Thanks, Kelleygirl! That was an interesting article.
John Quincy Adams the first international Pimp Daddy? LOL
Something that occurs to me...was there ever a time in history when we were so innunudated with info? News travelled much slower in Jefferson's day. I wonder if voters back then felt fed up with the coverage given to political races in those days?
Posts: 1196 | Location: A danger to this country and the free world | Registered: 03-18-04
quote:Originally posted by Rakuchild: Thanks, Kelleygirl! That was an interesting article.
John Quincy Adams the first international Pimp Daddy? LOL
Something that occurs to me...was there ever a time in history when we were so innunudated with info? News travelled much slower in Jefferson's day. I wonder if voters back then felt fed up with the coverage given to political races in those days?
It's not just a question of the speed with which news travels. Back then, if you wanted to avoid the noise, you could. It's much more difficult now. Back then, for example, newspapers and magazines depended on subscriptions for income, now they depend on advertising.
Alan Moore
Posts: 2012 | Location: USA | Registered: 10-05-03
Very interesting article. Agree with Alan that the noise is harder to avoid now. Personally I am frustrated that the stupidest stuff is thrown out as fact, and it seems that there is no questioning of it. (Where is that Liberal media I keep hearing about?) It is just swallowed whole and there seems to be no critical thought applied. I am baffled because every major election seems to present people saying they are tired of the nastiness--but it must be working for someone. 'They' don't seem to care that we don't like it. wzlwmn
Posts: 71 | Location: Virginia, USA | Registered: 09-24-04
I don't think that news generally travels faster, just differently.
For example, in Tudor England news traveled very, very fast. Whispers and gossip can move at light-speed. The difference was that it didn't travel to everyone, and it was taken with a grain of salt.
Nowadays, anyone in any corner of the world can get the news from around the world, and not just thier corner of it, and that people tend to believe whatever an "authority" tells them (Dan Rather...).
Posts: 3065 | Location: A place with palm trees and sunshine! | Registered: 03-17-03
"I don't think that news generally travels faster, just differently." - Mx2
It is that difference that makes it faster. Consider that the Battle of New Orleans was fought about 2 weeks after the Treaty of Ghent was signed in Belgium, ending the war. Neither side had any way of knowing that the war was over. You are wrong when you say that news in Tudor England travelled at the speed of light. It travelled at the speed of sound, limited by the ability of man to produce the sounds, i.e. speaking. It wasn't until the 1950s that we could see live images of the Atlantic off New York and the Pacific off California at the same time, courtesy the Today Show. During the war in Viet Nam, the US first got to see events just a few hours old. The first Gulf War was the first to be carried live on television. Man has always been trying to find ways to transmit information quickly over long distances, from smoke signals to semaphores (using flags or lights or mirrors) to telegraph to carrier pigeon to radio, wire photos, and now satellite transmission of the spoken word and live images is nearly instantaneous. Currently, nanotechnology is shaving .00001 seconds of transmissions. If you want to discuss anything faster, you will need to open a thread in the Unexplained forums.
Posts: 16577 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
