Politics and Propaganda 2: From China With Spies July 27, 2010

In examining the methods and historical contexts of espionage on the heels of our discussion of propaganda, it occurs to me that we are really looking at two sides of the same coin. Propaganda involves information manipulation by mass dissemination, while spying covers the flip side information manipulation by precisely targeted absorption. Espionage, as a kind of propaganda, work at interweaving the truth with fiction in order to achieve aims in accordance with the objectives of the spy, which is also the aim of propagandist. Both the extraction of information and the insertion (or, if you will, inception) of information require significant subterfuge at one level or another in order to with maximal effectiveness. This subterfuge may be more readily apparent as we turn to espionage.

From the very beginning of ‘The Use of Spies’, Sun Tzu establishes a clear connection between the lands, the harvest, and the power of the prince : if the prince cannot ensure the harvest, then he cannot be victorious on the battle field. Abandoned lands, lands without workers, are spreading anger and resentment, in the place where you fight as well as where you come from. Which leads us to another Chinese conception : the idea of politics as a management of flux : originally, the control over the 5 rivers of China was the pedestal of the prince power. The control of the rivers’ flow was equivalent to the control the irrigation as well as the downstream rate of flow. With such power, the prince was able to ensure not only the harvest and the social peace, but the intentions of its neighbors. There is in that extent a great divide between East and West on the conception of war craft: the Chinese war craft lies precisely in the shunning of frontal fight. War is the last resort, and the nobility in Sun Tzu’s war craft consists in avoiding the fighting in order to spare lives. This conception echoes with the martial arts, which are not based on brute force, but rather on following the opponent’s moves, to drag him down. Your opponent should not be blocked, but rather taken by surprise, to finally make him lose his balance.

Sun Tzu not only depicts the ‘enlightened general’ as prudent, cunning, pretending to be indifferent, but quick to strike at the heart of the enemy’s army. The general should spare all the lives he can, for the loss of men is inefficient during wartime. However, he should also be merciless (he even talks about ‘extermination’), for the death of traitors saves the lives of many.

In this context, Sun Tzu identifies five different classes of spies to be used by the general : local, inward, converted, doomed, and surviving. To him, the use of all of these spies in conjunction with one another is the best and most beneficial way of gaining an advantage over the enemy because it catches them by surprise. Spies are meant to remain unnoticed. A local spy works within a specified area that is familiar to them. An inward spy is like the mole, providing inside information from the enemy’s home ground. Converted spies are those that initially worked for the opposing side but switched sides. Doomed spies serve as a distraction to help gear the enemy’s attention in one direction. Surviving spies are those who successfully bring back information from the enemy. Once the enemy has been divided and weaken, the general should win the hearts and minds, to win without a fight.

Nothing, however, is absolute, and Sun Tzu’s laws of war are just patterns to be adapted to circumstances and opportunities during wartime. But then, when the ‘enlightened general’ starts to march, “the enemy is already defeated”.

This modern commentary on Sun Tzu’s chapter on intelligence tries to analyze what modern intelligence can learn from studying Sun Tzu’s treatise, a classic work in military history and strategy. Sun Tzu’s book, The Art of War (Sunzi bingfa). Although, “he [the author] is not modern, he is not Western, he is about as far from us in history as he can be” his work has been able to break language barriers (484). The translations into English have enabled people to learn about war, However, the translations have also presented problems as trying to grasp the meaning that Sun Tzu intended has been a challenge, especially in his chapter about espionage.

Because Chinese phrases are often hard to faithfully render into English, the term “The Divine Skein” has been translated in many different ways over the years since the initial French translation in the 18th century. Some interpretations include: “divine manipulation of the threads”, “spiritual methodology”, “secret service”, “divine organization”, “ spirit web” This term essentially describes a web of spies working for the ruler who provide the ruler/general with superior information on his adversary. Thus even during this pre-internet period, information was described using the metaphor of a web.

How to Realize Victory according to Sun Tzu…
“know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril” (487). Without a doubt, a great way to know the enemy is by using spies, the ones that are divided into five categories. Having spies is one of the aims, but having secrecy is the ultimate key to succeed. In fact the spies should be managed and given various levels of information based on their role in the “divine web”: native agents, inside agents, double agents, living agents, expendable agents.

This taxonomy suggests that information is something to be manipulated and used, evening amongst those working the same side, that the power of the person in charge of this web is based on his control of information and management to ensure that while each spy may know something, none is aware of the complete picture; that could lead to uprising or revolt. Information collection is seen as something that can help avoid war or reduce the costs. Traditional Chinese strategy places emphasis on setting up the situation so that the battle is won even before it is ever fought.

There are some problems to his perspective, as using spies does not guarantee victory. Though, his work demonstrates that espionage has been with us for a long time, at the same time that it offers useful information about war and its rhetoric. Information itself can be a weapon if managed properly and can actually be more powerful than blunt force. Also, in relation to concepts of technical determinism vs. social constructivism, the article shows that no matter how information technology has developed dramatically since the time of Sun Tzu, human calculation and instincts are still important in managing and analyzing whatever information is eventually obtained, either by ancient spies or by wiretapping and satellite imagery today.

Some of the methods and ideas under discussion by Sun Tzu and Warner in his analysis of the same come up in the example of diplomacy and espionage in John Hann’s “Cloak and Dagger in Apalachicole Province.”

To decipher “Cloak and Dagger in Apalachicole Province,” one must get some familiarity with countless names and name variants of the assorted provinces, towns, tribes, rivers and languages. Keeping the various political actors and their allegiances straight demonstrates the complex web of diplomacy and deception at play in a close study of a proxy conflict between two major European powers in the New World.

“Cloak and Dagger in Apalachicole Province” concentrates on the conflict between British and Spanish in Florida. The Spanish in Florida at the time had deep concerns about the expanding influence of British settlers to the North and utilized agents from various tribes in Northern Florida to gather intelligence and assist in the Spanish attempts to stem the tide of British commericial intrusion. The British countered with their own employment of natives for secret operations. But the increasingly violent, desperate tactics of the Spaniards eventually drove many of the tribes into the arms of the British.

Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” July 27, 2010

Hi, everyone!

If you’re interested in reading this in preparation for tomorrow’s planned discussion of Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”, here is the celebrity movie critic Roger Ebert’s review of the film. Ebert brings up two points that we touched upon in class yesterday. Firstly, we talked about the effectiveness of the film as a piece of propaganda. There seemed to be some agreement that Riefenstahl’s film is more effective than Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” films, which use a less powerful lecture style in the form of a voice-over. Ebert brings up the question of whether Riefenstahl’s film is useful only in its ability to strengthen the convictions of people who already support Hitler and the Nazi Party (does it have the potential to win new converts?). Secondly, we contrasted this film with Capra’s films in regard to the issue of credibility. We emphasized the extent to which the images in Capra’s films are fabricated, but Ebert casts into serious doubt the authenticity of the images in Riefenstahl’s film. I hope you find the review interesting, even if you take issue with Ebert’s opinions on this film (or others)!

-Casey Bodden

Roger Ebert’s review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080626%2FREVIEWS08%2F911177318%2F1023

Robert Ebert’s blog post, which he wrote before the publication of the review: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/triumph_over_triumph_of_the_wi.html

Persuading the Public – Propaganda by Britain, US, and Germany July 26, 2010

This week’s topic is about Politics and Propaganda, a fascinating subject about how something like the media can change the way people fundamentally feel about their country and politicians in favor of one party. Propaganda has both a broad definition “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” (Webster’s Dictionary) and also a negative one. George Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind as a great literary example of how propaganda is used to brainwash people into the same mindset. Propaganda also seems to have a negative connotation of being used as a means of persuading people to do something they would otherwise not do, especially something important such as enlisting in war or following a dictator.

Although everyone knows the general gist of World War II and about the atrocities of Hitler and the German Nazis, sometimes we forget that the German people were not instinctively evil or inclined to commit these crimes. There have been many studies about how the power of an authority affects the submission of a person and how certain forms of media can be useful means of propaganda to convince the public. The public received bombardment of propaganda to inspire nationalism compounded with Hitler’s power as an excellent orator. The director of “Triumph of Will” was Leni Riefenstahl, a female director popular who was impressed and inspired by Hitler that made an account of the 1934 Nuremberg rally. The other clip by Frank Capra, is a series of informational video targeted towards informing American troops about the advance of Germany through Europe and the destruction in its wake.

Although the American clip is considered to be a call to arms, it is still a prominent form of propaganda, because it is trying not only to inform but persuade one of the evils of the opposing side (Germany). It portrays the Third Reich as an evil world power that is trying to take over the world. Retrospectively, we know this to be true, so we can sympathize with video, unlike the other video about Germany, however it is still an excellent piece of propaganda. The spread of destruction and treachery by Germany is highlighted in this video, especially in their false promises to Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Luxembourg.

Riefenstahl’s video, on the contrary, is a prominent display of patriotism and nationalism starting with a slow pan of the Germany country from a plane. To a German citizen, this targets the sense of national pride for one’s own country. This pan is shifted to Hitler’s landing in an airport, where he is welcomed by the large mass of people who are not only present at the airport, but the entire route to his destination. There is a clever focus on not just Hitler but the faces of people who are happy and inspired by their fuhrer, especially on children and elderly. This invokes a sense of compassion, sympathy, and agreement. Further in the film, there is an extensive scene where prominent Nazi officers speak about Hitler, which is interesting choice. By not just focusing on Hitler but what other people say about him, it gives a sense of public unity and pride for their leader. An example is where an officer says, “Hitler is our leader, whatever he judges, we judge…You are Germany. When you act, the nation acts.” The officers tackle various aspects of German politics, but the general sense they give off is that “Hitler is our leader, we will follow him anywhere, and if you are a German, you should too.” All the rallies in the rest of the German video focus on the rallies and gives a sense of how strong the German Army is and how great Hitler is. Whenever Hitler enters the scene, the camera shifts to smiling boys and the massive number of people who are raising their hands to hail their fuhrer.

This in itself is a power motivator to follow a leader into war, especially if one does not know the true motives and aims to follow the leader blindly.

In the reading, Marlin discusses the beginnings of propaganda by the British in World War I, which was possibly a similar model to that used by Hitler and Goebbels in World War II for Nazi influence in Germany. Marlin discusses the difficulties of categorizing and classifying propaganda and says it is difficult to distinguish propaganda from other forms of social and political expression. Marlin quotes the BP report that claims of there being 3 types of propaganda: written word, picture, and personal. Additionally, this excerpt claims that personal is the most powerful but limited to a person. However, if persuasion is used on someone powerful in media, such as an editor, this can be a powerful way of reaching thousands of people. This is interesting, because it is a concise categorization of propaganda and provides a basis for evaluating different types.

Later in the conclusion of the historical overview, Marlin claims “In what we have treated, we see over and over again how successful propaganda relies on surreptitious presentation of its message.” This means that the success of propaganda relies on the fact that the public does not realize what they are seeing is a means of propaganda. If the people are able to believe that the message is genuine and not necessarily see the political motivations behind such a message, this is when the propaganda is most effective. Additionally, we have to understand the target audience and understand who and how target the message. The propaganda can be tailored to a specific group to make it that much more effective, or it can be broadened so that it is something everyone sympathizes with (such as nationalism and patriotism).

In Conclusion, propaganda is a subtle art that combines persuasion and media to drive a message, the true meaning or purpose of which, may not be apparent to the target audience.

So do we think that propaganda is necessary? Or is it an evil force that deceives the public?

Some questions to think about: Is there a way to motivate people to join a side, without using what we have seen as “propaganda” in the clips and reading? Do you think that the German people were deceived by the propaganda into joining Hitler, or should they have known better? How would you distinguish between good propaganda and bad propaganda, in the context of morality?

Blog written by: Manutej Mulaveesala, Vivian Chan, Casey Bodden, Shengrong Tang, Gilbert Chan, Josh May

Some Thoughts on “The History of Journalism” July 25, 2010

The Majority of the members or our presentation group are Media Studies Majors, and therefore have had a bit of background in the history of journalism. We have thus decided to individually address some elements addressed (or missed) in Michael Schudson’s chapter “Where News Came From: The History of Journalism.” In order to establish a basic discourse about this chapter there are a few very important things to take note of:

1)    This is a history of American Journalism, not all Journalism (ironically American Journalism does not much concern itself with global issues, so why should its history?).

2)    The idea of Journalistic Objectivity is relatively new, driven more by profit and the rise in popularity of scientific thought or as stated by Schudson, “…objectivity seemed a natural and progressive ideology for an aspiring occupational group at a moment when science was God, efficiency was cherished, and increasingly prominent elites judged partisanship a vestige of the tribal nineteenth century (Schudson, p. 82).”  (This should remind you of Heilbroner’s “soft determinism.”)

3)    This Chapter does not address two of the most pivotal moments in American Journalism in the past 50 years Vietnam (possibly one it’s empowering) and the Clinton era Telecommunications Act of 1996 (possibly one of its most emasculating).

4)    Schudson also does a wonderful job of explaining American Journalism’s and Newspaper’s dependency upon advertising revenue and a paying readership. This calls into question what will happen to objectivity and the News when it costs nothing.

5)    It is important to note the reference to Hegel’s idea that the morning news has become a substitute for morning prayers for both its social implications (think about Eisenstein and McArthur’s  reference to the rise of secular humanism) as well as its cognitive effects (think about Havelock, Eisenstein and McLuhan).

Here are some ideas that the individuals in our group came up with:

Connection to public sphere and the news:

Since we have discussed ‘public sphere ’ through emergence from the ‘coffee house’ in seventeenth century Britain, it is also essential to point out how we define public sphere surrounded by various news media today, specifically as related to the reading Where news came from; the history of Journalism‘ . Schudson distinguishes differences between ‘public’ by Habermas’ concern and a ‘community’ formulated by Anderson’s idea. Habermas views the public sphere as “a social space where individuals gathered to discuss their common public affairs and to organize against arbitrary and oppressive forms of social and public power.” Anderson, on the other hand, sees the news in a more expansive view as “public construction of particular images of self, community, and nations.’(Schudson, p. 69) The media is a space of public discussion, however, it is also invaded by private interests, corporations, and oppressive societal norms. It creates an area to talk about general concerns and to fix problems through political action, by communal decision making. The public sphere is normally composed of the bourgeois class in Habermas’ view. It is often formed by dominant elites too and presented ideas of mostly private interest rather than common interest. Often, certain excluded groups of individuals had limited participation in its power relation. Public sphere transitioned from public interest to private as companies and large firms began to dictate societal interests. News media’s role has been transformed from facilitating rational discourse and debate into shaping, constructing, and limiting public discourse to those themes validated and approved by media corporations. It also raises an issue for consideration of how political and democratic responsibility on the part of the media institutions and journalists is reflected by the need to appeal to a given audience

.- Jeonmin Woo

Black Box Fallacy: Is it all going to turn into one Black Box, or a bunch of little Black Boxes?

In the reading we see the progression of journalism and news.  How news began by word of mouth and moved to small niches.  Eventually these niches turn into big newspapers and the biggest newspapers become large media corporations.  In today’s society it can be argued that the media and news the public receives is controlled by a few.  The power of the media lies in the hands of those with the biggest corporations.  This being said, it gives way to not only what we receive as our news but how we receive it.  People want to be able to get their news faster and faster each year and as new mediums are created to get media faster it seems that the public is heading toward what Henry Jenkins claims is the Black Box Fallacy.  This is the idea that all media will be able to be accessed through a single black box.  This box will hold everything we need on a daily basis including our news. Eventually there will be no newspapers, and then no TVs and then no computers and then THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!

– Shane Vereen

A bit of History:

Benedict Anderson argues that newspapers provided (along with novels) the “technical means for ‘re-presenting’ the kind of imagined community that it is the nation.” (Anderson 25)  While the importance and role of the newspaper is certainly up for debate, the history of the newspaper itself is quite unique.  And while a simple chronology of the newspaper would suffice in providing background information, it is in the context of Robert Park’s idea that newspapers can be conceived as a “common carrier, like the railway or the post office,” (Park 276) that their history becomes integral in understanding mans relationship to information.

The origin of newspapers can be traced quite simply to newsletters, means of spreading information from one particular person to several others.  The first successful newsletter in America was the Boston News Letter, published by its postmaster and editor. The earliest American newspapers refrained from politics, informing readers primarily on day-to-day events and the politics of London without commentary.  As political tensions grew in the 1760’s newspapers no longer remained out of politics, and instead became centers of information and discord on the side of the Americans in their conflict with Britain.  Newspapers changed rapidly, in large part because, as Schudson points, out Printers invented newspapers as they went along. (71)

The most familiar looking newspapers would be the Yellow Journalism (sensationalist papers emphasizing pictures and headlines over research and discourse) papers created by the likes of William Randolf Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.  The commercialization of newspapers, the use of newsboys, the active competition for readers, and the dependence on advertising capitalized in the idea that news or information was a commodity people would pay for.  What is the cost of such commercialization?  Horace Greeley, the famed newspaper editor, noticed that no matter what, an individuals’ greatest interest is himself, but when combined with rapid growth and commercialization newspapers must transform from accounts of individuals, to broad, impersonal accounts that somehow manage to remain relevant to everyman. (Park 277)

-Jessica Knudtzon

How the media has changed our thought process:

The media is the engine that gives individuals news.  The media, which consists of journalism, newspapers, television, the Internet, etc, are technological advancements that have changed the way people acquire knowledge and information.  The rise of the media relates to Eisenstein’s view about print culture: that the discovery of the printer allowed, for the first time, the ability to publish hundreds of copies that we alike, worldwide.  Like the print culture, the media is a form of technology that has allowed people from all over the world to read, listen, and see the various forms of events and issues that occurs around the world.  The media is a powerful technological force that can change the way society perceives information.  There are only a few giant media conglomerates that control what viewers obtain as news; as a result, these media corporations have immense power to control and dictate people’s views and ideologies about the events and issues that occur throughout the world.  While the media is able to influence and sway the viewer’s attention, people are also able to establish their personal opinions, values, and ideologies about the news that is given to them.  The media allows people to question information given to them; but also, the media has become primary source for individuals to learn and expand their knowledge.

-Emily Shibata

New Media and its affects on war/war coverage

Schudson touches on the discussion of new media and its affect on politics and on journalism, however, what I found interesting in his argument regarding journalists’ new found place in American news coverage, was the affect of new media on war.  In the 1960s-70s, a time in America’s history, which might be defined as a period of narcissism, revolution and discovery, it was also defined by the Vietnam War.  This is due in part to the way Vietnam was broadcasted as a news piece.  This was the first war in which journalist became huge components of the war’s affect on the U.S.  For the first time, American’s got a glimpse into the grotesque, and violence that was Vietnam.  Therefore, because coverage of Vietnam became so essential to the American public, it also greatly affected protestors along with trust in the government.  Now that new media enabled the new “public” to see first hand what the war actually entailed, it trigged mass protests and bandwagon affiliates protesting the government’s organization.

Not only did new media and standardized TV coverage affect Vietnam but it also has played a major role since 9/11 and the war that we are currently still fighting.  As news affiliates captured the twin towers falling to the ground on that fateful morning, Americans all over the nation immediately felt the affects.  Not only has new media affected the TV world and the corporations that broadcast “objective” journalism, but new age technology has allowed for “the public” to receive news, information, videos and more, instantaneously.  Part of the reason why Vietnam paved the way for war coverage, was because visually, the American people were able to actually witness the damage and destruction being done.  Hearing about war is one thing, but seeing actual clips from the frontline, that experience alone can greatly influence and individual. -Megan Psyllos

Reading Response #2 Posted July 23, 2010

The next RR assignment, due Monday 7/26, has been posted.  We’ve also added a writer’s checklist to clarify our expectations and subsequent evaluation of written work.

As mentioned, please prepare for Monday’s class by reading both Schudson and Marlin, and by watching the YouTube videos posted in the syllabus for that day.

Emergence of the Public Sphere July 21, 2010

The concept of the public sphere is a metaphor we use to describe the circulation of information and ideas in a large society.  It is a “realm,” as some authors have called it, of our social life in which we are able to come out of our houses and talk to others in our community about our common affairs, whether it be matters about the government, economy, literature or the new neighbor down the street. The coffeehouse that Brian Cowan writes about in The Social Life of the Coffee and the gossip circle that Robert Darnton writes about in his article of the French in the eighteenth century are both prime examples of what makes up a public sphere.

The coffeehouse was the place to go if one was looking to try out some of the newly fashionable hot drinks. What was also great about the coffeehouse was that it was a more fashionable place for people of high and low society to socialize and gather without regards to social status. The rich and the poor could gather as well as the educated and those wanting to be educated. They gathered because of their likes for coffee and their insatiable curiosity for learning. The protocols for recognizing rank and authority were abandoned in such places, creating a “social fiction of equality” (Cowan 102) where everyone seemingly had the same social status. The coffeehouse was neutral ground, a place for intellectual debate and volleying of ideas.

The French in the 1750s had a similar mode of getting their news, and often, news was like gossip about the king and his many mistresses. Gossip spread like wildfire, coming from an insider of the court to the streets of Paris. The juicier gossip was written on scraps of paper that turned into manuscripts and news sheets. Because the majority of the French population at that time was illiterate, many relied on oral communication for their news. Much of the gossip was composed into songs and sung from one to another, providing a powerful medium for transmitting messages. This kind of communication process always involved discussion in a social setting – in the martketplace, shops, gardens, taverns, and cafes. As Darnton wrote, “It was not simply a matter of messages transmitted down a line of diffusion to passive recipients but rather a process of assimilating and reworking information in groups” (Darnton, paragraph 56) that gave rise to the collective consciousness or public opinion.

The mode of social learning in early seventeenth and eighteenth century coffeehouses, along with the gossip-style spread of news in seventeenth century France seem like a throwback to the oral traditions that preserved cultures before the advent of written, manuscript, or print culture. This mode of spoken information dissemination and social learning, despite being primarily oral, combines print with its unique way of spreading information. In “Some Features of Print Culture”, Eisenstein states that from the advent of print culture, “an enriched reading matter…encouraged development of new intellectual combinations and permutations” (Eisenstein, 44), but in the case of the seventeenth century public houses (the coffeehouse especially), the oral spread of information developed new intellect and created a new medium for which to rapidly and widely disseminate information: the public sphere.

For example, the coffeehouse was a center for both oral and print culture to combine in a mass exchange of information. Virtuosi and common people would gather at the coffeehouse to discuss topics of science, art, and the civility of the elite, but would also gather to read about the latest news and books. Discussion of information originally found in print was available to be passed back and forth between the elite and common people who gathered at the coffeehouse to socialize, discuss, and debate. Dissemination of print information was no longer llimited to those who could read; it could now be disseminated orally through coffeehouse conversations. Oral tradition did not completely disappear with the advent of print culture, but merely functioned as a way of further spreading information that print culture disseminated to people who might not necessarily gain such information otherwise.

In addition, the information that was amplified and spread by word of mouth in seventeenth century France was a new way of creating printed information. People would get together to hear the latest gossip or news about the dealings of the royal court, assembling a story from the information of several individuals who had information or hearsay on the King’s business. This would then be compiled into a sort of “news” story to be printed and distributed throughout the kingdom. In turn, people having read the story would tell others, and thus spread gossip about the King.

A new oral tradition of information exchange and gossip amplified and expanded the dissemination of information of print culture. The public sphere, the gathering of people in public houses – particularly coffeehouses – was essentially a new technology in itself as it worked to spread print information more widely by means of a mass and lively oral communication network.

One book in particular The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere by Jurgen Habermas addressed our topic of the public sphere in depth. His book contrasted various forms of an active, participatory bourgeois public sphere in the heroic era of liberal democracy with the more privatized forms of spectator politics in a bureaucratic industrial society in which the media and elites controlled the public sphere.

The “Bourgeois public sphere” Habermas describes is closely related with the “current public sphere,” which is a site of information, discussion, contestation, political struggle, and organization that includes the broadcasting media and new cyberspaces as well as the face-to-face interactions of everyday life. Even though the basic function of public sphere is same, in the contemporary high-tech societies there is emerging a significant expansion and redefinition of the public sphere. These developments, connected primarily with multimedia and computer technologies, require a reformulation and expansion of the concept of the public sphere. The rise of the Internet expands the realm for democratic participation and debate and creates new public spaces for political intervention. First broadcast media like radio and television, and now computers have produced new public spheres and spaces for information, debate, and participation that contain both the potential to invigorate democracy and to increase the spread of critical and progressive ideas.

Thinking back to the days of the English coffeehouse and French street gossips, have things changed so much today? Coffeehouses were gathering places where people could swap intellect and consume exotic drinks. Today, people go to coffee shops to study, catch up with friends, go on dates, and get together with group members, which all take place over caramel macchiatos, blended mocha fraps, soy cappuccinos and other such complex drinks. In Paris, the main gathering point to find out the latest news was the tree of Cracow. Today, people gather at the water cooler at work to discuss news and gossip. There are discussion forums on every topic imaginable on the internet, and gossip websites such as TMZ and PerezHilton.com flourish, as do tabloids like US Weekly and Star Magazine. Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter allow us to receive news and gossip even faster: if you are friends with people in the know, you don’t even have to search for information – they will link you to it. The demand for news and gossip has only increased since the early days of coffeehouses and gathering trees, and today, we have more options now more than ever before with the advent of the internet. But unless people are content with sitting behind their computer screens all day without actual human contact, physical gathering places such as coffee shops will continue to serve as social places where ideas, news, and gossip can be traded. In this respect, while new mediums have changed the way we consume news, old mediums are still very relevant in today’s society.

Some interesting links: Starbucks has rebranded some stores in Seattle, calling them 15th Ave Coffee and Tea in an effort to drum up more business. These places capture “the spirit of a traditional coffeehouse” in an attempt to give the stores “a community personality” that is more similar to coffeehouses of the past.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009479123_starbucks16.html
Where people get their news: The Pew Survey found that television was the most popular way people got their news (70%), followed by the internet (40%) and then newspapers (35%). Unfortunately, there was no mention of coffeehouses..

http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/25/pew-survey-confirms-what-we-all-know-net-beats-newspapers-as-a-source-for-news/

Blog Contributors: Nikki Dance, Kailin Hu, Heamin Kim, and Pauline Loh

No Reading Response This Week July 15, 2010

To give you all more time to work on the paper, prepare for the midterm, and in some cases, put together your blog/presentation work, the reading response due on Monday (7/19) is cancelled and will resume the following week.

Reading Response #1 Posted July 8, 2010

We’ve posted the first reading response assignment.

In class, we’ll discuss Heilbroner and Hughes, examine technological determinism and alternative approaches, and touch upon the assignment itself.

See you tomorrow!

Welcome! June 14, 2010

Welcome!

The first day of class of the History of Information is Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 from 1:00-3:30 in 213 Wheeler Hall.  The class is currently full, but we will do everything we can to get as many students into the class as possible.  Please be present and on time the first day of class even if you are on the waitlist.

The course reader will be available at Copy Central on Bancroft and the syllabus will be online shortly.  We may make adjustments to the syllabus throughout the semester, so please keep checking back.  Readings that are not in the course reader are available online through the Berkeley library.

We look forward to a great summer session with you all!