So I was making the ol' bookmark bar rounds and came across this review of Al Gore's new book. The 3rd and 4th sections of the article (they start with a giant "T" and "I", respectively) concern Gore's commentary on television and the internet. Basically, Gore sees television as having ruined the national discourse by transforming the American citizen into a passive couch potato (actually a hypnotized chicken here) who only recieves information and does not engage in any sort of feedback.

Predictably, he cites the internet as a source of hope because of its "Great Conversation" qualities. Bloggers may save us yet.

I think that Gore is subscribing to "the medium is the message" here. It doesn't seem to matter what is on television as much as the fact that no matter how loud you yell the TV won't hear you. It isn't that TV is full of Bush bullshit, but that the TV has made possible a world in which the bullshit occupies a place of power.

As for bloggers, content means nothing: "Some have genuinely interesting things to say, while others do not, but what is most significant about blogging may be the process itself."

He says that TV took over from newspapers about 50 years ago and that the discourse has been downhill ever since. I wonder what sort of participatory discourse newspapers used to engender? They seem every bit as one-way a flow of information as TV, or fireside chats, or NPR. I guess you can write to the newspaper or call in to a radio show, but you are still at the mercy of someone with executive control of the medium (editor, producer, etc.)

I also stumble at Gore's reverence for the public forum of our founding fathers. He says that "bloggers are reclaiming the tradition of our Founders of making their reflections on the national state of affairs publicly available" but surely there are more talking heads and TV execs than there were founding fathers. Perhaps the number doesn't matter but the nature of the discourse and so the broad minded discourse of the founding fathers is what he admires. Perhaps it is his obligation as a politician give props to the founding fathers. Still, even something as cool as "Common Sense" came in an age where a far greater percentage of Americans had no voice whatsoever in the national discourse. I feel like, despite TV, the march towards a truly public forum in this country has been a generally chronological one.