This is kind of a spin-off from another thread about Michael Moore's new film (Michael Moore Wants To Meddle in Mid-Term Elections), although I didn't want to hijack that thread.
Considering how there have been numerous charges about the use of propaganda, fake news, social media, troll farms, foreign interference - along with the usual criticisms of media bias - it seems that there is a great deal of consternation raised over the power of the written word and the effect it has over the voting public (or the masses in general).
In the U.S., we have the First Amendment which specifically mentions Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech (among other things).
We also have the Second Amendment, which mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many people today have argued against that by saying that in the Founders' time, the only arms people had were muskets and pistols. Weapons technology has developed and advanced to a level that the Founders could not have anticipated, and some have argued that the Second Amendment is somewhat outdated and outmoded in modern times.
We do indeed have powerful weapons, but as the saying goes "The pen is mightier than the sword," and the written word also has a great deal of power.
In the Founders' time, all anyone really had were printing presses and soap boxes. They didn't have electronic media of any kind, no TV, radio, movies - and certainly no internet or social media. They didn't really even have very advanced printing technology compared to what would come later when bigtime newspapers started to make their mark. Books and magazines also became influential as technology improved - although much of the population was illiterate and public education was limited.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to argue that either amendment should be changed or altered. But it seems clear that many people these days consider the written word to be very powerful and influential over the electoral process and the means by which we are governed as a society.
Considering the nature and scope of the power at hand, is it good for a free and democratic society to have most of that power in the hands of a relative few corporate entities? Is that really within the spirit of the First Amendment as envisioned by the Founders? Should that power be more evenly distributed? Or would this be a hindrance to a free press?
What would be better for the democratic process? Is there a better way of disseminating information so that the people can get a truly fair and balanced view of the issues at hand, in order that they can make informed and responsible choices at the polls?
If words are weapons, as some might argue, then what is the answer in today's electronic world? No one wants to change the First Amendment, but then we still end up grappling over this question just the same, particularly in the areas of cyberbullying, hate speech, propaganda, fake news, and similar issues.
Thoughts?
Considering how there have been numerous charges about the use of propaganda, fake news, social media, troll farms, foreign interference - along with the usual criticisms of media bias - it seems that there is a great deal of consternation raised over the power of the written word and the effect it has over the voting public (or the masses in general).
In the U.S., we have the First Amendment which specifically mentions Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech (among other things).
We also have the Second Amendment, which mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many people today have argued against that by saying that in the Founders' time, the only arms people had were muskets and pistols. Weapons technology has developed and advanced to a level that the Founders could not have anticipated, and some have argued that the Second Amendment is somewhat outdated and outmoded in modern times.
We do indeed have powerful weapons, but as the saying goes "The pen is mightier than the sword," and the written word also has a great deal of power.
In the Founders' time, all anyone really had were printing presses and soap boxes. They didn't have electronic media of any kind, no TV, radio, movies - and certainly no internet or social media. They didn't really even have very advanced printing technology compared to what would come later when bigtime newspapers started to make their mark. Books and magazines also became influential as technology improved - although much of the population was illiterate and public education was limited.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to argue that either amendment should be changed or altered. But it seems clear that many people these days consider the written word to be very powerful and influential over the electoral process and the means by which we are governed as a society.
Considering the nature and scope of the power at hand, is it good for a free and democratic society to have most of that power in the hands of a relative few corporate entities? Is that really within the spirit of the First Amendment as envisioned by the Founders? Should that power be more evenly distributed? Or would this be a hindrance to a free press?
What would be better for the democratic process? Is there a better way of disseminating information so that the people can get a truly fair and balanced view of the issues at hand, in order that they can make informed and responsible choices at the polls?
If words are weapons, as some might argue, then what is the answer in today's electronic world? No one wants to change the First Amendment, but then we still end up grappling over this question just the same, particularly in the areas of cyberbullying, hate speech, propaganda, fake news, and similar issues.
Thoughts?
