I'm reading this book at the moment, and liking it very much.
Postman goes deeper than this, though. He isn't saying that TV's weakening of the discourse is directly because of trash programming, but that the medium itself is modifying what messages people take in.
Taft was over 300 lbs when he was elected president. There is no way he would be elected in the age of television. He wouldn't have the look for TV.
Political speech in the time of Lincoln assumed of the audience a long attention span, ability to parse arguments and complex sentences, and up-to-date knowledge of current events.
I'm not halfway through, but I'm finding it compelling so far.
Political speech in the time of Lincoln assumed of the audience a long attention span, ability to parse arguments and complex sentences, and up-to-date knowledge of current events.
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, that all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Can you imagine 10 percent of the populace following Lincoln on this today? It's like a legal deposition. To a far less educated electorate.
Some of the rhetoric of that age has a level of thought-density that is nonexistent in modern speech. I always thought that was due to the selection bias of the speakers back then (you had to be extraordinary to even register in the public consciousness, but there were several counterexamples to this).
> Can you imagine 10 percent of the populace following Lincoln on this today?
No. Not sure I can imagine 10 percent of the populace in 1860 following Lincoln either. Of course, with 60-70% of the adult population excluded from voting, narrowing your appeal wasn't such a huge problem.
"Can you imagine 10 percent of the populace following Lincoln on this today?"
In transcript form, perhaps not. In spoken text? I think we could meet the 10% bar. A lot of the klunkiness of that is the transcription, I think; modern extemporaneous speech is transcribed differently.
"So far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it. As I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates. As I understand, all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law", while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""
Transcribe the same speech with modern sensibilities, dropping intermediate "ands" and other such information-free interjections when appropriate and lay off the semicolon and it cleans up fairly well. Even the "hard words" and phrases I think are more common speech of the time, and only sound erudite because we inherently think of old-timey things as sounding educated since only educated people bother to learn them. My great-grandchildren will probably think "old-timey" sounds fancy.
I'm not sure the thought-density is as high as the lexical density. Translating and abridging it to commonspeak:
"My opponents say that federal control of slavery is unconstitutional. While the supreme court previously referenced the 5th amendment's protection of property, Douglas and his adherents point to the 10th, which grants powers to the states whenever not granted to the federal government."
The first two sentences are completely unnecessary.
I had a thought reading about the Taft and Lincoln anecdotes. There are likely many thousands of people in this country today, and there likely were back in Taft's day and Lincoln's, who, had the cards fallen differently, would have been excellent or competent presidents. Every time has it's own peculiarities, and Taft and Lincoln were men of their time, as John F. Kennedy was a man of his time (TV), and Obama is a man of today (grassroots online organizing). It is easy to say that because TV would preclude Taft today due to his weight, but of course Obama would not have won in Taft's time due to his ethnicity.
Which is all to say, there are always distractions, society is always on the brink of collapse. We should remain vigilant, but technology and the media it enables is ever-changing, and we will always be struggling to adapt.
Do you feel that the advancement of technology (print > TV > online grassroots) is linked more than temporally to the reduction in social closed-mindedness (Kennedy as non-Protestant, Obama as non-white)?
I wonder how much of the change in the electorate can be attributed to the shifting forms of communication. There appear signs of a relationship, but I'm not persuaded yet.
If during Taft's time the electorate was entirely unconcerned by race or religion, I wonder how Kennedy and Obama would have fared.
Postman goes deeper than this, though. He isn't saying that TV's weakening of the discourse is directly because of trash programming, but that the medium itself is modifying what messages people take in.
Taft was over 300 lbs when he was elected president. There is no way he would be elected in the age of television. He wouldn't have the look for TV.
Political speech in the time of Lincoln assumed of the audience a long attention span, ability to parse arguments and complex sentences, and up-to-date knowledge of current events.
I'm not halfway through, but I'm finding it compelling so far.