(Please Read) Knowledge of the World

[dswesse]

Ok, I am currently writing what is turning into as much a research paper as a comparison of politial theory in two books and I need some input from the general population.

Essentially the two books boil down to differing views on who holds the power in our government. One book written in the late 50's splits much of the power between the public desire and the personal knowledge of the politicians. The second book, written within the last 5 years removes nearly all power from the public and gives it all to a conglomerate controlled by the media, the politial elite and the interest groups.

I realize that there are many other factors that I must delve into to further analyze this issue, but what I need to know from you people is specifically about your knowledge of the world around you when compared to that of you parents, grandparents.

With the advent of radio, television, and now the internet and those being widely adopted, and thus the flow of information is now much more free than in previous generations, are we now as a whole more informed than previous generations?

Also, if you have input on this issue please feel free to express your opinion as to why you chose the answer you did.

Thank ya much

 

[Trevelyan]

Hmm... I think that's a tough question to answer. Certainly, a lot of the younger generation is more familiar with current world affairs, but if you're also talking about history and past world events then its almost a toss up.

 

[conjur]

We have more knowledge but not necessarily more wisdom.

 

[glenn1]

We have more knowledge but not necessarily more wisdom.

Bingo.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: conjur
We have more knowledge but not necessarily more wisdom.

As a whole, Americans have less of both.

 

[aidanjm]

Who decides what kinds of information is being fed to us the MSM? If you don't use the internet or other forms of alternative media, how would you know about the on-going genocide in Sudan? Or what happened in Rwanda a decade ago? Or the Gannon fiasco/ scandal? Or even the right wing 'conspiracy' to destroy the Clintons? But people know a great deal about Michael Jackson, Terri Shaivo, etc. Who decides what is important enough to be news, and what gets ignored?

 

[dswesse]

You had me until the clinton conspiracy charge.

 

[jackschmittusa]

When you consider all of the polls that showed how many millions of people believed Iraq was connected to 9-11; that Sadaam was in league with A.Q.; well, I think that speaks volumes in answer to your question.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
When you consider all of the polls that showed how many millions of people believed Iraq was connected to 9-11; that Sadaam was in league with A.Q.; well, I think that speaks volumes in answer to your question.

Only if you can show that previous generations were worse off.

In general, I think that today's media has just compartmentalized knowledge. So instead of a bunch of people who used to read the whole paper, you have political nerds on one forum, tech nerds on another forum, sports nerds on a third, and so on. Each group may know more about it's interest than the corresponding group did 30 years ago. But it knows a buch less about the other topics.

I don't know if that has lowered the aggregate amount of "knowledge" out there or what, but it sure has changed the overall distribution.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Back in the 50s and 60s, although there were far fewer news scources, they were trusted and respected. Integrety meant everything to to reporters of real news. You may not have liked what the news had to say, but you assumed it was true, and lived with it. Today, it does not take much of an effort to find a version of the news that is just what you want to hear. People today run news through a personal filter and only keep what they like. So if "Knowledge of the World" includes accuracy and credibility, then I think we have regressed from times past.