Media & Civic Discourse
Richard Dreyfuss, Actor and Activist
Commented on previous panel—–
– Entertainment. The future of network news. It wasn’t meant to make money. Now it’s all about profit.
Part of the Oxford U Research in teaching curriculum. Not teaching civics affects the Republic of Democracy. Sovereignty given over to Special Interests.
* Reason
* Logic
Old rules of dissemination no longer applies. Now, facts are known instantaneously everywhere.
Now, people can’t afford to think things through. Knowing things cannot prevent doing damages.
It’s still better to know than not to know. We should still be thoughtful about our actions.
The new technology is demanding how we re-think things. The challenge is how fast and how responsible can one make decisions nowadays?
From the western world, we don’t allow or honor debate, thus no civility. Democracy is sharing with those who dissent.
Technology can lead us to fatal decisions, it does not allow for any errors.
He is in Oxford to develop tools that can be taught with fun and reason, logic.
Questions from participants:
* How are traditional filmmakers doing?
DF: Storytelling for over 3000 years, hope people can go back to that.
* Fostering civic discourse is not profitable, sometimes people in media have to look at the bottom line. Question is whether the market can sustain media and democracy?
DF: People will keep lowering the bar if news equate entertainment. One has to think quality and not just profit.
* Can new technology support more diversified opinions?
DF: The pressure now is media don’t have the time to respond thoughtfully.
* How much conventional media contribute to civic discourse?
DF: How do you create a generation of kids who like to learn?
DF: The war on terror—–journalists are not demanding clarity, not asking enough questions.
** How students from 4 different countries contribute to citizens democracy. Cite students’ questions.
DF: older versions are virtuous. Nervous about this generation running the new technology, they are not giving it enough time.
TAG: wemedia
From the western world, we don’t allow or honor [sic] debate Speak for yourself – I see it every day, on the Net.
Now, people can’t afford to think things through. Knowing things cannot prevent doing damage Demonstrably not true. As my grandmother always used to tell me: “More haste, less speed”.
This is a question of philosophy. If the good people of Oxford University had taken the trouble to think this through (!) they might have concluded that there is a weakness in our poor education:
– We do not teach our children even the basics of philosophical reflection – and only logic is seriously alluded to as a technique for evaluation;
– We only teach our children deductive skills through the cause and effect they find in basic science classes (much to the chagrin of many scientists);
– We teach our children a fixed curriculum – thus ensuring that most are taught by rote thus ensuring that the vast majority never discover lateral thinking:
http://www.edwdebono.com/debono/lateral.htm
let alone develop such skills; and
– Creative teaching is limited to expression at near the lowest level (the double entendre is about as far as it gets).
A proper education would mean that the next generation would have the skills to make decisions in a World that can offer all the information you could ever want.
Fostering civic discourse is not profitable, sometimes people in media have to look at the bottom line. Question is whether the market can sustain media and democracy?
This question manages to completely avoid adding any value to this discourse. Fostering public discourse is of enormous value over time. Why else would the vast majority of democracies be richer today than any other form of government? The question should be:
Is the public trust of fact dissemination and taking the chair in the political discourse between the politicians and the citizenry best served by preserving resource limitations that create publishing oligopolies and limiting free speech through copyright monopolies?
Given the severe penalties imposed by an oligopoly of Press Barons engaged in a race to the bottom of the lowest common denominator of ‘News as Entertainment’ with the power to set the political agenda, the vast wealth that Private Media Barons corner as parasites on the political discourse, and the ability of Old Media to undermine true discourse by pandering to, and promoting, special interests – I know my answer.
The real question is:
Can we make the Net into a place where citizens feel they are plugged back into the politics? Again, I believe that the current state of affairs speaks for itself. The best Net is an unregulated Net.