Publics Vs Masses

[Michael Hardner]

Sociologist [/size]C. Wright Mills made a distinction between a society of "masses" and "public". [/size] As he tells:

"In a public, as we may understand the term, (1) virtually as many people express opinions as receive them, (2) Public communications are so organised that there is a chance immediately and effectively to answer back any opinion expressed in public. Opinion formed by such discussion (3) readily finds an outlet in effective action, even against if necessary the prevailing system of authority. And (4) authoritative [/size]institutions do not penetrate the public, which is thus more or less autonomous in its operations.[/size]

-In a mass, (1) far fewer people express opinions than receive them; for the community of publics becomes an abstract collection of individuals who receive impressions from the mass media. (2) The communications that prevail are so organised that it is difficult or impossible for the individual to answer back immediately or with any effect. (3) The realisation of opinion in action is controlled by authorities who organise and control the channels of such action. (4) The mass has no [/size]autonomy from institutions; on the contrary, agents of authorised institutions penetrate this mass, reducing any autonomy it may have in the formation of opinion by discussion".[/size]^%5B7%5D

MLW is a public of sorts, though it is arguable. Western Democracy was designed with a strong public in mind, however governments have mushroomed as a victim of their own success, and it became necessary to use mass communications to manage the institutions.

What we're seeing now is the inevitable decline of the institutions along with the systems to manage them.

[eyeball]

MLW is a public of sorts, though it is arguable. Western Democracy was designed with a strong public in mind, however governments have mushroomed as a victim of their own success, and it became necessary to use mass communications to manage the institutions.

What we're seeing now is the inevitable decline of the institutions along with the systems to manage them.

I get the implication that this decline is a result of un-engaged public's or worse dysfunctional process' whereby that engagement can occur but this would also seem to imply that there was or might have been a time when successful engagement did occur. Are we working towards something brand new or back to some better place we've strayed or been misled away from?

I think a bit of both, but in terms of the other discussion on aligning a public with power, I think there also needs to be a re-alignment of our various economies and ecosystems. This could best occur in a bioregional context according to the expressed values people assign to the local ecosystems and bioregion they all live in and depend on for everything from their livelihoods to their recreation. This would definitely be going back to a better place we've been misled from. Put another way we're being forced or coerced into accepting there is really only one economy and only one public that are both largely divorced from the environment they depend on. This seems to be the place we're in now where everything is subsumed and submits to that paradigm and the handful of people who benefit the most from it.

[Michael Hardner]

I get the implication that this decline is a result of un-engaged public's or worse dysfunctional process' whereby that engagement can occur but this would also seem to imply that there was or might have been a time when successful engagement did occur. Are we working towards something brand new or back to some better place we've strayed or been misled away from?

It's a tug of war that's played out, in my opinion, on the media of the day. Our media is how we discuss things, so you can see changes in government and in public engagement as these things appeared on the scene: radio, modern press, television, cable television.

If we had no media to argue with, think how great things would be This is why I believe that things aren't as bad as they seem - the scope we use to assess how things are - itself - changes with time.

If you read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" he speaks about the design of democracy. It was designed at a time when the current scope of government was not imagine-able.

I think a bit of both, but in terms of the other discussion on aligning a public with power, I think there also needs to be a re-alignment of our various economies and ecosystems. This could best occur in a bioregional context according to the expressed values people assign to the local ecosystems and bioregion they all live in and depend on for everything from their livelihoods to their recreation. This would definitely be going back to a better place we've been misled from. Put another way we're being forced or coerced into accepting there is really only one economy and only one public that are both largely divorced from the environment they depend on. This seems to be the place we're in now where everything is subsumed and submits to that paradigm and the handful of people who benefit the most from it.

There is too much for me, as a voter, to care about. Being divorced from our environmental economy is part of it.

[eyeball]

There is too much for me, as a voter, to care about. Being divorced from our environmental economy is part of it.

Yes well, that changes when you depend on access to your region's ecosystems and access to them winds up in the hands of distant absent landlords. There is nothing quite like that to capture how undivorced from your environment your economy is. Unfortunately I have to depend on voters in distant lands to make the changes that turn that around and that's where it all breaks down. What's worse than you not caring is that you simply can't care - it's too much. You have no more incentive to be engaged with me than I have with you because there's next to nothing in for either of us.

Yep, we're in a lost world alright. I guess where some perch on mediocrity and the status quo others cling to hoping the whole thing grinds to a halt so we can start fresh.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes well, that changes when you depend on access to your region's ecosystems and access to them winds up in the hands of distant absent landlords. There is nothing quite like that to capture how undivorced from your environment your economy is. Unfortunately I have to depend on voters in distant lands to make the changes that turn that around and that's where it all breaks down.

Right.

What's worse than you not caring is that you simply can't care - it's too much. You have no more incentive to be engaged with me than I have with you because there's next to nothing in for either of us.

Yep, we're in a lost world alright. I guess where some perch on mediocrity and the status quo others cling to hoping the whole thing grinds to a halt so we can start fresh.

I find I'm learning more about the environment from Facebook than I ever did from the mainstream media. Now, at least 50% of what I read on FB is incorrect, but it takes me to a place where I can do active research on a topic.

[bush_cheney2004]

I find I'm learning more about the environment from Facebook than I ever did from the mainstream media. Now, at least 50% of what I read on FB is incorrect, but it takes me to a place where I can do active research on a topic.

Interesting....'cause Facebook is...the mob.

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting....'cause Facebook is...the mob.

Hmmmm... are there far fewer people receiving opinions than expressing them ? No. It's mostly peer to peer.

[dre]

If you read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" he speaks about the design of democracy. It was designed at a time when the current scope of government was not imagine-able.

Sure but I dont think the fundamental design is the problem. I think that when western democracy emerged we wrestled a lot of power from the people that wielded it before, and over time they just figured how to wrestle it back bit by bit.

I dont think media is the main problem... All the money and lobbying in the system fundamentally changed who the government really serves.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure but I dont think the fundamental design is the problem. I think that when western democracy emerged we wrestled a lot of power from the people that wielded it before, and over time they just figured how to wrestle it back bit by bit.

Absolutely, yes, but it has been a tug of war over centuries.

I dont think media is the main problem... All the money and lobbying in the system fundamentally changed who the government really serves.

Media is the playing field upon which all things are discussed. And although it's not "the" problem, it frames how everything works. Lobbying, for example, is done to give money to candidates - but why ? To buy air time, which is television. In the 1940s, you could buy radio time, pamphlets but it was simply not the same game. Personal connections, live events, and the newspapers had more power. In the 19th century, Lincoln and Douglas debated for many hours in front of attendant crowds.

The shape of public dialogue forms the shape of government, and all the money in the world can't outspend a great idea.

[eyeball]

Absolutely, yes, but it has been a tug of war over centuries.

Media is the playing field upon which all things are discussed. And although it's not "the" problem, it frames how everything works. Lobbying, for example, is done to give money to candidates - but why ? To buy air time which is television. In the 1940s, you could buy radio time, pamphlets but it was simply not the same game. Personal connections, live events, and the newspapers had more power. In the 19th century, Lincoln and Douglas debated for many hours in front of attendant crowds.

Are you suggesting lobbyists are paying politicians to meet and discuss all things and everything on TV in front of attendant crowds? I must be living under a rock. Is there a Transparency and Accountability Network I haven't heard about, what channel are they on?

The shape of public dialogue forms the shape of government, and all the money in the world can't outspend a great idea.

The money of the people lobbying the government in-camera is what's really shaping it. Maybe the really important parts of their discussions happen during the commercial breaks.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Media is the playing field upon which all things are discussed. And although it's not "the" problem, it frames how everything works.

No, media is only one "channel" (pun intended), which is also fragmented in different ways. Churches, schools, local assemblies, and families are also "playing fields". Some town in the Maritimes just tried to hold meetings without any media allowed....so that became the media's story.

[Michael Hardner]

Are you suggesting lobbyists are paying politicians to meet and discuss all things and everything on TV in front of attendant crowds? I must be living under a rock. Is there a Transparency and Accountability Network I haven't heard about, what channel are they on?

No, it's done to buy advertising time.

[Michael Hardner]

No, media is only one "channel" (pun intended), which is also fragmented in different ways. Churches, schools, local assemblies, and families are also "playing fields".

You can't deny the effectiveness of advertising, nor the pervasiveness of its use in politicking, which is actually increasing.

Some town in the Maritimes just tried to hold meetings without any media allowed....so that became the media's story.

Media is part of the public.

[eyeball]

No, it's done to buy advertising time.

I'm sorry, I really must be under a rock...I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to run by me here.

Media is part of the public.

In as much that governments definitely try to avoid the entreaties both express for far more transparency and disclosure than most lobbyists and the lobbied want. Air-time??? WTF does that even mean?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sorry, I really must be under a rock...I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to run by me here.

Lobbying happens to raise money - but it doesn't quite go into the pockets of politicians, it goes to buy media to win elections. That's a necessity.

The 2012 presidential campaign was a $1B gamble for the two main candidates and their backers.

Make sense now ?

In as much that governments definitely try to avoid the entreaties both express for far more transparency and disclosure than most lobbyists and the lobbied want. Air-time??? WTF does that even mean?

Ah, I see. Air Time is time on television, radio and so on. It costs a lot of money to run those ads.

[bush_cheney2004]

You can't deny the effectiveness of advertising, nor the pervasiveness of its use in politicking, which is actually increasing.

The effectiveness is not as great as you may think. Over saturation actually becomes a negative. And there is more to it than just what you see in American ad campaigns.

Media is part of the public.

Then so are the candidates, the lobbyists, and backers.

[Michael Hardner]

The effectiveness is not as great as you may think. Over saturation actually becomes a negative. And there is more to it than just what you see in American ad campaigns.

Effectiveness is being reduced due to many factors, but advertising is still the bluntest tool to get your message out.

Then so are the candidates, the lobbyists, and backers.

Yes, of course. I have been trying to communicate to you that this isn't about storming the castle...

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, of course. I have been trying to communicate to you that this isn't about storming the castle...

Then all is well....money buys access and media time, just as it should, as neither are "free".

[dre]

Yes, of course. I have been trying to communicate to you that this isn't about storming the castle...

Thats exactly what it will be about eventually.

Its going to be realy hard to fix this through the system, when the system itself has become the problem.

[Michael Hardner]

Then all is well....money buys access and media time, just as it should, as neither are "free".

Yes, but certain media are easier to buy than others and you can't "buy" peoples' minds. This means as facebook ascends, and TV network news descends we will be in a strange situation where there is a lot of potential donor money that can't easily be turned into votes.

This doesn't mean that wealth amounts to nothing, or that the rich will finally be defeated - only that the playing field has changed significantly. All we can do is tilt our heads, cock and eyebrow and wonder out loud how it will play out. And I can't think of a better group of people to do it with than my MLW brothers and sisters.

[Michael Hardner]

Thats exactly what it will be about eventually.

Its going to be realy hard to fix this through the system, when the system itself has become the problem.

People who fantasize about revolutions should put context around today's wants and hungers. If I can't afford the new video games, will I take to the streets or will I just go back to playing my old Call of Duty games online ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but certain media are easier to buy than others and you can't "buy" peoples' minds. This means as facebook ascends, and TV network news descends we will be in a strange situation where there is a lot of potential donor money that can't easily be turned into votes.

MyFace has already peaked and is descending for the younger demographic in favor of other channels. There are plenty of ways for "donor money" to directly influence votes, starting with employment (jobs jobs jobs). This is famously done in Ontario, no ?

This doesn't mean that wealth amounts to nothing, or that the rich will finally be defeated - only that the playing field has changed significantly. All we can do is tilt our heads, cock and eyebrow and wonder out loud how it will play out. And I can't think of a better group of people to do it with than my MLW brothers and sisters.

Much ado 'bout nothing, as the underlying premise is flawed. People will vote (or note vote) certain ways for a wide variety of reasons. Muffling the "rich guys" doesn't automatically translate into the desired outcome. Wisconsin public employee unions learned that the hard way.

[Michael Hardner]

There are plenty of ways for "donor money" to directly influence votes, starting with employment (jobs jobs jobs). This is famously done in Ontario, no ?

What do you mean specifically ? I'm talking about political donations being used to buy airtime, and you're talking about (I think) pork barrel jobs.

I value your contributions here because you're posing questions that I haven't thought of before. My first take on this is that it makes more sense for people to vote for jobs in their district than to vote on the basis of a TV ad that they agree with, but ultimately puts nothing in their pocket.

That seems to be true no matter what the politics of voter and candidate and donor are.

People will vote (or note vote) certain ways for a wide variety of reasons.

If I had to 'note vote' I would vote for F#.

Muffling the "rich guys" doesn't automatically translate into the desired outcome. Wisconsin public employee unions learned that the hard way.

There's no muffling of the rich guys, nor do I intentionally moralize about outcomes when discussion effects of media. Of course, I do use biased language from time to time so forgive me.

I don't know about the Wisconsin public employee battle so much - I suspect that it was fought largely on TV though.