "oral culture" again.
Non-literate people in oral cultures will:
* express their thoughts in anecdotes and stories (not as concepts or abstract arguments)
* value cliche and stereotype as accumulated wisdom
* regard analysis as bad, because it puts such wisdom at risk
* fail to understand why plagiarism might be bad, because copying is how the culture is passed along
* like to see lots of redundancy and repetition in stories (tell 'em once, tell 'em 3 times!)
* see struggle as more memorable than argument or investigation or discussion--there's plenty of enthusiastic name-calling and violence
* find discourse that is calm and detached boring, compared to screaming and yelling--and less memorable
* find dramatic video footage very convincing (and intellectual arguments and rationales unconvincing)
It’s all about how much drama you can create—this is how you are remembered. They lack the resources to put one account alongside another to compare them. In oral cultures, speakers tend not to "revise" themselves when they are wrong. They avoid correcting their errors, they'll just keep repeating them. If their story is better, that is what will be remembered.
Only in a literate culture do inconsistencies and discrepancies matter. Only in literate cultures do people try to separate myth from history.
You could say that George W. Bush’s presidency holds a unique place in history then. He is our first POST-LITERATE president. This is why his followers cling to him so tightly. He really does represent them, and speak to them in a way that others cannot. Just think about that for a minute. He truly is the quintessential Post-Literate Man.
This is why the mainstream media think they are doing EXACTLY what they should be doing, playing their bardic role, echoing the myths and prejudices of the unlettered, bashing the popular villains, reciting the same catch-phrases—the "tax n’ spend Democrats" become like Homer’s "black-ribbed ships" or the "stallion-breaking Trojans." This strategy is endorsed by the Suits in their Big Networks, who do the focus groups and polls and understand that the post-literate are a GROWING group. They think this is where the younger audience they'd like to attract seems to be fitting.
I say "seems" because many younger people are much more computer literate--whether this will translate into something comparable to actual literacy as we understand it remains to be seen in the future. I am less pessimistic than either of these authors, because I have been impressed with the quality of information you can find on blogs and websites.
But this was a sobering idea, and it gave me insight as to why MSM figures feel entitled to carry on the way they do.
So--what are yall reading out there?