Here's a link for the text of an address Al Gore recently gave. While there's nothing groundbreaking in it, I'm encouraged to see an American political figure of his prominence eager to make the same points that many of the people I read have been making for years. Since I'm always looking for one of those rare moments when the theory I read enters mainstream discourse for some other purpose than mocking it, I was particularly heartened by this portion of the speech:
Soon after television established its dominance over print, young people who realized they were being shut out of the dialogue of democracy came up with a new form of expression in an effort to join the national conversation: the "demonstration." This new form of expression, which began in the 1960s, was essentially a poor quality theatrical production designed to capture the attention of the television cameras long enough to hold up a sign with a few printed words to convey, however plaintively, a message to the American people. Even this outlet is now rarely an avenue for expression on national television.Now I'm sure many of you are saying, "The demonstration was invented in the 1960s? I suppose the next thing you'll be telling me is that Al Gore invented the internet." And there are other wild generalizations of the sort the Unabomber was fond of making sprinkled throughout the text. But, goddamn it, I'm still smiling at the thought of our former Vice President trying to explain that Habermas isn't spouting "gobbledygook." The next thing you know, Al will be cutting a record with Exene Cervenka.
So, unlike the marketplace of ideas that emerged in the wake of the printing press, there is virtually no exchange of ideas at all in television's domain. My partner Joel Hyatt and I are trying to change that - at least where Current TV is concerned. Perhaps not coincidentally, we are the only independently owned news and information network in all of American television.
It is important to note that the absence of a two-way conversation in American television also means that there is no "meritocracy of ideas" on television. To the extent that there is a "marketplace" of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen.
The German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, describes what has happened as "the refeudalization of the public sphere." That may sound like gobbledygook, but it's a phrase that packs a lot of meaning. The feudal system which thrived before the printing press democratized knowledge and made the idea of America thinkable, was a system in which wealth and power were intimately intertwined, and where knowledge played no mediating role whatsoever. The great mass of the people were ignorant. And their powerlessness was born of their ignorance.
It did not come as a surprise that the concentration of control over this powerful one-way medium carries with it the potential for damaging the operations of our democracy. As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free."