←back to thread

French modernists were alarmed, inspired by newspaper's voracious dynamism

(aeon.co)
147 points crescit_eundo | 3 comments | 17 Jan 25 16:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
aredox ◴[17 Jan 25 18:13 UTC] No.42741439[source]▶
>In the 1860s, Charles Baudelaire bemoaned what we might now call doomscrolling: [...] The poet’s revulsion was widely shared in 19th-century France. Amid rapid increases in circulation, newspapers were depicted as a virus or narcotic responsible for collective neurosis, overexcitement and lowered productivity.

On one hand, one could think "oh, the current social network bashing is just the same doom and gloom reaction to more communication, it will pass".

On the other hand, if you know well the period, the newspapers of the time - which were closer to the tabloids of today, but worse - did a lot to stir hatred of foreigners, of Jews, of Poor, and contributed massively in causing wars, colonialism and pogroms.

Emile Zola published "J'accuse !" in a newspaper, but it was newspapers who stirred rabid antisemitism everywhere.

replies(8): >>42741577 #>>42742305 #>>42742615 #>>42743062 #>>42743070 #>>42744093 #>>42745186 #>>42747030 #
TeMPOraL ◴[17 Jan 25 19:59 UTC] No.42742615[source]▶
And on the grasping hand, one could think they were right - so instead of defending social media by pointing at the past and saying it's "just the same doom and gloom reaction to more communication, it will pass", or - conversely - instead of claiming social media is a new and uniquely bad thing, we could perhaps consider that their observations were valid then, and are even more valid now; that we've been going down the wrong road for the past 100+ years, and social media is merely an incremental worsening of a mistake made so long ago, we can't even conceptualize correcting it now.
replies(4): >>42743530 #>>42749463 #>>42749870 #>>42756945 #
1. moritzwarhier ◴[18 Jan 25 16:32 UTC] No.42749463[source]▶
But how exactly would you define the "mistake made so long ago"?

Is it the free circulation of newspapers?

Would you prefer to ban journalism or restrict the exchange of information, and what would that imply for the internet?

If you ask me, it seems like the incentive "money" might be a problem. Maybe commercial journalism and social media are the main issue? Which is closely related to the concept of media as entertainment.

Not a new idea either, and a boring reply without a real answer, I know.

Allowing only state-sponsored journalism would not be any better, right?

Public broadcasting (as independent from the government as possible) is nice, but doesn't solve the issues discussed here.

It seems like a reasonable and common view that being dependent on other's money hurts freedom of thought and expression, which is a basic requirement for free press.

So commercial media always was the default, but being dependent on commercial success and the favor of the public always hurt the mission we ascribe to a free press.

Same goes for the requirement to entertain the readership – it cannot be disregarded, no matter how sophisticated the media we consume might be, it needs to capture our attention in some way. This differntiates writing from data.

So my long answer kind of confirms your observation that "we can't even conceptualize correcting it now". I'm not sure if it's impossible though.

I'd be curious what your own ideas are about how to "fix the mistake". It seems like a political question for sure though.

replies(1): >>42750650 #
2. miohtama ◴[18 Jan 25 19:17 UTC] No.42750650[source]▶
We have examples on all sides.

China has only strong state sponsored journalism and strict censorship. Outside the Chinese government official, I have not yet met a person who thinks the model is working.

Also we have historical examples in the West. East German etc. Czechoslovakia was squashed by 500,000 Warsaw Pact troops because they liberalised newspaper.

replies(1): >>42750776 #
3. moritzwarhier ◴[18 Jan 25 19:34 UTC] No.42750776[source]▶
Yes I was thinking about mentioning China, but I have not experienced this kind of blatant censorship and control myself. Hoping ofc to keep it that way.

But at the same time, social media brain rot is definitely real, and its hurtful effects on public discourse.

The comparison to early press is warranted to open up this topic and really take a look at reality. Banning specific platforms seems like symbolism at best, but paper press was not personalized in such a fine-grained way, although the bubble phenomenon is not strictly limited to the web.

And no paper journal ever had access to so much personal data of their readers.

I think many debates about this boil down to the question whether we want to merge private and public discourse.

Coincidentally, this is not just a property of social media but also of totalitarianism.