I would recommend adding this to your reading lists, I’m only a third of the way though, but it has been a detailed and interesting account of genesis and growth of the large mean streak of anti-intellectualism that is currently dominating the zeitgeist of American society. Jacoby was interviewed by Bill Moyers and thus, allow me to wet your whistle with an excerpt from the transcript.
SUSAN JACOBY: Now, this was not always the case in our country. In the 19th century Robert Ingersoll, whom we’ve talked, who is known as the great agnostic, had audiences full of people who didn’t agree with him. But they wanted to hear what he had to say. And they wanted to see whether the devil really has horns. And now what we have is a situation in which people go to hear people they already agree with. What’s going on is not so much education as reinforcement of the opinions you already have.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, why is it we’re so unwilling to give, as you say, a hearing to contradictory viewpoints? Or to imagine that we might learn something from someone who disagrees with us?
SUSAN JACOBY: Well, I think part of it is part of a larger thing that is making our culture dumber. We have, really, over the past 40 years, gotten shorter and shorter and shorter attention spans. One of the most important studies I’ve found, and I’ve put in this chapter, they call it Infantainment– on this book. It’s by the Kaiser Family Foundation. And they’ve found that children under six spend two hours a day watching television and video on average. But only 39 minutes a day being read to by their parents.
Well, you don’t need a scientific study to know that if you’re not read to by your parents, if most of your entertainment when you’re in those very formative years is looking at a screen, you value what you do. And I don’t see how people can learn to concentrate and read if they watch television when they’re very young as opposed to having their parents read to them. The fact is when you’re watching television, whether it’s an infant or you or I, or staring glazedly at a video screen, you’re not doing something else.
BILL MOYERS: What does it say to you, Susan, that half of American adults believe in ghosts? Now I take these from your book. One-third believe in astrology. Three quarters believe in angels. And four-fifths believe in miracles.
SUSAN JACOBY: I think even more important than the fact that large numbers of Americans believe in ghosts or angels, that is part of some religious beliefs. Is the flip side is of this is that over half of Americans don’t believe in evolution. And these things go together. Because what they do is they place science on a par almost with folk beliefs.
And I think– if I may inveigh against myself, ourselves, I think the American media in particular has a lot to do with it. Because one of the things that really has gotten dumber about our culture the media constantly talks about truth as if it– if it were always equidistant from two points. In other words, sometimes the truth is one-sided.
I mentioned this in THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks there was a huge cover story in TIME Magazine in 2002 about the rapture and end of the world scenarios. There wasn’t a singular secular person quoted in it. They discussed the rapture scenario from the book of Revelation as though it was a perfectly reasonable thing for people to believe. On the one hand, these people don’t believe it. On the other it’s exactly like saying– you know, “Two plus– two plus two, so-and-so says, ‘two plus two equals five.’ But, of course, mathematicians say that it really equals four.” The mathematicians are right. The people who say that two plus two equals five are wrong. The media blurs that constantly.
BILL MOYERS: You call that a kind of dumb objectivity.
SUSAN JACOBY: Yes. Dumb objectivity. Exactly.
As an educator I find Jacoby’s work illuminating and depressing at the same time. We have such a large hill to climb in the struggle to reclaim children’s minds from the media.




5 comments
June 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Rob F
This reminds me of the current wave of epistemic closure that dominates most American conservatism.
See this from economist Bruce Bartlett (my emphasis):
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 8:54 am
The Arbourist
@Rob F
Spot on comment Rob,
The theme of this book revolves around your topic sentence. The enclosure of treasured ‘american ideals’ has been happening for quite some time. As I read further I will comment on how her analysis fits in with Walter Lippmann’s and Chomsky’s when it comes to elite manipulation of popular discontent.
LikeLike
June 15, 2013 at 5:27 am
VR Kaine
The far left has its own bubble in the US with outlets such as the NYT and MSNBC, so it’s funny to when they talk about the Pravda-like problem of only being on the right.
The far right staunchly believes Obama can do no right (even though Obama is staying the path on Bush’s security doctrine, for instance). The far left believes he can do no wrong, and with the media caring far more about profits than truth- finding or fact reporting, outlets continue to play to their respective side more and more – letting nonsensical ideas from either side circulate with no contradiction.. With the recent scandals and stonewalling it’s only gotten worse. Outlets pick their side and dig in because that’s exactly what their readers and viewers do.
Heard an interesting opinion yesterday, that BOTH parties are obsessed with the top 8% and bottom 8% (the Job-less and the Job-creators) because that’s where the influence and control is, while the remaining 84% of Job-holders sit paralyzed by government because they have no clue who’s really working for them.
I’d agree with much of that, except I think it’s more ignorance and apathy than paralysis?
LikeLike
June 15, 2013 at 8:56 am
The Arbourist
I would argue that NYT is not a “far left publication” by any stretch of the imagination. As the ‘newspaper of record’ it has a an exemplary record of following acceptable opinion and maintaining the dominant paradigm. Consider the extensive research done by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky on exactly how mainstream (and thus conservative) the NYT is. As I do not have my copy of Manufacturing Consent with me I can’t cite the study appropriately with quotes. A quick summary from here though illustrates what I’m saying –
Let me just quote from the post – “Because one of the things that really has gotten dumber about our culture the media constantly talks about truth as if it– if it were always equidistant from two points. In other words, sometimes the truth is one-sided.”
I would have less of a problem with your assertion Vern if the NYT and MSNBC were actual Pravda-like institutions of the left. But when I compare them to actual leftist publications, say the New Left Review, or the Socialist Worker there are significant differences between them. Thus, I would contend that placing the NYT and MSNBC as the ‘left’ versus Fox and CNN is falling into the trap that Jacoby and Moyers are talking about.
LikeLike
June 16, 2013 at 7:03 pm
VR Kaine
“Thus, I would contend that placing the NYT and MSNBC as the ‘left’ versus Fox and CNN is falling into the trap that Jacoby and Moyers are talking about.”
The only “trap” I can see is one foolishly believing ANY media publication is balanced and unbiased.
The NYT has a glaring bias to the left (or at least to Democrats), considering either it’s headlines or lack thereof on issues surrounding immigration, climate change, and more recently Benghazi and the IRS scandal. To simply give them a free pass because Chomsky calls them “fair” or one finds publications that are further left is not much different to me than saying Fox is centrist because there’s libertarian rags out there far more to the right, so therefore simply trust that Fox is fair.
The NYT slants to favor Democratic positions, and even its own editors admit to it going too far at times. Who cares – slant is nothing new – I’m just saying it exists with the NYT just as it does with any other paper.
http://www.mrc.org/articles/ny-times-public-editor-soft-irs-benghazi-coverage-lends-credence-conservative-criticism
Personally, I listen to all sources in the mainstream. It’s painful sometimes, but each side picks up and runs with stories that I think are important which the other side won’t bother to. I’m not going to look to FNC for stories on the latest climate change research, for instance, and I’m not going to look to MSNBC for the most recent examples of government waste, either. There’s too much soft coverage from either side towards their party of favor for my liking, regardless of who is in power.
LikeLike