Mary's Reflections on American Print Culture

I find it interesting to think that the same time of attacks and argumentation that we see today in the news defined much of the political news during the presidencies of Adams and Jefferson.

Tucher also notes that the newspaper played another vital role for readers, other than offering politically charged perspectives. he says that some newspapers were attracted to "the idea that readers might benefit from the straightforward presentation of original information" (394). He uses the example of the National Intelligencer to show how newspapers were able to accomplish this feat. However, even in describing how this periodical under the editorship of Samuel Harrison Smith gave Americans nearly direct access to political debates, he reminds readers that it was still a Jeffersonian paper. I still wonder, then, when can a paper claim to offer "straightforward presentations of original information?" Could there be better examples? I have trouble believing that any news is unbiased which unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, has prejudiced me against "news" in general. I realize every time I am absorbing information that I am absorbing information through someone's lens. I have a hard time believing I even make informed decisions on my own. In some way, someone's rhetoric is influencing me. There comes a point when I have to choose who I will believe, and that is usually not based on any neutral facts.

I suppose periodicals/newspapers that would interest me would be ones that allow multiple perspectives. I realize this may be tough or perhaps impossible to accomplish. Still, the format of a periodical does not necessarily confine it to one ideology. At this point in the American nation it seems that the editor and/or printer had most of the control over a periodical's ideology, and Tucher reminds us that the economic patronage from political parties contributed to this locus of control. I suppose the same is true today, as businesses rather than one single editor often control the ideology of periodicals.

Still, it is interesting that the format itself opens itself up to multiple perspectives if a group of people chose to use it accordingly. Tucher cites men like Daniel Webster who "expressed the hope that the newspaper press would unify a diverse and scattered people" (395). While I buy the conclusion that economic problems ultimately caused the disaster of this ideal, I think that perhaps the emphasis placed on knowledge, specifically objective knowledge makes that "theater of intellectual operation" that Webster describes unattainable. Today, people still grasp for that straightforward truth, that objective knowledge. I have come to the conclusion that with politics, it does not exist. Instead, where I find the most productive "knowledge" is in hearing multiple voices. I'm not looking for one voice to win me over (although on occasion that may happen.) I'm looking for how I can develop a collaborative understanding of what ideas will work best by seeing how many ideas collide and produce a layered type of knowledge. With a layered knowledge, there would be more discussion, collaboration, and compromise because people would agree that there is no one absolute right choice. The right choice will be constructed. Now, this would not get rid of disagreement or bring perfect unity in any way, but it might relieve some of the problems with news today and the divisions I believe that news, just like in the early American years, has helped promulgate.