From: oopcv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:01:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: Msu.0095E590.9DDF5BC0
Reply-To: oopcv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University

In article <1992Jul30.182642.8983@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.151701.20803@ncar.ucar.edu> chucks@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe) writes:
>
>That is true for the spoken word. To transmit information by spoken word is
>certainly not as good as transmitting it by written word. 
>
Not necessarily.  I've been moved by political speakers because of their
passion, their convictions.  To have read the same speech in the comfort of my
living room would not have had the same effect.

>captions. I find that I learn much more data per hour doing this than by
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>reading the articles. Now most of the information in many of the articles
>could be much more readily grasped, by me and by people with less knowleddge 
>and background than I have if the same information were displayed with things
>like animated graphs etc.

I submit that this is an effect of the information age, where we all want to
know as much as possible about everything, and we want it RIGHT NOW.  "Data per
hour" is pathetic, IMHO;  that is not a flame, it's a sad commentary on the way
most people live their lives.

>No and yes. It depends on the dense array of facts. Imaging trying to convey
>the correlation of brain activity with phsiological or physical actions etc.
>by the use of words.
>With CD Roms and or video disks one can overcome the problem of easily going
>back to review.
>
>You are right this sort of thing is rarely attempted in the commercial
>video media.  However, it is coming. Some of my friends are beginning to create
>things like this using an Amiga computer.
>
This will not really make much of an impact in the world until there is a
_large_ audience, as large as the MTV crowd.

>#- Finally (and this difficulty is not inherent in the medium, merely a        
>#  consequence of the way it is commonly used today) _everything_  is for
>#  beginners.  There is no television show, no video tape on any subject that
>#  assumes any prior background.  Even a decent general education is rarely
>#  taken for granted.  The basic, 101 level material is covered over and
>#  over and the next step is never taken.
>
>This is true. But there are many people working in the medium who will 
>in time change it.
>
Not enough people, IMHO.  Too many of the individuals in 'the industry' are
more concerned with the almighty dollar, out of necessity.  You can't make an
impact on anyone if you can't get funding.

>#  But for communicating  
>#ideas and information, video is terribly unsatisfactory.  For this reason,
>#I fear that a generation that will not read is a generation condemned to
>#ignorance, and that this great change in the world is very much a change for
>#the worse.
>#
>#			Chuck Smythe
>
I agree with this point of view.  I grew up thinking that the pen is mightier
than the sword;  however, it seems that in today's world, the videocam is
mighty enough to inspire people to pick up swords (ex. L.A. riots) without
THINKING of the reasons or consequences, to react on a visceral level.  Thomas
Paine's "Common Sense" keeps coming to mind;  today, he probably wouldn't be
able to get it published, let alone find an audience.

>You are probably right in most of this at the current time. However, I don't 
>view the change as a change for the worse. It has made both postive and 
>negative changes.
>
>I think video has been a contributing factor to the end of the cold war.
>The average soviet citizen learned more about the economies of the west from
>video they or their friends saw from Finland, West Germany etc. They
>didn't *know* that they had a poor living standard compared to the west
>until they could see in non-propaganda media what the west had.
>
Interesting, isn't it, that they rejected their ideology because it didn't
provide them with a standard of living enjoyed by another sector of the world. 
Not a lack of belief and conviction, a lack of Levis.

C.