Readings-Lost+art+of+argument,+Lasch

=Summary of Lasch, Chapter 9, **The Lost Art of Argument**=

The author explains that America has become less informed and less knowledgeable because of the lack of public debates. Debates used to be very popular and were a great way for people to explore and get firsthand experience with current events. It was a way for people to become involved in the issues instead of “tak[ing] in information passively (Lasch, 163).”
 * Debating for Information**

Despite the fact that we are in the "communications revolution" we are backwards in our need for techinically advanced specialists, college graduates are working in jobs that they are "vastly overqualified," and the majority of the public is less informed. The author leans towards the notion that American schools are not to be blamed but that we should place blame elsewhere.

Journalism was involved in the debates, “the served as an extension of the town meeting (164).” Print was a means to open up the discussions, newspapers and other such news materials acted as one side of the debate and added to the debates of the people.

However, the media eventually controlled the debate. Journalists create the questions for a debate and the rules that it abides by. Candidates are forced to exaggerate the effectiveness of their plans in office because any misstep will be pointed out by journalists and used against them. Combine that with the always important need to look competent and decisive and you end up with candidates who are likely to disappoint the voters when they can't fulfill their outlandish promises. As Lasch put it, "The format requires all candidates to look the same: confident, untroubled, and therefore unreal," (Lasch, 165).

Lasch suggests that politicians, in order to become “more popular” should debate each other without the media and without journalists. This would allow the people to “get to know” the politicians and show that the media’s grasp on politics is too wide.

The latter half of the 19th century brought with it its share of scandals that shook the American public's trust in partisan politics, especially in the case of the educated elite. The party system was popularly reviled amongst the upper classes, which brought about a demand for civil service reform though the stripping of it from party control altogether. Though this independent movement did not wholly meet its goal, the sentiments expressed regarding civil service reform and the general cleaning up of politics resonated with the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others. In what became known as the "progressive era", the American political system came to be dominated by efficiency and a desire for "scientific management". It was during this time that government positions were balanced through either the limiting of powers or the influx of trained specialists, and the relevance of a seniority-driven Congress was brought under heavy scrutiny. Various investigations regarding such social issues as poverty and crime were also enacted, and connections were carefully established with universities to ensure that this new government would be in constant supply of its characteristic expertise. This newfound focus on professionalism in politics brought with it a similar shift in journalism. Spurred onward by the xenophobic, ignorant, and agenda-ridden coverage of the French Revolution in American newspapers, Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz published a report in the //New Republic// that decried the rampant abandonment of objectivity in the news. Lippmann further elaborated in following works by interpreting democracy as a system characterized by the public incompetence and indifference contrasted with an expectation for a continuously comfortable lifestyle. In essence, Lippman concluded that the substance of law was best left to knowledgeable officials as long as they managed to ensure the level of luxury that the public was accustomed to, and that debate was merely a messy democratic "defect" that inevitably occurs in the absence of precise information. The role of the press, as he saw it, was to approach the news scientifically and to promote the spread concrete information, so as to ultimately nullify the purpose of argument and public debate. Unfortunately, Lippmann's thoughts fail to regard those of William James and John Dewy, which detail the importance of argument. As Lasch states, "We come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others," debate acts as an important tool regarding self-discovery and self-clarification. When pitted against an opposing viewpoint, arguers are obligated to detail their views understandably and persuasively, often coming to understand said view in a more thorough manner, be it in favor of their own thoughts or againt them. Questions essentially serve as guides towards legitimate and eventually accepted information, as they force their respective expressers to answer for and shape what would otherwise be an unexamined and unaccounted opinion.
 * Professionalism in Politics and the Press**

I liked the reading, it made me realize that half of our country now really does go by what they see on television or what they read on the interenet it seems to have such a high effect on how people view the world today and how they are going to use the information they have been given by the media. It was interesting to see how in the past people really enjoyed debate and wanted to hear all the new information. Now I would say some people really don't think about what they want to say they think about saying what everyone else wants to hear or what they are told to say. It seems as if a lot of people go for the majority ruling now, not what they feel should be right or they don't even know what should be right they just say whatever my thoughts won't ever count so why be interested. In debate you need to know what you are fighting for and you need to believe in it or you won't get anyone else to believe in it... plain and simple you should just know what your talking and what you are fighting for before you open you say it out loud. -Shelby Hayden
 * Thoughts About the Reading**

This reading was good. I enjoyed it. I liked this paragraph in particular... The format requires all candidates to look the same: con- fident, untroubled, and therefore unreal. But it also imposes on them the obligation to explain what makes them different from the others. Once the question has to be asked, it answers itself. Indeed, the question is inherently belittling and degrading, a good example of TV's effect of lowering the object of estimation, of looking through every disguise, deflating every pretension. Bluntly stated with the necessary undertone of all-pervasive skepticism that is inescapably part of the language of T V, the question turns out to be highly rhetorical. What makes you so special? Nothing. I feel that we should be involved citizens & ask qustions. Politicians don't deserve anything better than we do, they're people just like us, with maybe a sence of wanting more control, but we the people make up the government- therefore we need to be involved. It's for our own good & the person we mostly care about is ourselves anyway. I think that becoming active in our communities & the politics that surround us is very helpful & beneficial to our world. Being in the "know" is good! -Marissa Skinner I really enjoyed this reading, I was intrigued throughout the entire reading. I found it interesting how TV effects people as a whole and don't necessarily feel that it is important to be involved, to utilize our right of speech. Relying on what we are told through television or and by the government is not always smart, for the simple reason that the information could be bias, going back to the last reading we read. The way the reading was setup, I felt had an impact, how it started from how the television "holds our information", to how we are not being well-informed, and how it is our job to ask questions. We are all equal and deserve the same truthful information. -Giovanna Pecchenino I found it interesting in the section about the Lincoln-Douglas debates how they broke all the rules of political debate today but in our current society journalists condemn politicians and "diminish their importance." I like how the reading touches on the importance of journalism in politics and how a journalist's point of view, whether intentional or not can shape our political views. I particularly liked the quote,"." T H ** E R // o // L ** E **// o // //F// ** the press, as Lippmann saw it, was to circulate information, not to encourage argument. The relationship between information and argument was antagonistic, not complementary." because it demonstrates the original idea of journalism, to ask the questions and make people give you the answers. I also liked when the author describes argument as the "most efficient" form of education because I believe that you learn more from other people who disagree with you and you're forced to see other view points. -Ashley Follmer //The Lost Art of Argument// was a very informal and interesting reserve. I enjoyed reading about the huge contrast between today’s society, where most debates and political arguments are controlled by media and social norms, and society in the 1800’s when debate was very popular and informational. Lasch stresses the importance of debate in today’s society in order to learn and understand different concepts and maybe to gain a different perspective into something we already know. I strongly agree with the statement Lasch explains, “We come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others.” In order for me to learn something, I can teach other people and come to a whole new level of understanding of whatever it is I’m explaining. I really enjoyed this reading and think we can learn a lot from it. This week's reading reminded me something about writing a debate-political article: know your information! Because if you have no knowledge or reason why you agree or disagree about a subject, you won't convince anybody to agree with you. I think the reason why I was reminded about this is Lippman and Dewey's arguments and the arguments that occurred in the 1800s; it reminded me that you need adequate information in order to debate about topic (especially if it's political). This article also gave me a thought that everybody should look at both sides of opinions and debates to learn and understand something about our society; that way, we can develop our own ideas, thoughts, and opinions to share them with others, whether they like it or not. The quote by Lasch that expresses my thoughts best is: "Argument is risky and unpredictable, therefore educational" (170-171). - Molly M. -Bella Sleister **The section discussing Lippman:** I found the section when Lippman was discussing democracy very interesting and important in todays society. ~ Lippman’s idea of democracy was to allow the people certain specified rights, but to make sure that the important more significant decisions were made by “professionals” and “administrators.” I agree that most of the citizens in the United States are fairly clueless about political activities and the many laws that run our society. However, if the breakdown of each indivdual law was explained in English rather than in some overly “professional” made up language, the people that the law was affecting might be able to have a say in how it should be carried out. Most of what the government enforces on a daily basis is not actually affecting the government, but the lives of the people living in this country. If we are to call this country a democracy, the people should have a fair advantage in voicing their thoughts and opinions  - Rene Lyle   I agree with you a lot about the discussion on democracy. I do feel that today more then ever people are unaware of what is going on in the world around them and think that they are unaffected by the problems our country is suffering through. I do however have to disagree with you a little bit when it comes to how the law is broken down and explained. I'm so tired of everything in our world having to be broken down into lame-mens terms for everyone. When you turn on the news its usually some uninteresting story that has no relevance to the rest of the world. But, if it can catch the attention of a bunch of people then they will run the story even if its just about a robbery in some little town no one has heard of. People want to hear drama that's not effecting them. They don't usually care if something big happened in the political world if their not interested in it. If we are such an educated country then things shouldn't necessarily have to be put into simple terms. People need to do their part by educating themselves on topics and making sure that they are informed, because no one is going to break things down for every individual step by step. If you aren't informed in your decision making then you are dead weight in the political world in my opinion. -I want to agree that the content of a lot of today's news is, for lack of better words, garbage. Why is it that when I turn on the news Lindsay Lohan's antics receive more air time than the war or politics? It's beyond me. I feel that in regards to political news being uninteresting to most Americans, it is because citizens never quite realize the importance of the political world unless its relatable and pertinent to them and their situation. Unfortunately, not every American is fortunate enough to have the education allowing them to understand or make an educated opinion about the political world around us. The reason political news is forced to be put into "lame-mens" terms is so that there is some kind of comprehension between the media and the watchers. -Christina Romeo **Argument About Arguments** The subject matter of the reading definitely sparked some interest. One thing I have to agree with is that public debate gives the public a more informed message, due to the fact that the facts are given and then supported by opinion. However, I feel that in the media today too much opinion in the media is emphasized, giving people not enough information to formulate their own opinion, let alone all of the correct information since some journalists leave out information to make their opinion more credible and validated. For instance, President Obama was elected into the presidency in large part by young adults, who he reached out to the most. What these young adults were missing out on were all of the facts. In a study, it was proven that more than half of the people who voted for Obama could not state what platforms he stood for. People were surveyed, asking who they voted for in the election. When they responded Obama, they were told the platforms John McCain stood for, disguising it as what Obama wants politically. Young voters responded with a quick yes to everything, unaware of that it was what the Republican party wants, showing the politically uneducated youth of today. As I stated in the paragraph about, although it is unfortunate, the law and politics sometimes need to be described in lame-mens terms for adequate comprehension and debate may not always be the best platform to initially inform people, despite its effectiveness. -Christina Romeo I enjoyed the reading…to a degree. It was interesting to learn that journalism was not always as “nothing but the facts” as it is today. I don’t believe that just because the media is taking an unbiased stand on political issues that it no longer triggers debate; the public still debates about issues in the media, especially politics. The media gives us the facts which are the tools we need for a great debate. It was also disappointing to read about how our society has become increasingly less informed about our government and politics. I know I am certainly guilty of being a bit oblivious to what is going on in my local, state, and national governments; the reading was a bit of an eye-opener for me. ** When reading this reserve, It came to my attention that the United States population as a whole is very ill informed about very much going on in the world today. The //Lost Art of Argument// was a intensive reading but very informal.. Not only about politics and political standpoints but the arguments that are brought up on a day-to-day basis. In order to be a good journalist, you must know your news. Not only in the media, but also politics. This reserve really put into prospective the art of knowledge. To listen, is to know, and much of the world today doesn't listen... They think they 'know' but in reality they are believing the false. So to put it bluntly, our society is getting fed bullshit, and WE are believing it. Just because we are in an era of remarkable technology and have the resources and accesses to news, doesn't mean that we are literate in the genre of public knowledge. In fact in the reading Lasch states " even though it may be readily available, it makes no impression". From my own personal experience speech and debate really helped me get in touch with the world and whats going on today. Studying Lincoln and Douglas debate challenged me ad really pushed my ideals and morals. Cliche' as it is, it opened my mind and broadened my horizons. **
 * Lets see, an average american young women would describe me in simply terms. Im not a genius, nor uneducated, just normal. But lets say every average american women took a class, or lecture about debate. It would impact our world, I think, significantly. Although it is something so small, the outcome could be great. History always repeats itself and In this case, we sure as hell need it. **


 * - Madison Stratton **

It is interesting to me to see how far we have fallen as a society. To that I blame my own generation. The unwillingness to disagree, to feel passionate about what you believe in. At one point we were a nation that had principles, and were willing to die for them. Yet now, we no longer value the person that stands up, and truly challenges mainstream thinking. My generation has moved away from core values and onto current trends. I’m not saying that we need to become experts on the world around us, but we do need to get back to the basics. What is most important to you? From that we need to seek out our own information. We need to discuss, argue, and we need to challenge our opinions not only to others, but to our selves. -Alicia Timoff

The reading really made me understand how much passion people used to have about news and debate. Helping and actually caring what people believed when news were heard about or a debate like what was read. Today, our generation is completely different, everyone obviously has their own opinions. The media can have a say in what we believe, but I don't agree with everyone believing in everything that the media says. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, yes the media may feed us things that aren't true but again we have the right to our own thoughts. -Devyn Kinard

====This information in this reading helped me reflect on today's media. Some of the text that stuck out was "It is the act of articulating and defending our views that lifts them out of the category of "opinions," gives them shape and definition" So many news stations and commentators present the news with such bias and the viewers follow them blindly. Instead of articulating and defending their views, many popular commentators get loud to appeal to the public's fear and anger to persuade them to agree. For example, the Fox commentator Bill O Reilly exclusively rants about how unfair and corrupt our government is, but instead of explaining his reasoning he becomes angry and irrational. He will invite a guest with an opposing argument but when they try to explain their view he shouts them down about how stupid and wrong they are, maybe crack a few jokes, and his viewers eat it out of the palms of his hands. The same goes for some liberal commentators. I heard a slogan that said "don't let volume drown out reason," which is exactly what the public does today. People don't think for themselves, they hear an opinion presented with such anger, they get angry as well and want to fight against it, but they still have no reasoning behind it. In my opinion, the media is more partisan than ever, it is almost like you affiliate yourself with a political party and that is the team you're on. You don't care to know the other's reasoning because you know that you are right and they are wrong. I think there should be more rational argument for that reason, no anger or volume, just defending your position and articulating your reasoning. ====

-Alisha Wexler

I noticed that this entire article was a vivid reminder of the first two class sessions, in which Jerry briefed our class on the public's interpretation of news today and what we now perceive as news literacy. Though these ideas were first foreign to me, I feel as though Lasch was able to appropraitely hammer this concept home in my mind. The idea that the American public is ill-informed on subjects such as the Bill of Rights, Congress, and law-making is a jarring truth to be subjected to, especially when it was pointed out in this particular reading that Lippman actually believed that the role of the press was to circulate genuine information, an idea of which has been abandoned by us as consumers of news and replaced by the belief that written word is as relevant to present time as the use of a typewriter would be. As Lasch prophesizes, "When words are merely used as instruments of publicity of propaganda, they lose their power to persuade." (pg. 175). Unfortunately, written word is now conceived as a poor subsitute for spoken word, oral truth as was mentioned in class, and therefore news and a newly accessible form of news literacy is sought out by the public further and further away from the traditional newspapers and print journalism. Another concept acknowledged in the article was the idea that political machines, for as long as they have been an influential part of our society, are partially responsible for alientating the public and an average capacity to understand government and the news, inviting only experts and expert knowledge to participate in the debate and circulation of news. Unfortunately for us, this can almost be used as an excuse as to why we are so ill-informed and dense when it comes to our thoughtful contributions to our debate and circulation of the news. Now the journalism that is readily accessible to us only appeals to a more shallow side of us with titles involving, "sex, violence, and human interest" (pg. 169). Although it is difficult to agree upon an answer as to how to reengage the public's interest both written and oral news, as well as participating in the debate and circulation of truthful news, it is obvious that the only start to doing so is best forseen by Lasch stating that, "It is only by subjecting our preferences and projects to the test of debate that we coem to understand what we know and what we still need to learn." (pg 171).
 * -Camila Bell**

The very last section of the reading caught my eye at a few different points. Lasch states, “Unless information is generated by sustained public debate, most of it will be irrelevant at best, misleading and manipulative at worst.” (pg. 174) I disagree with this because this statement means that all information is useless unless it is from debate. I believe there are many places outside of debate where the information obtained is irrelevant, misleading, or manipulative, but there are many places where I believe good and very useful information can be obtained (i.e. CNN, many newspapers, etc.). Although I do think that Lasch is correct in the fact that irrelevant, misleading, and manipulative information is becoming more and more common because of the increasing number of sources of information with varying levels of reliability. Lasch also states, “Much of the press, in its eagerness to inform the public, has become a conduit for the equivalent of junk mail. Like the post office....it now delivers an abundance of useless, indigestible information that nobody wants, most of which ends up as unread waste.” (pg. 174) This grabbed my attention because the parallel between what has happened to the once very informative and very useful “snail mail” and the current press. Practically every piece of “snail mail” we receive is either an advertisement, that none of us take more than maybe a glance at before trashing it, or a bill. “Snail mail” has become so utterly bogged down with completely irrelevant, misleading, or manipulative information that it is practically useless in gathering good information about any topic besides the latest sales and how much your cell phone bill is this month. This bogging down with information that doesn’t really matter is occurring in the press and media all around us nowadays. The title of “Breaking News” can be given just as easily to a natural disaster as it can be to the latest “Brangelina” drama. If it continues at this rate, we could just as easily ignore all of the actual news in the press as we ignore the “boring” “snail mail” we receive. -Sage Leehey

After reading this section and the reviews from some of my classmates I know understand more clearly about debates and how important they are. The news use to be watched and read by everyone and it very important to be up to date with the latest. Watching debates only make you understand more and get a better idea on whatever topic is being discussed. From the past class, more than half the class did not know about the debate that was on T.V. a few nights back, or even care to watch it. Having the opportunity to receive the news just about anywhere and to see debates, is something to take advantage of. Knowing enough information lets you be entailed to your own opinion and be able to back up your reasoning. It seems today too many journalist deliver the news story based on their own personal opinion on a particular topic or do not share enough information to understand. All of us should get more involved, and actually bring something to the table that is worth talking about. Ask questions. Share your opinions. Become more involved. -Tauli Anderson

I found the last class discussion to be extremely straight forward. It was interesting to see how little we actually know about our world. We become so reliant on the things and people around us that we often forget the bigger picture. Our generation isn't necessarily focused on politics as much as we are on celebrity gossip. It was nice to hear my classmates views on politics and their beliefs. I don't feel that everyone was open minded towards others opinions. We jumped from topic to topic and as that happened the discussion only got more heated. I think our generation should try to focus more on whats going on around us because it is important. I hope that in further discussions people can be more open minded to hear what others have to say. -Celeste Graham

=
===== -Andrea Blanco My post was deleted by someone else who edited after me and I had to go into the history and re-post it.- Andrea Blanco